Gun Control

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/

-1

LightFoot wrote:

What, just pop in with a link? You don't even take a position and HIDE no less??

jk. If that's the best they have, the Marxist party is going to have to abandon satirical propaganda and simply force gun confiscation on us. The past 4 years of infamous abuses appear to indicate that is what's on the way.

I don't like to get involved with topics that I have no strong opinion about. I see both sides of the argument, and partially agree with both. I personally don't own or ever want to own a gun, but I respect others' rights to own them. Life is far too short to waste time arguing over the internet.

But I found that link and it made me chuckle, so I thought I would share...

I consider myself to be a relatively objective individual. I believe that most americans (regardless of their political party preferences) are reasonable and share a similar set of values/beliefs. Furthermore, it is also my belief that while some issues (abortion, guncontrol, gay rights) will always fuel arguments/debates, no element in our society is more divisive than the agenda's and actions of the democratic and republican parties. It is disgusting the manner in which they exploit the american public. While their conduct is despicable, one must appreciate their tactics. Controversy that they create funds their campaigns, lines their pockets, ensures job security, and distracts the public from the pork they pass and the real issues that they do not address...i.e. the budget (which the cannot pass, much less balance), the impending collapse of social security/medicare, national security, and our suffering economy. So....is guncontrol still really a pressing issue for our federal government, or is it just a distraction and a political cash cow?

So....is guncontrol still really a pressing issue for our federal government, or is it just a distraction and a political cash cow?

Yes, I would say it is still a pressing issue as it is our last line of defense against a tyrant. If not in our life times then in our children's or grand children's life times the preservation of this option to respond is essential when our voices and votes no longer matter and are not to be heard.
Have we and our parents let the mechanical workings of the government grow to such an invasive size that the government no longer functions to serve us? Have we allowed those we have placed into positions to operate this machine to now feel that we need to serve them as they hold the power over our humanity? The answers are the same, yes.
There will be a point when our freedom calls out and demands an uprising to straighten the course of liberty back into rightful hands. Without the means to do so our words will stand worthless and will fall on deaf ears. Gun control has more to do with people control than guns.
John

No disrespect intended, but please get off your high horse and actually read my post before responding. I was hoping to actually get some interesting responses and not the same tired rhetoric. While I too support the second ammendment and appreciate your enthusiam, I just feel that washington has many more issues (above mentioned) that are more pressing. The constitution is pretty clear on the federal governments role on protecting our freedoms-to include the second ammendment. This shouldnt even be an issue, much less debated.

Dylonspitshotfire wrote:

No disrespect intended, but please get off your high horse and actually read my post before responding. I was hoping to actually get some interesting responses and not the same tired rhetoric. While I too support the second ammendment and appreciate your enthusiam, I just feel that washington has many more issues (above mentioned) that are more pressing. The constitution is pretty clear on the federal governments role on protecting our freedoms-to include the second ammendment. This shouldnt even be an issue, much less debated.

"The same retired rhetoric"???

Would a more accurate comment be wondering why the same battle over an unalienable right has to be fought over and over again? Do the arguments against that bore you? After all, why do we need a constitutional amendment to ban slavery, to lower the voting age, to bring Prohibition into force and then another to remove it - but the Second Amendment can be legislated increasingly out of existence without any amendment whatsoever?

Would a more interesting response be having one of the people control cheerleaders explaining what the words "shall not be infringed" mean.

The point that is apparently being missed is that Washington - that would be the Marxist president and his Democrat cheerleaders in Congress - IS making it an issue. Or, as the Dear Leader said earlier today (thanks to Motokid's favorite impartial news source, Politico):

“The only way that we’re going to be able to do everything that needs to be done is with cooperation of Congress. That means passing serious laws that restrict the access and availability of assault weapons and magazine clips that aren’t necessary for hunters and sportsmen, those responsible gun owners who are out there."

So here's the message from the Prez and his sidekick Joe at that news conference today:

The Second Amendment is only about protecting the firearms that are NECESSARY for hunting and sporting purposes. All other firearms are fair game for bans and confiscation, because if it isn't NECESSARY to go hunting or "sporting" with, then the Second Amendment doesn't protect it. Now although he was apparently an instructor in constitutional law, the Prez didn't explain where he came up with that definition of what the Second Amendment covers - you know, just hunting and sporting firearms?

Nor, come to think of it, his position that no amendment to the Bill of Rights is necessary to deeply infringe on the Second Amendment - just some Executive Orders, perhaps a regulation or two, maybe rewriting the Gun Control Act or some other piece of legislation. Amendments are only necessary for changing more important stuff in the same Bill of Rights - you know, the ones the Founders didn't feel it necessary to add "shall not be infringed" to as emphasis.

