It's been almost two week since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut and the Right is continuing merrily along with their complete deafness of tone. They just don't get it. This one is different and, like the last election, they're are going to learn yet another hard lesson. Even Frank Luntz thinks so.
“The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools,” Luntz said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “And they are not asking for a security official or someone else. I don’t think the NRA is listening. I don’t think they understand most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone. At gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there without any kind of check whatsoever.”
That's right. There are plenty of people that should not own guns. I think this incident (as well as the rest of them this year) illustrate that if you increase the number of people carrying weapons, you are going to increase the chances of irresponsible gun ownership. It shouldn't simply be that people who have criminal records should not own guns. Many people with mental illness or people who live folks who have mental disabilities should not own guns either.
I don't think the gun rights folks (and many others on the Right) realize how Orwellian they sound. The irony is hilarious when you consider how much they rip the left for doublespeak. The answer to gun violence is...MORE GUNS, damnit!!
War is Peace...
What the Right really wants is to (ahem) do it again only harder. They are using this as an opportunity to see if they can gain any ground on what they view as "Slaughter Zones" (AKA Gun Free Zones). They want to be able to carry their guns wherever they want, including schools. It's a chest thumping, juvenile maneuver which serves to further their "fuck you, dad/stomp down the hallway/bedroom door slam" agenda of being pissed off at rules they don't like. Never mind the rest of us.
The only guns I want in schools are the ones carried by police officers (yet another group the Right sneer at as not "having any real training" which is basically code for insecurity and envy). Schools are public property which means that the public gets to decide what goes on in our schools. With private property, gun owners can kindly go fuck themselves if they want to beef about gun free zones. The health club I go to, for example, has a few malcontents who bitch about not being able to bring their guns in when they lift weights (how would that work, exactly?). Perhaps they should choose another place to go rather than gripe.
Doubling down is what they do lately, though, and it continues to cost them elections. This won't be any different. They underestimate the president and worse, the public, who has a growing distaste for some guns, as Mr. Luntz notices above. He's a right wing pollster so if he's saying it, they are in big fucking trouble. And it won't be because (cue high pitched shrieking) Barack Obama is going to be a "gun grabber." Actually, they're not really in "trouble" either...only the way they see it...the world (gasp!) changing and that simply won't do.
In fact, I pretty much guarantee that three things are going to come out of all of this. First, people will get to keep the guns they own (if they choose not to sell them back to the federal government, that is, for a very good price:)). Second, plenty of guns will be available for people to use to defend themselves.
And third, the Right is going to be a mouth foaming pile of apoplexis.
73 comments:
complete deafness of tone. They just don't get it.
Yup, not getting it all.
The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools,” Luntz said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “And they are not asking for a security official or someone else
The only guns I want in schools are the ones carried by police officers
Which one is it? More guns in schools or less guns?
At gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there without any kind of check whatsoever.
Can you explain what exactly this gun show loophole thing consists of?
the Right sneer at as not "having any real training
WRONG! The sneering is at the lefts idea that only the police are trained well enough. This would be apparent to you if you actually listened to what was said.
who bitch about not being able to bring their guns in when they lift weights (how would that work, exactly?
Perhaps if you actually understood that these people are bitching about them trying to be responsible while carrying their guns.
First, people will get to keep the guns they own
And again I ask: If these guns are so damned dangerous for people to have - then why would you allow them to keep millions and millions of them?
"Tone deaf"?
Or "Fact deaf"?
Which is the greater evil?
Try this FACT on for size:
Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics
The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33
Given that FACT, "[w]hy would you deliberately limit the authority of the good guys so as to give the advantage to the bad guys?"
GD, the link you provided has note a note that says that there is no such page. Even still, you think that an "in the bubble" page is indicative of mainstream thought? Still not getting it, are you? Maybe someday...
trying to be responsible while carrying their guns.
And that's ALL gun owners, GD? That's an awfully collectivist way of thinking!
then why would you allow them to keep millions and millions of them?
Because it would cost too much money to seize them and it's much easier to let people voluntarily turn them in for cash.
Noni, corroborating sources? I'd like to see you apply the scientific method here and lay out multiple examples and put it all up for peer review. Then we can see about calling the Daily Anarchist a fact based site.
At the link I specified, he specifies each of the incidents he found and his process, which is why I selected that link.
In other words, he followed the scientific method, providing not just the results, but the process he used and the data he found so that you can check his results for yourself.
Or by "corroborating sources", do you mean one that just makes stuff up like you do?
Damn you are dense Mark.
I wasn't asking why you couldn't take the guns. I know whybetter than you do. I was asking what's the point. I'll spell it out for you
Mark: These guns are too dangerous to be in the hands of citizens.
GD: what are you going to do about it?
Mark: we're going to pass a law.
GD: after passing that law will those guns still be in the hands of citizens?
Mark: yes.
GD: then why? What's the point of the law?
he followed the scientific method
Was the site peer reviewed in a dispassionate and unbiased manner?
do you mean one that just makes stuff up like you do?
It means that I'm wondering if there are their other, unbiased sources that are making the same claims as he is. I want to make it clear that I don't mean gun control sources either like the Brady Campaign who have their own agenda and also suffer from a similar type of confirmation bias.
What's the point of the law?
The point of the law is to prevent future sales of guns that aren't used for home defense.
You also need to understand that guns aren't only going to be a part of this law. It's going to be more than that and there are other avenues that are going to be taken that have nothing to do with guns that are going to fundamentally change our culture in relation to all facets of this issue (mental health, school safety, violence in our society in general)
Was the site peer reviewed in a dispassionate and unbiased manner?
You mean like the sites YOU routinely cite? Hypocrite.
Putting the methodology and data out for examination is as close as the average person can get. If you can find an actual problem with his work, you're free to do so.
It's time you give up on Standard Response #7. It's not fooling anybody.
You also need to understand that guns aren't only going to be a part of this law. It's going to be more than that…
You mean like the law Diane Feinstein is proposing? Hmmmm… Quick read through… nothing but gun banning and pre-"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in"-registration there. Full read through… Still nothing but guns there.
Who's "in the bubble"? Apparently, that depends on where the fantasy world is. Must be "outside" the bubble.