Well, we know the Prez's interpretation of what firearms the Second Amendment protects. But here's how one of the Founders explained what the Second Amendment was about:

Congress have no power to disarm the people. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
Tenche Cox

Jeez, that sure doesn't sound like "hunting and sporting firearms" to me - how about you? Bonus question: how can a lawyer who is apparently qualified to teach constitutional law be aware of comments like that from the Founders who debated, wrote, and ratified the Bill of Rights, and from that conclude they were just talking about hunting and sport shooting?

You might also note that the Dear Leader referred to hunters and "sport shooters" as "those responsible gun owners who are out there". By process of elimination, if your firearms aren't for hunting and sport - for self defense for example - or if they're something not NECESSARY for hunting (say, anything more advanced than a flintlock which is more than capable of killing any game animal in the country)... well then, you're simply not among the ranks of the responsible gun owners.

So, you think people are on their "high horse" when creeps like this degenerate former (I hope) druggy try to remove their inalienable rights, redefine history, and the targets of all this fight back. Well I resent the hell out of this unconstitutional crook doing what he is doing - if his name were Nixon and he'd done a tenth of what he's done so far, he'd have been impeached in his first year in office. And I am damned well going to use every legitimate means available to fight this kind of crap.

And if you really do support the Second Amendment as you claim, why don't outrageous acts and claims to redefine what the Founders meant not piss you right off? Second Amendment not really that big a deal, perhaps?

Here's an idea which hopefully isn't "tired rhetoric":

Whaddya say we demand these Marxist and statist political masterminds who feel the Constitution is only a mildly amusing reference document get off their high horses and start actually governing within it's limits. You know, narrow and enumerated powers, division of powers, and all that good stuff?

Tell us: if Obama were instead saying that the First Amendment only protects NECESSARY speech or NECESSARY association, and was musing about using Executive Orders to limit and police speech and association if Congress wouldn't give him what he wanted, would that too be just a minor sideshow to "more important" matters? Would the media and the American Criminal Liberties Union be as equally uninterested (or openly supportive) of what the president was doing then?

So yeah, the federal (and some state) governments are going to keep attacking the Second Amendment again and again through legislation and regulation - instead of properly trying to change it through one of the two amendment mechanisms - and yeah, we're going to keep debating it and raising hell. All the more so when the feckless RINO Republicans don't have the man parts to stand up to these controlling, unconstitutional bastards and do the job they're supposed to be doing - protecting and defending the Constitution.

And for both certainty in law and the continuation of rights, NOTHING in Washington is more important than doing that. Which is why their oath of office says just that, not "radically expand government spending" or "give women free condoms" or any other horseshit like that.

Is this country even a republic anymore?

Although i enjoyed reading your post, you seem quite butthurt. Perhaps I am at fault and maybe i have failed to express my point in a clear manner. So here goes.... The federal government has no business challenging or sidestepping the second amendment. Therefore, gun control is not an issue that the federal government should address. With that being said, I feel that the president and congress should stop political grandstanding and fix the real issues at hand (above mentioned). While I do get angry when the feds overstep their boundaries, I make a few phone calls and vote. For me, these actions seem most appropriate. This post appealed to me bc while i am firm in my own beliefs, i feel that i can always benefit from getting anothers perspective. Jäger you express yourself well, but your tone is very contemptuous. I assure all that my goal was not to ruffle feathers, merely to encourage others while expressing my own views. For me, online forums are not a place where i feel the need to prove my patriotism, i do that every day when i put my uniform on.

Dylonspitshotfire wrote:

Although i enjoyed reading your post, you seem quite butthurt. Perhaps I am at fault and maybe i have failed to express my point in a clear manner. So here goes.... The federal government has no business challenging or sidestepping the second amendment. Therefore, gun control is not an issue that the federal government should address. With that being said, I feel that the president and congress should stop political grandstanding and fix the real issues at hand (above mentioned). While I do get angry when the feds overstep their boundaries, I make a few phone calls and vote. For me, these actions seem most appropriate. This post appealed to me bc while i am firm in my own beliefs, i feel that i can always benefit from getting anothers perspective. Jäger you express yourself well, but your tone is very contemptuous. I assure all that my goal was not to ruffle feathers, merely to encourage others while expressing my own views. For me, online forums are not a place where i feel the need to prove my patriotism, i do that every day when i put my uniform on.

You'll find it's much MUCH easier to simply ignore the condescending, arrogant, and often aggressively ignorant, as well as excessively long-winded rantings of Jager.

I suggest this read <--clicky


A well written piece on the reality of the situation. Unlike what's been posted in previous posts.