Even still, you think that an "in the bubble" page is indicative of mainstream thought?
Let me guess - everything that you don't link to is "in the bubble", isn't it?
You are fucking retarded at times.
Then again maybe armed cops in schools isn't such a good idea - despite Clinton, Boxer and the NRA.
The point of the law is to prevent future sales of guns that aren't used for home defense.
So much fail in one sentence.....
prevent future sales
Which will accomplish what considering there are millions upon millions of these guns in circulation? Just to make you feel good about doing something that will have zero effect?
guns that aren't used for home defense
You do realize that 'these' guns are ideal home defense weapons right? Right? Of course you don't.
Oh, and the second amendment does not restrict us to guns that are only for home defense....
you think that an "in the bubble" page is indicative of mainstream thought?
The country is divided Mark. Almost 50/50. What you are considering 'in the bubble' is the 'other' half. Your dismissal of anything said by that other half is an example of your tone deafness.
trying to be responsible while carrying their guns.
And that's ALL gun owners, GD? That's an awfully collectivist way of thinking!
You got a law against concealed carry when not 'allowed' on private property? Probably not. In that case they are leaving their guns at home not because they have to, but because they ARE being responsible and considerate.
easier to let people voluntarily turn them in for cash.
Hah! You done any estimating what that will cost? Or estimate how many people will actually volunteer?
This bears repeating...
Your dismissal of anything said by that other half is an example of your tone deafness.
Or to put in even simpler terms - you never fucking listen.
You mean like the sites YOU routinely cite?
Which ones would those be, Noni?
Every site and every source has bias. You guys seem to really have a problem with that. Checking a source for bias and finding corroborating sources to prove a point is pretty much rule #1 in supporting a thesis statement. This is why I try to highlight stories like the one I did here. Frank Luntz has a CONSERVATIVE bias and he's confirming what I have been saying. What does that tell you?
If you can find an actual problem with his work, you're free to do so.
But that's the game, isn't it? You don't want to put in that time yourself to prove your point. You want me to waste mine disproving it. Heck, you can't even make your own point. Where is YOUR evaluation with multiple sources, Noni?
You may have not noticed this, Noni, but you're not in the driver's seat on this issue anymore. If you don't realize it, you're going to pretty soon. It's up to you to support your argument.
everything that you don't link to is "in the bubble", isn't it?
And those sources would be...? Examples, juris. But, yes, Frank Luntz is in the bubble, alright:)
Which will accomplish what considering there are millions upon millions of these guns in circulation? Just to make you feel good about doing something that will have zero effect?
Not much initially. I think it will be an important first step in saying that only in someone's paranoid fantasy is a Bushmaster for "home defense." Why can't you guys just admit that you like it, think it's cool, and like to blow shit up with it? It would be so much more honest than the pompous bloviating about the second amendment.
'these' guns are ideal home defense weapons right?
In what reality, GD? Menace II Society world?
What you are considering 'in the bubble' is the 'other' half.
No, not really. The bubble is about 25 percent of the country right now. Move out of that and then you start to see some sanity even on the right. That's why you guys are in attack mode right now. You know it's not really 50-50 after Newtown. And you know that it's not going to be a passing phase. So, it's time to blame the media!!
Or estimate how many people will actually volunteer?
I guess we'll find out. Tell me, GD, do you think people are going to spit out empty sermons about gun grabbing or are they going to make money on an investment?
Your dismissal of anything said by that other half is an example of your tone deafness.
That's because the "other half" is being run by people who think that anything to the left of the 1 yard line on the right side of the field is communism. Once they unfuck themselves from that and start living in reality, then I won't dismiss what they say. I won't play the Cult of Both Sides with crazy people, GD and juris.
In what reality, GD? Menace II Society world?
See, there you go.....
I, a knowledgeable source about guns. You, admitted to have very little knowledge about guns.
I make a statement that is based upon said knowledge. You deny that statement based upon nothing other than ignorance and emotion.
These are ideal home defense guns Mark. For reason based upon fact and physics. If you can argue that based upon fact and physics you can try. But you can't.
It would be so much more honest than the pompous bloviating about the second amendment.
I took an oath to that constitution. I meant it. If I say something about it - I mean that too. YOU may not care about it, and you probably don't understand what I am talking about. But understand this - when people like me speak with passion about the constitution - that is both honest and real.
Trying to portray my opposition to you taking away the rights affirmed by that constitution as something less than deadly serious is false. If you truly believe it then it is again an example of your tone deafness.
I make a statement that is based upon said knowledge.
Based on what? The "rantings and ravings of a right wing gun nut?" Now, if you have some other information to share, GD, please do...like perhaps what the police, with whom you work on a regular basis, have to say about all of this.
I took an oath to that constitution.
When did you do that?
Actually, it means a great deal to me as well, in particular the parts about how Congress has the power to tax and borrow money on the credit of the United States. I'm also wondering what was meant by a "well regulated" militia. The word "regulated" in the 2nd Amendment? Hmm...
taking away the rights affirmed by that constitution
The Constitution doesn't give you the right to own WMDs, GD.
Which ones would those be, Noni?
Those would be the ones where YOU don't "put in that time yourself to prove your point" using "multiple sources". In other words, all of them. Or are you telling me you've forgotten (actually, ignored) all the pushback you get from misusing links over the past 6 years?
Here is a simple validity check on that data. Can you think of two mass shootings in the past month?
1) Sandy Hook Elementary, December 14th. 27 innocents and one goblin dead. Stopped by police response.
2) At a mall in Oregon, December 11th. 2 innocents and one goblin dead. Ended when a concealed carry citizen drew on the shooter.
It's the same general pattern; higher than average on the police side, but still the same pattern.
If you think it's not a pattern, then show your data and analysis. I've done all I need to do to make my point. I refuse to do your work for you. Or you could simply accept that reality is what it is, even though you don't like it.
In short, put up or shut up.
Based on what? The "rantings and ravings of a right wing gun nut?"
Genetic fallacy, Again! Your argument is invalid. You lose.
When will you EVER learn?!?
When did you do that?
26 years ago as if it matters.
like perhaps what the police...have to say about all of this.
You mean the ones who do keep ar-15's as home defense weapons or the ones who think the right to keep and bear arms applies to ALL citizens and ALL small arms?