Dylonspitshotfire wrote:

Although i enjoyed reading your post, you seem quite butthurt.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do find people who think violating or infringing ANY of the Bill of Rights quite a pain in the ass. And ditto for those who would dismiss those actions with a "why worry about it; we have bigger problems right now".

That would include, most particularly, those who swear an oath to defend the Constitution, from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.

Quote :

The federal government has no business challenging or sidestepping the second amendment. Therefore, gun control is not an issue that the federal government should address. With that being said, I feel that the president and congress should stop political grandstanding and fix the real issues at hand (above mentioned).

The problem with that is the President AND the Senate - in other words, Democrats - are attacking the Second Amendment. In other words, attacking the Constitution. Did the Republicans start this with calls for legislation requiring every citizen to arm themselves? No.

So whether you want to call it "grandstanding" or whatever, that leaves only one choice for any member of Congress regardless of party who honours their oath. And that would be to resist all measures by the Democrats to attack the Constitution and violate their oaths of office. It's the only legitimate thing to do. And yet, it becomes "grandstanding" for you. I don't see it that way at all. In fact, the opposite is true - the Republican response has been most noticeable by it's absence. They've been almost invisible on this, which is hardly grandstanding.

And for the Senate and the President, they are deadly serious on this. For Obama, this is merely a continuation of his attempts to shred the Second Amendment going all the way back to when he first took public office, and he has the voting record to prove it. Biden is similarly continuing his long history of gun banning and grabbing, again, a central theme of his entire political career. And Diane FrankenSenator said back in 1995 that if she could have gotten the votes to say "Mr and Mrs America, turn in all your guns", she would have done it.

Such long term dedication to eradicating the Second Amendment is hardly a temporary incident of "grandstanding".

Quote :

While I do get angry when the feds overstep their boundaries, I make a few phone calls and vote. For me, these actions seem most appropriate. This post appealed to me bc while i am firm in my own beliefs, i feel that i can always benefit from getting anothers perspective. Jäger you express yourself well, but your tone is very contemptuous. I assure all that my goal was not to ruffle feathers, merely to encourage others while expressing my own views. For me, online forums are not a place where i feel the need to prove my patriotism, i do that every day when i put my uniform on.

I don't consider anyone putting a uniform on as any proof of patriotism, particularly when for so many it is only a job with good benefits. Any more than I believe anyone who puts on a uniform should be automatically considered a hero. I can claim some expertise in that, having been putting the country's uniform on for over 25 years now, and I don't feel the uniform nor the trips overseas should be a blank cheque for proof of patriotism and heroism.

Nor do I consider any argument as proof of patriotism, online or otherwise. You either defend the Constitution - including the parts you don't like and disagree with - or you do not. And that would include confronting the guttersnipes who start out with "you don't NEED _________ (fill in the right of your choice)", every time they raise their nasty little heads.

And, oh yes, I do consider both them and their fraudulent arguments contemptible. Very much so. And they need to be called out for what they are, and their fraudulent arguments ridiculed for what they are.

Am I going to apologize for doing that? Ummmmm.... no.

motokid wrote:

You'll find it's much MUCH easier to simply ignore the condescending, arrogant, and often aggressively ignorant, as well as excessively long-winded rantings of Jager.

Motokid's child-like babblings are excessively short because - having found himself impossibly inept at engaging in rational adult debate based on fact rather than fantasy and emotional handwringing - the best he can do is go "oh read this - clicky".

Poor Motokid... thinks liberal RINO Republicans who would fit better in the Democrat party are "conservatives". The same ones who as he wrote that are busily ethnically cleansing the Republican Party of conservatives, the same ones working to gerrymander the primary system so they can exclude conservatives from office.

Can't imagine that people would prefer Bush to Obama, so posts a poll to prove his point - and gets his ass kicked. Want to add a clicky to that, Moto?

Talks about how Montana is full of extremists - then finds his state has three or four more times the hate crimes, whether you want to count them numerically or per capita. Want to add a clicky to that, Moto?

After all, you're the one who started both those threads...

Hardly crawls out of his hole anymore. Probably because he's tired of getting his ass handed to him like in the above two examples. But still, he does try his hand every once in a while, usually by citing some left-wing statist pablum that reinforces his insular, sophomoric view of the world and then running and hiding.

Quote :

I suggest this read <--clicky
A well written piece on the reality of the situation. Unlike what's been posted in previous posts.

Like that for example - Motokid, who can barely say the word "FOX" without flying into a rage just loves the left wing drivel pumped out by Politico and CNN. Well, let's have a look at this "well written piece of reality" shall we?