Based on what?
The fact that I know stuff about guns and you don't know shit about same?
if you have some other information to share, GD, please do
Could you provide a list of say 5 or 10 criteria that are important in choosing a home defense gun? If you can't you don't even have the BASIC knowledge to determine whether an AR-15 fills that criteria. Making such a sweeping denial, in the face of your admitted lack of knowledge only shows your position to be the rantings and ravings of an emotional hoplophobe.
wondering what was meant by a "well regulated" militia. The word "regulated" in the 2nd Amendment? Hmm...
Wonder no more, 0.21 secs on google brought a bonanza. From the first result:
in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."
The Constitution doesn't give you the right to own WMD's
Are you now admitting that Saddam had WMD's and GWB's invasion was correct? Or are you intentionally misleading in calling small arms WMD's?
I won't play the Cult of Both Sides with crazy people, GD and juris.
Unfuck yourself.
You don't need to play anything. You need to learn how to listen and understand what the fuck you are being told. You can still disagree with it - but you have to be able to understand it. You do not - regardless of whether that is because you are incapable [doubtful] or deliberately obtuse [likely], or a combination of the two [jackpot].
Oh, I don't know, or care about, Frank Luntz. I doubt there are three other things you would agree with him about, so cherry-picking this one is rather cheap, childish and pretty much dishonest.
Alright, Noni, it's hard for me to take you seriously when you use the word goblin. What are you...8 years old?
I refuse to do your work for you.
Take out the word "your" and the last two words and that's just about right. I'm not the one who has to explain why a gun that fires 30 bullets without reloading is essential to home defense. With violent crime dropping every year, it's going to get harder and harder to justify using that type of armament.
Genetic fallacy
Checking for bias is different than genetic fallacies. If you adhere to the scientific method, then you should know this, right?
Could you provide a list of say 5 or 10 criteria that are important in choosing a home defense gun?
Ah, the dodge again with a quick redirect back to my "stupidity." If you can't lay out some simple reasons backed with evidence and facts to me, how are you going to do it to John Q Public who is considerably less intelligent than I am?
Are you now admitting that Saddam had WMD's and GWB's invasion was correct?
Well, considering that Bush himself said they didn't have any (along with the rest of us not in the bubble and who are able to shake the "I must win a blog argument" style" when faced with facts) the fact that you would even ask this question is silly.
And, yes, some guns are used to inflict mass casualties similar to ordinance. Your answer to that is for people to have MORE of them? Can you not see the Orwellian nature of your assertion?
Bush himself said they didn't have any
Let me spell it out - which is becoming an god damned annoying habit.
You said that a gun that can fire 30 bullets without reloading is a WMD.
The US invaded Iraq because GWB said that Iraq had WMD.
You say that Iraq had no WMD.
Iraq had about a million AK-47's or their variants.
AK-47's can fire 30 bullets without reloading. (They can also fire 30 bullets with one press of the trigger)
Ergo (under Markadoofus logic) AK-47's are WMD.
Thus Iraq did have WMD and your opposition to the invasion is negated.
I expect public retraction of that opposition.
Or, you can pull your head out of your ass and stop conflating small arms with WMD.
redirect back to my "stupidity.
Then quit being stupid. I, an expert here regarding firearms made a statement that was based upon my training and experience. You disagreed. Rather than disagreeing utilizing fact, you disparaged a resident expert in the field. After disparaging my character you then have the unmitigated gall to expect me to provide facts and figures to convince you? HAH!
The problem, Mark, is not that you are ignorant about firearms. The problem is that even when you admit your ignorance, even when you say something ignorant and even after it is repeatedly pointed out to you that you are making statements based upon a total lack of knowledge - you continue to make ignorant statements that you expect us to take seriously. You have no credibility and nothing you say about guns can be taken without a large dose of contempt.
If, after having your nose rubbed in the shit of your ignorance a few times you figured out that you really had been acting like a fool, you then decided to defer to the wealth of knowledge available to you here and have an actual intelligent debate - reactions to your repeated acts of ignorance would be met with more cooperation in providing those facts to convince you. BUT YOU HAVE SHOWN NO DESIRE TO LEARN NOR BE CONVINCED OF ANYTHING. To expect me to convince you when you have shown no desire to be convinced, when you have shown utter contempt to actually gain knowledge that you admit you do not have - and yet continue to pontificate upon like your ignorantly informed ideas have more merit than others - is laughable. You don't want to be convinced, you don't want to learn, you don't want anything to disturb the position you have already decided upon. In short, you revel in your ignorance.
Take out the word "your" and the last two words and that's just about right.
Looking in the mirror again?
It's clear that you keep dodging because 14.3 vs. 2.3 is a fact, and it's one you don't like. You can't show that the data is wrong, so you're making up an excuse to pretend it's not real. It is true, so tough.
Keep in mind that I did point out two shootings that happened less that 3 weeks ago in addition to the link which reviews years of shootings. And in response you have produced nothing. Zilch. Nada. A vacuum of data. Nothing, that is, except, "La, LA, LA, I can't HEAR YOU!"
Time to ask again:
Why would you deliberately limit the authority of the good guys so as to give the advantage to the bad guys?
Checking for bias is different than genetic fallacies.
Checking for bias REQUIRES actually addressing the argument and evidence for a claim. You simply waved your hands and ASSERTED "bias" and stopped right there.
Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. …
The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit.
If you did address the merit (you didn't), please quote the words you used.
Ah, the dodge again with a quick redirect back to my "stupidity."
You claim he's biased (because he knows what the hell he's talking about), but you spout ironclad, immovable, Pronouncements From On High based entirely on your self-admitted ignorance, but he's the one dodging because he asks you to demonstrate some knowledge and reasoning to back up YOUR rights trampling assertions?!?
You really, really lack self awareness. Here's a clue:
If you make a claim and someone asks you for the reasons supporting that claim, but you refuse, then YOU are the one dodging; no one else.
Oh, and BTW, when anyone refuse to back up their bald assertions—or uses fallacies or false "evidence"—then it's entirely reasonable to conclude that the assertion was simply pulled out of their *******; especially when they have a long history of pulling fantasies out of their ******* like you do.
guardduck,
Standing O'!!! (Seriously!)