First, CNN barely mentions the fact that, yes Motokid, there is a Second Amendment. Although you still have found yourself helplessly incapable of explaining what the words "shall not be infringed" mean to you, it does exist, and it applies to more than the firearms you personally use and approve of. So how exactly do you have a "well written piece on the reality of the situation" without mentioning that fact and discussing the implications of registering and government permission to exercise one of your inalienable rights? After all, police could clean up gang bangers who commit so many of the murders in the US - by all means - if we simply just suspended the Fourth Amendment. Just a little bit - say, only for known criminals and gang members? Is that perhaps a part of the reality of that situation?

How about mental health and background checks before exercising your first amendment rights? Before exercising your rights under the Fourth? The Fifth? Why just the Second Amendment - you know, the only one the Founders deemed sufficiently important to add the words "shall not be infringed" to?

Hey! Why not mental health checks and background checks before running for office - not just for guns. If I were a self-admitted cocaine and marijuana user, would they allow me to purchase a gun?

No, but they would allow me to run for public office - say, the presidency. Like Obama, for example.

Which raises a really interesting question. Obama just claimed he likes skeet shooting. Great, so do I. But how did he pass his NICS background check before he got his shotguns? After all, one of the prohibitions for purchasing or acquiring a firearm is if the applicant is "an unlawful user of any controlled substance". That would be Obama and cocaine. Obama and marijuana.

Did CNN mention anything about how the NICS background check apparently failed to prevent a self admitted illegal drug user of the controlled substances cocaine and marijuana from obtaining firearms? One who is probably the most public figure in the world? And how did all the gang bangers - prohibited like Obama is supposed to be - get past the NICS checks to get their weaponry with which they commit so many of the murders?

But, yeah! Let's make people have background and mental health checks before exercising only one of all their enumerated rights - because as we can tell with the President and the gang bangers, it's clearly working so well!

Looking further, in this criminology masterpiece Motokid so adores, we see this:
"more than 6,000 people killed each year by handguns."

However, does Motokid's beloved article say anything at all about the fact that handguns are used defensively around 450,000 times a year? That figure, incidentally, comes from peer reviewed research published in several refereed journals (hint to Motokid: CNN is not a scientific journal, it's scribblers are not scientists, and it is definitely not peer reviewed), significant enough that it won the Hindelang Award for the most significant criminology research of that period. It has even been presented in Congress numerous times when debates were ongoing regarding crime. But other than half a sentence mumbling that handguns are also used in self defense, that was about all the information offered up. They can search the endless tables in the FBI's massive UCRs to find the table detailing the number of deaths due to handguns, but they are utterly incapable of finding the number of times per year handguns are used defensively

And yet... and yet... Motokid's beloved "well written piece of reality" somehow or other completely forgot to mention that apparently small and insignificant number. Why would that be? Perhaps because it introduces one thing that Motokid's fantasy's most often lack: reality and context.

Let's do some really simple, grade school math. Let's say only 10% of those defensive uses save a life - just a lousy 10%. So let's see... 10% of 450,000 would be... what's that Motokid? 45,000 lives saved by handguns versus 6000 people killed by handguns? Seems to be kind of a net benefit to the country when you add context. But context would be very inconvenient, wouldn't it Motokid?

Nah... who needs balance and reality like that when writing about "the reality of the situation"????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Here's some more context for that 6,000 figure CNN mentioned. 6,000 people is also the number of people killed each year as a result of texting while driving. It would appear that Motokid's smartphone is at least as dangerous as the Glock mentioned in the article, it would seem. Do you see CNN or Motokid holding forth on deaths due to texting with smartphones like they do about gun control? Ummm... no, they don't. They'll give up their smartphones when you pry them from their cold, dead hands, so don't even think about smartphone control bans, Faraday cages in vehicles, etc.

And - oh look: not a single mention of how many murders committed with those handguns are by illegal immigrants in Hispanic gangs like MS-13 (70,000 members). When you claim you have a well written piece about the reality of the situation, how do you not talk about the butcher's bill in those handgun deaths that is the result of violent illegal immigrants in the US?

Or are the violent illegal immigrants - and the president who refuses to honour his oath of office and enforce immigration legislation - irrelevant to the issue of these deaths?

The entire article is rife with errors and is a dismal piece of scribbling. But for statists like Motokid, who believes that if it is a gun he doesn't approve of, then nobody else should have one either, that kind of stuff is solid gold.

So perhaps we should end this by going back to what Motokid sagely told us when he started this thread:

motokid wrote:

So you've not had your rights infringed upon.
Not by Obama anyway.

Yet you'd still prefer Bush to somebody who "theoretically" "might" try to make it a bit more difficult to buy even more weapons than you already own.

Great.

Hmmmm... there was Motokid, laughing it up at the idea Obama might "theoretically", "might" try to make it more difficult to buy weapons.