Once again, Mark demonstrates the truth of this:
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
but only in expressing his opinion.
— Proverbs 18:2
Here are some others that apply:
“How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?”
— Proverbs 1:22
In everything the prudent acts with knowledge,
but a fool flaunts his folly.
— Proverbs 13:16
Like a dog that returns to his vomit
is a fool who repeats his folly.
Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.
— Proverbs 26:11–12
Crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle
along with crushed grain,
yet his folly will not depart from him.
— Proverbs 27:22
how are you going to do it to John Q Public who is considerably less intelligent than I am?
OMG ROFLMAO
You really do fancy yourself some kind of intellectual.
And, yes, some guns are used to inflict mass casualties similar to ordinance.
No one is walking around with a Mini-gun (except in Hollywood where Arnold does). Other than that - you are talking out your ass... again.
DJ posted this link over at TSM:
‘Gun Control Fails,’ Say Statistics from … Gun-Control Advocates
Do note: all data cited below are from sources supportive of gun control.
Look at the charts under point 4. States with the Brady Campaign's highest level of approval (gun bans) consistently have the highest violent crime rate. So again, I want an answer to this question:
Why would you deliberately limit the authority of the good guys so as to give the advantage to the bad guys?
The US invaded Iraq because GWB said that Iraq had WMD.
It's interesting that you went down this path. On the surface, it looks like a false equivalency, right? Comparing war between nations and the tools each uses to incidents of domestic terrorism...that doesn't really work, does it?
Yet, a deeper examination says that it might. GD, you've dodged this question a few times but from what I can gather, you think ordinary citizens should have access to the same weapons that the government does lest they become corrupt. That means any sort of weapon causes mass casualties. Obviously, I disagree.
I have an open mind when it comes to guns. Thus far, Nikto has convinced me that they types of weapons used in these attacks should not be owned by ordinary citizens and are, in fact, offensive weapons of war. They are not used for defensive purposes by ordinary citizens in anything other than their fantasies. Making a correlation to Saddam Hussein does not help your cause so, if want to convince me otherwise, try again. Bloviating about how stupid I am isn't going to work.
You should also note (once again) that no one else, save 3-5 of us, is reading this so there's nothing for me to "prove" to anyone. You guys aren't going to change your minds and my place in all of this is to simply remind you that in the world outside of blogs, you have some 'splainin to do. Keep up this line of argument and you are really going to be fucked.
In short, you are going to have to give a little, GD. Can you do it? Would you be OK with a system like Israel has right now? I would.
Why would you deliberately limit the authority of the good guys so as to give the advantage to the bad guys?
Great question but here's the problem with it..it's simplistic. Who are the good guys, Noni? By your standards, Nancy Lanza was a good guy. Yet she is responsible for this tragedy as is her mentally unbalanced son. She had no criminal record so she had every right to own a Bushmaster. In fact, I'd wager if someone tried to stop her from getting that gun, you would have screamed bloody murder. And yet look what happened.
So, was Nancy Lanza a good guy?
Checking for bias REQUIRES actually addressing the argument and evidence for a claim.
So, let me see if I understand you correctly, Noni. I put this link up..
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/loughner_judge_conservative_gun_control.php
and then it's fact? Moreover, it's now up to you to "disprove" the bias of it? I don't think so. TPM is a left wing bias site and the information they put out there can immediately be taken with a boulder of salt...just like all of your sources.
Besides, I'm not the one who set the standard for adhering to the scientific method...you guys wrap yourselves in that flag and then (after linking only in the bubble sites) hilarious claim that you are unbiased.
There's a pretty easy to solve all of this back and forth, though. This site has a left of center bias. I am not always right about everything and have made mistakes. Some things on this site are fact and some are opinions based on my perception. This is also true of the comments I write.
Now, can each of you say the same thing of yourselves?
It's interesting that you went down this path.
Which has fuck all to do with gun policy in this country.
you think ordinary citizens should have access to the same weapons that the government does
The average citizen should have what the average soldier does. Does the average soldier handle nuclear or biological weapons? You suggestion of following Israel's policy seems to say that any [qualified] citizen can have any long gun: semi-auto or full auto.
Bloviating about how stupid I am isn't going to work.
You bloviating about how smart you are (particularly when you also profess to being uninformed about guns) isn't going to work either.
So, was Nancy Lanza a good guy?
So you blame her rather than her adult son. Maybe your mommy shouldn't have cut the strings on you, huh?
You don't question the police having firearms, and that is what ended the shooting incident (20 minutes after it started).
You suggestion of following Israel's policy seems to say that any [qualified] citizen can have any long gun: semi-auto or full auto.
This may come as a shock to you, juris, but I don't set my mind in stone like you guys do and never ever change. I also refuse to be pigeon holed (Hester Prynne like) into the "gun grabber" category.
If you take a closer look at Israel's policy, you will note individuals have to justify their need for such weapons. So, they aren't banned but you have to explain why you need to have such a gun. Not only does this make logical sense, an added bonus would be the entertainment of people like you three having to explain to the government (state or federal, I don't care) how a Bushmaster is helpful in home defense. In short, you'd have to detail the threat.
And I never question the police having such firearms. They train for this sort of thing. Gun enthusiasts, filled with a far too large perception of self importance, are not.
I also refuse to be pigeon holed
Ah, now that is amusing - given how much you do that yourself.
I raised the point because you had been pissing your pants about "assault weapons", and the lack of need for such.
to justify their need
Indeed. Perhaps you should have to justify your need to be secure in your home, person and papers; or in expressing your opinion? Our system doesn't work that way - a right doesn't need justification.
NY State and NYC have had exactly that kind of law - how is that working there?
And I never question the police having such firearms.
Of course you don't. You fellate authority with gusto - particularly when Democrats are exercising it. You can rationalize all you like - cops are still people, and you don't trust people, but you do trust authority.
You might question yourself about that thus - why did English police not have guns [on duty] when the average Englishman did enjoy the RKBA?
people like you three having to explain to the government (state or federal, I don't care) how a Bushmaster is helpful in home defense. In short, you'd have to detail the threat.
Somehow I don't think saying 'to shoot you and your thugs when you violate the constitution' would be conductive to my receiving 'permission'. Which is of course why as a free citizen I don't have to fucking ask permission.
This statement implies that the people of Israel aren't free which, of course, is incorrect. Here's some more information about their gun policies..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/28/israeli-gun-laws-are-much-stricter-than-some-u-s-gun-advocates-suggest/
Whereas Americans laws privilege free access to guns and then restrict them from there, Israeli laws, Rosenbaum writes, “are designed to keep amateurs from carrying guns in the street — even amateurs who have served 3 years in the army.
The solution to this may lie in not restricting the guns themselves but restricting the people. Someone such as yourself, GD, wouldn't have to be concerned because of your previous training and current job. People like Nancy Lanza, however, should not have access to guns like the Bushmaster.
The NRA really missed a key opportunity two weeks ago. They could have come out and said that they were going to use their muscle to make sure that the Adam Lanzas of the world never have access to guns. I mean, we know the profile of these people. They are all young men who have mental problems and take prescription drugs. No guns for them. Period.
Nope Mark - if your people do not have the means to keep their freedom, then that freedom exists only as long as your oppressor allows it.
My people? I don't even know what that means. And your oppressed now by the government? How, exactly?
Not everyone has the right to bear arms, GD.
My people?
THE people, A people. Whatever.
Not everyone has the right to bear arms,
Not everyone has the right to free speech. Not everyone has the right to not have soldiers quartered in their homes. Not everyone has the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. Not everyone has the right to not be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law. Not everyone has the right to trial by impartial jury.
Is that what you mean by saying the constitution means a lot to you?
That right is indeed confirmed by the constitution. If a particular person is to be denied a right - Any right - it is because of an individual circumstance and situation. In other words, you can deny the right to arms to an individual upon examination of individual facts. But you cannot deny the right to all except those you approve on individual basis'. Haven't you studied the racist origins of gun control?
And your oppressed now by the government?
Do you have to be a fucking idiot every day?
People like Nancy Lanza, however, should not have access to guns like the Bushmaster.
You are just amazingly judgmental - how do you know this? I would guess you are saying so simply because a 20 year old took the guns, killed her and then went to Sandy Hook Elementary. Twenty minutes later, as the police arrived, he killed himself.
Do you really think you understand what happened, and can place yourself in a position to judge Nancy Lanza? Based solely on what has been reported (and misreported) in the media?
In other words, you can deny the right to arms to an individual upon examination of individual facts.
That's exactly what I am saying and the more I think about it, the more I think that this is the smarter way to go. I think the president is going to surprise people (as he always does) when his panel is finished with their recommendations. If the focus is taken off the guns and on the individual circumstances, the task of preventing this sort of violence gets easier.
It's not like we don't have a profile for who these shooters are. They're not guys like you and juris or Kevin. In looking at Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza and the others, the similarities are quite apparent. Young men, on anti-depressants, mental and emotional problems, fucked up home life and/or checked out parents. People like this should not be allowed guns or have access to guns. Obviously, convicted felons should never be allowed to own a gun either.
Do you have to be a fucking idiot every day?
I take it that's a yes. How is the government oppressing you, GD? No flowery sermons please about rights or hate filled, Randian diatribes about makers and takers. Just a few points about how your freedom is being infringed.
Do you really think you understand what happened, and can place yourself in a position to judge Nancy Lanza?
Yes. I don't need the media to color it either. The facts are that she allowed her son, a mentally unstable person, to have access to a fucking arsenal. Had she been more careful with her guns (as I assume you guys are), this would not have happened. She's the fucking poster child for why the gun issue has to change in this country. There are likely many others like her. They should not own guns, juris. Not at all.
That's exactly what I am saying and the more I think about it, the more I think that this is the smarter way to go.
OK, so let's talk about NY's gun licensing laws, which do pretty much what you want. How has that worked? Did that prevent the Spengler - a goddam felon - from getting guns?
... the task of preventing this sort of violence gets easier.
Really? What makes you think Nancy Lanza wouldn't have passed with flying colors? Have you any idea how "corruption of blood" plays in this?
It's not like we don't have a profile for who these shooters are.
I guess you need to be reminded that Adam Lanza would never have been subjected to examination for a license. So you are pretty much being a complete imbecile here, aren't you?
Yes. I don't need the media to color it either.
Where exactly do you get your "facts" if not from media accounts? Do you have God-like omniscience? Or is your head so far up your fucking ass that all you have is your own anerobic 'thoughts'?
Nor have you once admitted that the U.S. GOVERNMENT cannot institute this kind of licensing, since it has no Constitutional authority to do so. Maybe you are like this asshole? Just pretend the Constitution is whatever you want it to be - at that moment. What could ever go wrong with that?
That's exactly what I am saying
No it's not.
To put it in first amendment terms, you are saying that one would have to go to the government to ask permission to exercise their right to free speech. Prove that they have the 'training and abilities' to use that speech 'responsibly' and allow the government to make sure what you are going to say is not something the government dislikes.
I take it that's a yes
Stop being a fucking idiot. READ what what written. DID I say I was being oppressed? NO. STOP BEING A FUCKING IDIOT.
READ FIRST.
UNDERSTAND.
COMPREHEND.
Do these things before opening your mouth.
STOP BEING A FUCKING IDIOT.
she allowed her son, a mentally unstable person, to have access to a fucking arsenal.
What do you consider 'access'?
STOP BEING A FUCKING IDIOT.
I'm guessing that this is his attempt to kill this thread without conceding anything - the ol' I'm such a fucking jerk that no reasonable person will waste time discussing this with me.
Which if he ever does allude to the thread it will be in his proclamation of victory therein.
The facts are that she allowed her son, a mentally unstable person, to have access to a fucking arsenal.
Ya'know - this deserves its own bitchslapping.
First, you don't have a fucking clue what, if anything, was wrong with Adam Lanza. Maybe he was just an evil fuck. You Christians are supposed to understand the existence of evil, aren't you? Are you denying evil exists and our current problems with aberrant behavior are all mental illness? Really?
Second, an arsenal? Four fucking guns is an arsenal? Or is it just one "assault weapon" that makes it a fucking arsenal? Hyperbole much? That's extremely ironic given how you scream, cry, bitch, moan, piss your pants, and suck your thumb about how the other side is all over-the-top hyperbole.