Obama's pronouncements over the last six weeks on what he wants for gun control, what guns he wants banned, what guns he approves of as "necessary", and his Executive Orders really make Motokid look like a dumbass.

Again.

I was really hoping to keep this tactful and not personal, but your crying has gone on long enough. If you could lock up that little girl inside of you long enough to actually read my post you would realize that I am not in disagreement with you Jager. As far as your comments pertaining to uniformed service members and proof of patriotism, you only sound like a fool. "A job with good benefits"? Really...lol? You must not have ever spent anytime on the boat... go tell that to the Marines and Sailors of the 22nd MEU. 320 days at sea and 7 months of TRAP standby might change your mind. Also, do you realize that anyone currently serving in the armed forces either enlisted or re-up'd during a time of war. Still don't consider them to be patriots? How about our Army and National Guard who deploy for 13+ months at a time to support OEF? And a job with good benefits...tell that to the men and women of the Wounded Warrior Batallion. Have you ever had to attend a ramp ceremony? Tell me about patriotism and dedication to duty. I think John Glen expressed his feelings on his "job" best during his "Gold Star Mothers Speech". Everyone who reads this post should look into it or check out this Gunny's rendition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rRClqsyk0o . I will not make any assumptions pertaining to your service, and I encourage you to continue to express yourself. However, I caution you to choose your words wisely if you ever hope to be taken seriously.
Semper Fi,
dylonspitshotfire

[quote="Dylonspitshotfire"] As far as your comments pertaining to uniformed service members and proof of patriotism, you only sound like a fool. "A job with good benefits"?


I agree Dylon. The great benefits to some of my combat brothers was DEATH in the Ghan. I'm truly disappointed and saddened in Jager's rant.

Your Canadian Infantry brother and true patriot!!

Docman wrote:

Dylonspitshotfire wrote:

As far as your comments pertaining to uniformed service members and proof of patriotism, you only sound like a fool. "A job with good benefits"?

I agree Dylon. The great benefits to some of my combat brothers was DEATH in the Ghan. I'm truly disappointed and saddened in Jager's rant.

Your Canadian Infantry brother and true patriot!!

Must have been awesome to have served where you two did, where everyone you ever met became a patriot - and a hero - the instant they put on a uniform, charging out to meet danger head on. A magical transformation, as it were.

Don't know of a single instance where somebody pulled the right levers to avoid a tour overseas? Was crying publicly while being interviewed on the nightly news during Gulf 1 because they signed up for the education, and they weren't supposed to be going to war? You too young to remember that stuff, Dylon, because I sure do.

Don't know of a single instance where an officer drove right by a bunch of paras being beaten and about to be murdered and did absolutely nothing but drive on. A guy like that... why, he would be just as patriotic and heroic as anyone who died over in the sandbox. Probably even senator material, eh Docman?

Never met a single member of the military in one branch or another who spent their entire 20 or 25 years inside the country, working as a clerk, or a steward, or servicing crypto gear, for whom the most dangerous part of their career was the drive to work every morning? You guys never bump into those trades during your careers?

Nope, nobody like that in the military you two served in. Everyone who put on a uniform, regardless of what they did or their trade, became an instant patriot and hero. Regardless of whether they were Delta Force, or JTF2 - or a public affairs clerk doing their entire career at the puzzle palace. Regardless of whether they ever even left the country.

Pity the military I've spent my time in wasn't like that. Where I've served, it wasn't what you wear that defines you. It's what you do or don't do in those clothes that defines whether you're a patriot, or a hero, or just another person in a company uniform that does a job no different than dozens of civilian occupations where the biggest danger at work is a paper cut or repetitive strain injuries.

I never served in a military where you could claim to be a patriot, or a hero, or whatever, by doing no more than signing on the dotted line and putting the uniform on. You had to earn that stuff.

And thank God it was that way - I wouldn't have it any different, and I pity those who serve where the standards are so infinitely lower that you could claim to be a patriot or a hero simply because you were able to dress yourself in a uniform in the morning before heading off to your job as a fin clerk or whatever.

The benefits? Go find a civilian job where you get 100% of your medical/dental paid, you start with 20 days of holidays, and you can retire at 43 after 25 years of service with a full pension and that kind of medical and dental benefits.

Dylonspitshotfire wrote:

I was really hoping to keep this tactful and not personal, but your crying has gone on long enough. If you could lock up that little girl inside of you long enough to actually read my post you would realize that I am not in disagreement with you Jager. As far as your comments pertaining to uniformed service members and proof of patriotism, you only sound like a fool.

And you sound like a self-aggrandizing asshole when you make a claim that the simple act of putting on a uniform makes you a patriot. Little children and fools fall for that line of crap, but real soldiers expect a bit more out of somebody than simply "Hey, I wear the same uniform you do".