Third, Nancy Lanza would almost certainly pass any back-ground check you could possibly dream up. The issue that her kid is fucked up isn't going to come up. You are fucking WRONG about how useful something based on Israeli law would be in this case. It wouldn't even help in the Webster NY shooting either. So the two most recent shootings are absolutely beyond what you are saying is the solution to those shootings. Does that give you any clue whatsoever as to how fucking stupid, emotional and irrational you are about guns?
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
Do you want to know who said that? Then read this article.
C'mon, Noni, enough with the false equivalencies. How about some actual solutions as opposed to the same old crap? Don't you have anything new to offer?
Do you have God-like omniscience?
I'm simply talking about the facts of the case. She didn't secure her guns, right? If had been a responsible gun owner, this would not have happened. This is what you guys tell me all the time, hmm?
since it has no Constitutional authority to do so.
Well, to a certain extent, you are right. They may not but the states sure do but I get that's part of your gripe. Again, though, if you are a criminal, you lose your right to own a gun.
Prove that they have the 'training and abilities' to use that speech 'responsibly'
And another false equivalency...I know that the 2nd amendment is a very emotional subject for you guys but your judgment is clouded and you aren't being reasonable. Any discussion like this immediately goes to a very irrational place that's never going to happen.
Which if he ever does allude to the thread it will be in his proclamation of victory therein.
There is no "winning" at this, juris. It's a fucking blog discussion which no one really cares about...
Nancy Lanza would almost certainly pass any back-ground check you could possibly dream up.
Well, I think you better prepare yourself what they are going to dream up. They may not be able to pass a law banning semiautos but they can sure as shit make it harder for some people to get them. "Gun safety" may replace the phrase "gun control" and then it will likely be easier to mitigate the issues that arise from this topic. I know that you'll worry that "they's a comin'" to get you and your guns but you guys don't have anything to worry about.
There are simply some people that should not own guns. Ever. We know the profile of these shooters and it's those people I'm talking about when I talk about prevention. Try to think about that rather than jumping immediately into your paranoia about the federal government.
1) What is the purpose of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
2) What is the purpose of gun control as stated in the quotation?
3) How do the two purposes relate?
Nope. Not a false equivalence.
Bonus questions:
What do the words "shall", "not", "be", and "infringed" mean? What is the meaning when those words are put into a phrase in that order?
And another false equivalency
You're incorrect Mark. This is an apples to apple comparison. The first two amendments both guarantee rights. They both tell the government what it CANNOT do. If asking permission from the government to exercise one right is not an infringement, then asking the government for permission to exercise the other is not an abridgment.
Do you think that if one has to ask the government for permission to do something, is that something a 'right' or a 'privilege'?
you aren't being reasonable
No. You are not being reasonable. It is not reasonable to attempt to deny, infringe or abridge the natural rights enshrined in the constitution. You are being no more reasonable than trying to have a 'conversation' about reinstating slavery or repealing women's suffrage.
goes to a very irrational place that's never going to happen.
Why will it never happen? Has such never happened in the past? Are we so much better that it could never happen here? Explain to me what makes us sooooo special that it will never happen.
to get you and your guns but you guys don't have anything to worry about.
Jesus Fucking Christ! You just spend the last two weeks getting all fucking excited about coming to get the god damned guns. Excuse me if your assurance that I have nothing to worry about fails to convince.
There are simply some people that should not own guns
What people? Wait, before you answer that why don't you tell us what people currently are prohibited from owning firearms.
She didn't secure her guns, right?
Are you sure of this? Are you sure they weren't locked up? Even if they were locked up - have you considered the ways and means it would be possible to bypass that?
I'm simply talking about the facts of the case.
And where did you get these facts? Not from the media apparently.
She didn't secure her guns, right?
I don't know - that somewhat depends on what you mean by secure, and from whom. It wasn't a child (i.e. a minor) that got into her guns. But say she had locked them up and had the key on her person - are you saying that means her son couldn't have stabbed or strangled her and gotten the key?
Now I noted "Nancy Lanza would almost certainly pass any back-ground check you could possibly dream up". This was specifically in the context of you suggesting Israeli law as a template. You replied with
Well, I think you better prepare yourself what they are going to dream up.
So I ask you, and you reply they. Who is they? If you can't articulate something that would work, why do you assume they will? Or do you not care if it is something that actually works just as long as it makes you feel safer.
I know that you'll worry...
You know nothing of the sort. That is you talking to the fucking voice in your head.
We know the profile of these shooters
Really? What specifically do you know about the shooters in Newtown, VA Tech, Aurora, Columbine and Stockton (Cleveland Elementary)? What makes them all the same?
What makes them all the same?
Well, let's see...they are all male, young, have psychological problems, take SSRIs, and have a history of parental problems. Hmm...how can I be so presumptuous to think that further scrutiny should be given to this type of person or the people with which they live?
Of course, the fact that they are all adolescent males puts them in the same column as another group of people...:)
On to Noni's questions...
1. The way you worded it makes it mean that people have the right to bear single shot muskets to protect themselves. You should have added in "subsequent court cases" (implying a Living Constitution, of course:)) which interpret it to mean many other types of guns.
Since I answered your question, you have to answer mine. What is your evaluation of this statement
I think there needs to be a sound philosophical reasoning for establishing a clear, rational category of weapons that are off limits. Maybe it's the wide area destructiveness and indiscriminate standard I mentioned earlier. Or maybe it could something to the effect that if it's something which not even most governments can control, then no individual can own it. Another possibility could be the category of weapons you would not use when fighting a defensive war on your own soil.
2. Which quotation? The link? You're going to have to be more specific. Try to do it without foaming at the mouth about imaginary communism of fascism.
3. Again, I'm not following what you are saying here. I don't live in the bubble of paranoia
Bonus Question: It means that people can own whatever weapon they want to defend themselves regardless of said weapon or their criminal history. Is that about right?
Do you think that if one has to ask the government for permission to do something, is that something a 'right' or a 'privilege'?
It's a right if you are a responsible citizen. It's a privilege if you aren't. Convicted criminals do not have the right to own guns, correct? You guys like to bring up the comparison of automobiles...well, you have to prove that you can be responsible to drive one otherwise you don't get to do so. Abuse that right and you are 86ed. That's how it should be with guns and in a more detailed way because they are different.
The way you worded it
Aaaand right back to Standard Response #12.
The "I'm a deliberate fuckwit!" response. When he discovers, yet again, that he cannot counter his opponent's argument, he intentionally mischaracterizes his opponent's argument, reasoning, meaning, and even the plain language of his statements, and then argues against his own mischaracterization as if it shows his opponent to be wrong. He does not care that this shows him to be fundamentally dishonest and/or unable to understand what his opponent actually wrote, but it gives him yet another opportunity to avoid admitting that he is wrong and/or that his opponent is correct.
PURPOSE you numbskull!!! Not "method" or "means". PURPOSE!!!
I really dislike using vulgar language, but you really, really leave no other choice but to use the most accurate language possible: you really are being a mendacious fuckwit.
The rest of your responses are precisely along the same lines. Quite simply, you didn't answer the questions with anything approaching honesty. You really need to learn that the most effective lies are mostly true. All you've managed to spew is highly ineffective lies.
It's garbage like this that proves to everyone within eyeshot that you have absolutely no interest in "discussion".
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
but only in expressing his opinion.
— Proverbs 18:2
P.S. In principle, when someone commits a crime they give up their own rights to life, liberty, etc., based on the severity of the crime.
Quite simply, you didn't answer the questions with anything approaching honesty.
I didn't answer them in the way you were leading me to answer them which isn't really a discussion and is, in fact, more of a coercive technique used by people who like to engage in brainwashing. It might work on people that are paranoid, afraid and angry but not me.
All you've managed to spew is highly ineffective lies.
Heading off at the pass...
The chickens are coming home to roost, Noni, and that's likely way your blood is more up than usual. People simply aren't buying what you guys are peddling anymore because they realize that it's the product of a faux reality. The continued personal remarks don't help either. Moreover, you have nothing new to offer. Shrill screams about freedom and arming more people aren't going to cut it. Care to try again?
Convicted criminals do not have the right to own guns
But they have LOST that right due to their own egregious actions.
You guys like to bring up the comparison of automobiles
No. You guys like to bring it up. In actual fact, one of your co-bloggers DID bring up that comparison lately - have you forgotten?
you have to prove that you can be responsible to drive one otherwise you don't get to do so
Which amendment codifies the RIGHT to drive an automobile on public roadways? Ah, there isn't one. That's why driving IS NOT A RIGHT. It is a privilege.
hat's how it should be with guns
Except guns ARE A RIGHT.
So again - if you have to ask for permission to do something is it a right or a privilege?
how can I be so presumptuous to think that further scrutiny should be given to this type of person or the people with which they live?
Asking again - what people currently are prohibited from owning firearms.
Don't you think you should be able to answer that before you call for restriction that JUST MAY already be in place?
I didn't answer them in the way you were leading me to
You really are a god-damned, fucking, clueless idiot! If there was no PURPOSE for the Second Amendment, it would not be there. But it is there. Why the fuck is it there?!?
All your idiotic "I'm too dumb to understand simple English, but I know everything" dodging, weaving, and flat out idiocy does nothing to hide the FACT that this is the most basic and APPROPRIATE question you could ask about ANY writing, especially law!
(I think I need some time away to cool off from Marky's belligerent and flat out unbelievable ignorance. His vile behavior here demonstrates the full measure of the phrase "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.")
People simply aren't buying what you guys are peddling anymore because they realize that it's the product of a faux reality.
Which is why gun shops sold more in 3 weeks than over the previous 3 1/2 years. Because they realized that you idiots are right and they shouldn't own guns. [/sarcasm]
Why your head doesn't simply implode from the sucking vacuum inside is beyond me.
So again - if you have to ask for permission to do something is it a right or a privilege?
In your world, it's a privilege. In mine (aka reality), there's no easy answer to that question. For some people, they have the right to own a gun. For others, they don't. The latter category is likely to get larger after Sandy Hook and it shouldn't bother you any because it won't be you or any responsible gun owner. What do you care about what happens to other people anyway? Aren't you a rugged individualist? I simply can't believe that you believe in something that is COLLECTIVE:)
what people currently are prohibited from owning firearms.
Well, let's see...Fugitives from justice, illegal aliens, unlawful users of certain drugs, those committed to a mental institution, those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (which generally covers felonies), those convicted of crimes of domestic violence. Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't that also include people under indictment of a federal crime? Let's not forget people under 18 for a rifle or shotgun or people under 21 for a handgun either.
You really are a god-damned, fucking, clueless idiot!
So, that's a "No" on the whole anything new to offer thing. And you haven't answered my question from above yet either. I answered yours.
Which is why gun shops sold more in 3 weeks than over the previous 3 1/2 years.
Documentation from 3 unbiased sources, please. And do follow up with how many are sold this month and in February as well.
Moreover, this doesn't prove anything in the long run. You still don't see it yet, do you? Ah well....
I answered yours.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No. You didn't. The word is PURPOSE. Perhaps you missed that?
Documentation from 3 unbiased sources, please.
You mean being all over the news isn't enough for you? Try Brownells, MidwayUSA, Arizona Rifle Association, or any frikkin' gun store or ammo seller you want to call.
It's ironic that Mark accused me of being brainwashed. (Pure projection, as usual.) It occurred to me that there are only two reasons I've heard for his level of denial of the patently obvious. One is simply some form of psychosis; an actual mental/medical disconnect from reality. The second is someone who has literally been brainwashed by a cult.
The only solution for the former is a rubber room, soft food, maybe some medication, and an occasional pat on the head. The only solution for the latter is deprogramming; a particularly unpleasant and somewhat brutal process requiring the services of a professional. Part of that process requires separating the cult victim from the source of the programming by force, then gradually reintroducing them to reality. It's made worse by the fact that the victim fights the deprogrammer for extended periods of time using exactly the same type of vapid arguments as Mark is using.
I wonder if Mark has any family that has considered either of these options.
I'll ask again:
What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
Noni, do you have any hobbies or other activities the occupy your time?
Well, let's see...they are all male, young, have psychological problems, take SSRIs, and have a history of parental problems.