Yeah, I do realize that everyone currently in uniform signed on the line during time of war. Using your view of the military that you would sell to the world at large, that means the guy who signed up to be a training resource clerk doing his service at home in the USA is every bit as patriotic and heroic as the guy busting his ass to make it as a SEAL or Delta Force or Special Forces, or whatever. I mean, that man must be just as hard core in every respect as any Marine out there, right? The guy who signed up to be a navy steward is every bit the equal of any Marine on that boat as far as patriotism and heroism goes - I'm sure you would agree with that as well, Semper Fi, right?

Quote :

320 days at sea and 7 months of TRAP standby might change your mind.

Spare me your attempts at a dick measuring contest, sonny. It's probably a fair bet I was under canopy or trying to sleep in a water filled ditch being used as a hide on Reforger exercises in Norway while you were still pooping your diapers. And it's probably also a pretty good bet that while I have jumped with Marine Force Recon - you haven't.

It is also possible that you are a better soldier and/or will voluntarily go in harms way more than I have in the last 25+ years during your career, assuming you can last in the infantry trade that long. If so, good for you.

But if that's true, it won't be simply because you managed to successfully dress yourself a uniform every morning - it will be because of the choices you make and the things you do. And nobody should have to publicly explain that to you.

There's enough fools, slackers, oxygen thieves, and malcontents putting on a uniform every day that using the uniform as proof of anything is one of the stupidest arguments ever - especially with most people who ever served in the military.

And that's why we have examples like Colin Powell and Mark Kelly - apparently two patriots true to the Constitution and Bill of Rights because they both spent careers putting a uniform on - publicly speaking in favour of bans on most semiautomatic rifles, magazine bans, etc. Ummmm... just for civilians, of course.

Think they might be able to provide an explanation for what "shall not be infringed" means to them?

And that's why I reject your argument that if you wear a uniform you are, ipso facto a patriot - there's two very glaring, very public examples right there that you can spend an entire lifetime wearing a uniform, take the oath, and then treat part of the Constitution like garbage. Please don't try and bullshit us that there aren't more than a few others in America who wear a uniform, took an oath to defend the Constitution, and are saying the exact same things as they advocate violating the Second Amendment. The only difference is these two have enough public recognition that they can help pitch Obama's gun grabbing for him.

Dylonspitshotfire wrote:

No disrespect intended, but please get off your high horse and actually read my post before responding. I was hoping to actually get some interesting responses and not the same tired rhetoric. While I too support the second ammendment and appreciate your enthusiam, I just feel that washington has many more issues (above mentioned) that are more pressing. The constitution is pretty clear on the federal governments role on protecting our freedoms-to include the second ammendment. This shouldnt even be an issue, much less debated.

Dylon,
No disrespect intended to you either, but my response was in fact correct and to the point. Your hope to get a different response is odd to me, as there is in fact a push to reduce the freedoms of our populace to that of servant and elevate our government representatives to master. Yes, there are more important things our public servants could be concentrating on... but are they? No. They have set the tone and the agenda. Thus this discussion. Should this be an issue? No, but the stakes have been raised not by us but by those who are supposed to be working for us not against us.
Some day you will return to the civilian life. Will those freedoms and rights still be there for you? Or maybe your children? What about your liberty? Will you have any means to do anything? I surely hope so. Think about it.
John

IndigoWolf wrote:

Dylonspitshotfire wrote:

No disrespect intended, but please get off your high horse and actually read my post before responding. I was hoping to actually get some interesting responses and not the same tired rhetoric. While I too support the second ammendment and appreciate your enthusiam, I just feel that washington has many more issues (above mentioned) that are more pressing. The constitution is pretty clear on the federal governments role on protecting our freedoms-to include the second ammendment. This shouldnt even be an issue, much less debated.

Dylon,
No disrespect intended to you either, but my response was in fact correct and to the point. Your hope to get a different response is odd to me, as there is in fact a push to reduce the freedoms of our populace to that of servant and elevate our government representatives to master. Yes, there are more important things our public servants could be concentrating on... but are they? No. They have set the tone and the agenda. Thus this discussion. Should this be an issue? No, but the stakes have been raised not by us but by those who are supposed to be working for us not against us.
Some day you will return to the civilian life. Will those freedoms and rights still be there for you? Or maybe your children? What about your liberty? Will you have any means to do anything? I surely hope so. Think about it.
John

Just adding a few beer thoughts...