Really? Patrick Purdy had a criminal history but no mental illness. Where is your evidence that they ALL were on SSRIs? You are right to be skeptical about the effects of medication for mental illness - but you need to be sure that they all actually were on such medication. You see, I asked you this question anticipating this response - and you didn't disappoint.
Hmm...how can I be so presumptuous to think that further scrutiny should be given to this type of person or the people with which they live?
That too is something that was different amongst all of them. Yet you seem to think that the State of Connecticut could disallow her purchases of guns based on something her son was going to do some years in the future. You have to take stupid to a new level to think you can predict this behavior - you won't catch any person actually trained in psychology making that claim.
Of course, the fact that they are all adolescent males puts them in the same column as another group of people...:)
Oh M please don't break your arm jerking yourself off about how clever you are.
You didn't answer even a fraction of the questions you raised. And what you did answer you got wrong.
Definitely Standard Response #12.
there's no easy answer to that question.
You really are like that fucktard that thinks the Constitution only means what he wants, when he wants.
What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
For some people, they have the right to own a gun. For others, they don't.
Because their right was RESCINDED. Yet, for the whole the right still exists.
And you have got to be kidding me. Are you seriously saying that having to ask permission to do something does not invalidate the idea that it is a right?
1st amendment time. If you have to ask the government for permission to speak your mind - do you have the right to free speech?
Hell, start with an easy one to see if you are even capable of 'critical thought'.
What is the PURPOSE of the First Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
You have to take stupid to a new level to think you can predict this behavior
This is a very typical response from someone who has no real solution themselves. In fact, this is why the Right hates the left so much..they think and try to solve problems as opposed to just criticize and personally attack. This must be why the issue of envy comes up all the time: you have it for the left in spades. Little children get killed and then you make fun of people trying to do something to change that. Like I said, nothing new and it's why you will keep losing.
Noni, I answered your question. You seem to be under the impression that your run things around here. You don't. I do. This isn't Kevin's blog. It's mine. So I can pretty much do whatever I want. Think about that for a minute. I allow you to post here and can, at any time, delete your comments. One could almost say that I control your speech on here...hmmm:)
In fact, I allow you to leave your comments here unedited because I was under the impression (a seemingly mistaken one) that we'd actually have a conversation. Yet it appears that you have nothing to offer of your own...why is that?
So, it's an equal give and take otherwise, you can have a conversation with yourself (and the 2 other people besides me that are reading this).
1st amendment time. If you have to ask the government for permission to speak your mind - do you have the right to free speech?
This whole false equivalency thing is getting tiresome but this is what your paranoia about the government does to you, GD. You're making leaps that simply don't exist and they never will in this country. You're not being reasonable at all when it comes to gun rights. Essentially, what you're saying (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that if a man isn't allowed to have a gun that fires 30 round before reloading, his right to bear arms is being infringed...ALL ARMS. If a man isn't allowed to bear a rocket launcher, his right is being infringed and the next step is fascism. Is that about right?
The problem with all of this is that we have to put up with your irrational fantasies which erodes a quicker path to a solution. As I told juris above, I think the main reason for this is that you have no real solutions of your own which is, quite frankly, stunning when you consider the level of impotence.
Noni, I answered your question.
No. You did not.
You built a straw man, then didn't even manage to set that on fire. (Your response was the Voices In Your Head™ version of the Founding Fathers. In other words, not even an accurate answer to your strawman version of my question.)
What kind of "arms" the Second Amendment protects cannot be answered without first asking what ability they were trying to protect. In other words, why is the Second Amendment there?
"Musket" is an object. It is not a "PURPOSE".
What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
This is a very typical response from someone who has no real solution themselves.
I have a solution, you just don't like it.
they think and try to solve problems
No, you claim that you have a solution when you don't even know what you are talking about. That is really quite different.
Little children get killed and then you make fun of people trying to do something to change that.
Poor M, must actually feel some shame about being caught so flagrantly uninformed and unequipped to have a discussion - lashing out in the vain attempt to feel better. I hate to tell you that it won't work: you won't feel better and I won't be shamed for you.
...and it's why you will keep losing.
Says he who also insists that it isn't about winning and losing. This is really quite amusing - do continue.
but this is what your paranoia about the government does to you
[sung to tune of Strangers in the Night]
Voices in your head,
you only talk with voices in your head.
Irrational, emotional, dishonest and childish - wildly swinging at the phantoms that inhabit his mind. Unable to engage with real people - so sad, and so like some people (the kind that scare him so).
This whole false equivalency thing is getting tiresome
Yes it is. So why do you keep doing it?
you have no real solutions of your own
What's a "real solution"? We have offered solutions, but you always wave them off as "unreal"; while ignoring all of the facts, statistics, your own knowledge, history, and logic that show that our solutions consistently produce the best possible (though still imperfect) results, with every other solution being worse.
So what does that leave as a "real solution"? Apparently, only the "solution" you have already decided you want. In other words, you want us to start ignoring reality and join you in your fantasy world/bubble; in short, total capitulation.
No.
and please correct me if I am wrong
Oh, let me do so.
I am replying to your comments and opinions. One of which was to put forth the 'Israeli' model of gun licensing. In such a model a citizen must ask the government for permission to bear arms - yes all arms. What the government deigns to let which citizen bear is then up to the desire of the powers that be.
You however are so obstinate and obtuse that you have prolonged any meaningful exchange on that matter to the point that you can't even keep track of the conversation.
Regardless, it is still rather revealing that you cannot consider a right to be either universal or extant without prior permission from the government.
Noni's question is valid - you cannot answer what arms are not protected under the Second Amendment without first considering the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment.
My question is also valid. If you really cannot determine the absolute purpose of the First Amendment then you will not be able to determine the purpose of the Second.
I'll give you a hint, quoting you:
your paranoia about the government does to you
Every damned amendment is purposed from the point of people who were paranoid about the government.
This whole false equivalency thing is getting tiresome
BTW, would you be okay with the government taking away your computer and internet because they're not protected by the First Amendment? After all, they're not quill pens and parchment, or an 18th century printing press.
Off to the memory hole for this thread - M is riding his hobby horse into new battles!
Post a Comment