If one wanted their child to be absolutely free...would they not need to confine them to nature mostly, if not entirely?...with societal contact only when necessary?
Isn't dealing with society itself a limitation on freedoms, if you choose to do so?
Freedom is a powerful idea, yet a simple word.
In an ideal state, should 6+ billion people have absolute freedom, to do as they choose?:...Or should freedom be limited to a worthy few?...or maybe that freedom limited for all?
So if in our quest to be as free as possible, as a society, there had to be some restrictions, obvious or not...what should those restrictions be or not?
No end to opinions there.
But in the mean time, we humans are tasked with making it all work, on a global scale...even if some choose to only think locally.

Being denied any freedom at all is one thing...to put restrictions on that freedom is another.

The freedom to protect is one thing...the freedom to wage war is another.

Either you have the freedom to wage war or not...the second amendment argument I see.

In the beginning of the U.S.A. it makes sense where those ideas came from, since armies were so limited compared to nowadays.
But nowadays one person can hold an efficiently lethal arsenal that would draw envy from the authors of those words.

There are those that feel extermination of "those" people is the only way to solve things, threat or not.
Then there are those willing to work with what we got.

Either way, you can harness society, or let it loose on itself...which do you feel would be more productive for humans?

With all options on the table at any time, how do you conduct your influence?...what do you hope to accomplish?

And for the record...you don't need absolute freedom to protect yourself...you just need to know how to protect yourself.

mucker wrote:

Just adding a few beer thoughts...

Quote :

In an ideal state, should 6+ billion people have absolute freedom, to do as they choose? ...But in the mean time, we humans are tasked with making it all work, on a global scale...even if some choose to only think locally.

The idea that a few masterminds should determine how all the countries of the world should properly be governed "to make it all work" is a bit scary to begin with. There's a reason "self determination" was a large part of American independence, and that precludes the belief in a global solution, one size fits all, mentality that looks down it's nose at "think locally" national selection of choice of governance that is "by, for, and of the People". I am reasonably certain, for example, that the people of Japan are no more interested in the American model of government than Americans want the kind of government Japan exists under.

Many of the issues raised by the alcohol-inspired musings above have been addressed by philosophers during The Enlightenment, most specifically John Locke. Which would be particularly relevant here, being as his writings were the most influential on The Founders in writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and this Gun Control topic deals with attempts to gut the Second Amendment. Of course, that would require reading something a little deeper than The Tao of Jeet Kune Do... Two Treatise On Government comes to mind. It deals very well with the concepts of freedom, rights and liberties, etc. Specific to this, it deals with what we surrender as rights when entering into a commonwealth of civil society, and far more importantly, what we do not surrender.

Quote :

Being denied any freedom at all is one thing...to put restrictions on that freedom is another.

Except of course, what is being proposed in the current context as merely minor restrictions are in fact nothing less than gross infringements on a right and freedom. "You don't need ten bullets to kill a deer" sure sounds great... just a minor restriction... except of course, the Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting in any way, shape or form.

But perhaps one should not use big words like "of course" when addressing those incapable of explaining what the words "shall not be infringed" mean when dealing with the right to bear arms and current efforts at gun control. After all, how do you propose a rational argument that justifies restricting the only right that The Founders chose to emphasis by adding the words "shall not be infringed"? "Restriction" and "shall not be infringed" would be patently exclusive of each other to most people.

Perhaps that's why the supporters of gun control don't even attempt to explain what "shall not be infringed" means to them, much less attempt to offer a rational explanation of how restrictions would be consistent with the Second Amendment.

Quote :

The freedom to protect is one thing...the freedom to wage war is another.

Either you have the freedom to wage war or not...the second amendment argument I see.

Perhaps that is a beer-inspired observation. However, nothing in the Second Amendment or the philosophical tenants that inspired the Second Amendment authorizes "waging war". Nor, for that matter, is there any evidence that the Second Amendment has ever been used to wage war.

There is however, a philosophical - and rational - basis for citizens to possess the means to overthrow THEIR government by force in self defense if that government should descend into tyranny and remove all other means to replace it. Using force to depose a government which has moved from being the peoples' servant to their master is not "waging war" - it is the most basic form of self defense of both the person and individual rights and freedoms of the people. The Founders were pretty clear that only when the option of the ballot box was taken away should recourse to the bullet box be taken. I for one have not seen any evidence of Americans resorting to the bullet box to use against their government yet. Even though it appears the ballot box is failing spectacularly these days as far as protecting truly constitutional government.

The long versions explaining this can be found by those intellectually curious enough to read Madison's Notes, The Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates held in the states prior to voting to accept the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The short story is the Founders - and the original states - felt pretty strongly about this right. Not surprisingly, considering how close the battle had been to win freedom from an overbearing, tyrannical government in the American Revolution.

Quote :

In the beginning of the U.S.A. it makes sense where those ideas came from, since armies were so limited compared to nowadays.

It apparently misses the notice of some outside the US that The Founders were concerned with the freedom to fight against enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. If a national army were feared in those days (and they were, as anyone with any knowledge of the birth of the Constitution would know), then the potential of a government controlled oppressive army today would be even more so.

Quote :

But nowadays one person can hold an efficiently lethal arsenal that would draw envy from the authors of those words.

And as they saw a vast multitude of federal government agencies stockpiling millions of rounds - enough to match the rounds expended in Afghanistan for the next hundred years or so - and entities like the EPA using drones to conduct surveillance on farmers... they would probably have desperately wanted to go back in time and put even more teeth in the Second Amendment.

Not to mention far more unassailable limitations on the powers of the federal government and the judicary.

Quote :

There are those that feel extermination of "those" people is the only way to solve things, threat or not.
Then there are those willing to work with what we got.

I'm not aware of any Second Amendment supporters, or civil liberty organization defending the Second Amendment that argues for extermination of anybody. Given the statistics compiled by those researching the results of those who use the Second Amendment to defend themselves against violent criminals, when we find that in over 99% of instances a shot isn't even fired, it doesn't seem like a whole lot of "extermination" is going on.

Therefore, I'm inclined to dismiss that comment as being nothing else then booze-inspired fear mongering having no basis whatsoever in reality.

Quote :

Either way, you can harness society, or let it loose on itself...which do you feel would be more productive for humans?

Inevitably, it always seems to fall back to resorting to Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals.

In this case, we see an inference that allowing individuals a "shall not be infringed" right to arms to defend themselves and their liberty and freedoms is somehow or other letting society "loose on itself". It would be rather like suggesting that freedom of speech and the press has opened the floodgates to child pornography, bigotry, and prejudice.

The reality is that every right and liberty will, of necessity, open the door to vicious and violent acts. The Second Amendment does open the door to firearms being used in criminal acts. Just as the Fourth and Fifth Amendments provide violent criminals with a shield that often allows them to escape the hands of the law and go on to commit further violent acts, never mind being punished for crimes already committed.

That is the price of liberty. What those demanding that some rights be severely curtailed don't want to talk about is that the freedom we grant protects us far, far more than it ever hurts us. That would be true of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, etc amendments. In the case of the Second Amendment, for example, while the oppressors want us only to look at the victims of criminals with firearms, they absolutely do not want to talk about those who outnumber the victims 100:1 or more who lawfully used a firearm to protect themselves from a violent criminal.

Quote :

With all options on the table at any time, how do you conduct your influence?...what do you hope to accomplish?

What are the "options" - demand that people rely on a 911 call (not to mention having the opportunity to make it) to summon a cop to defend them against a violent criminal, versus allowing them the right to choose a firearm over a phone for self defense? When you are just seconds away from criminal violence from the thug in front of you, how useful is a phone and the police who are at best minutes away? Assuming the dirtbag allows you the time to make a call requesting the intervention of an armed cop in the first place.

Chicago has wonderful gun control laws. Lawfully having a firearm for self defense is pretty much impossible in that city - in fact, the courts have recently ruled that their laws violate the Second Amendment. Chicago also had over 500 murders last year. It has a long history of both it's gun laws and murder on that scale in fact. It would seem that the "option" of denying people the means to effective self defense against the violent around us really is no option at all.

It is simply a victim lottery. With about 500+ citizens a year drawing the black marble of death as victims of that lottery.

Quote :

And for the record...you don't need absolute freedom to protect yourself...you just need to know how to protect yourself.

And for the record, this is the school of thought that holds that all we need to do is teach granny a little George St Pierre ground and pound mixed martial arts so she can hold her own against a couple of thugs who just got out of prison, where they spent most of their time in the muscle factory and engaging in the prison version of mixed martial arts. Tap 'em out, granny!

It's the sort of thinking usually associated with thought impaired by alcohol and/or unencumbered with real world knowledge of criminal violence.

One of the "reasonable" restrictions most heavily being pushed - and having the greatest possibility of being caved to by RINO Republicans like McCain, Boehner, et al is universal background checks.

We're supposed to ignore the fact that supplying the necessary personal information for these background checks could be used to form a pretty comprehensive registration list of everyone who purchases a firearm.

But most of all we're supposed to ignore the fact that background checks simply do not work - no more than the previous "Assault weapon" ban did. And we've been pretty helpfully aided with an example of this by the White House:



Let's ignore for the moment that the President saying he "shoots skeets" and providing that picture as proof sounds pretty weird to those of us who shoot skeet.

Let's ignore for the moment that anyone who shoots skeet (or trap) has to wonder how the hell you'll hit anything with the gun at that low an angle form any skeet station, much less where the hell is he hiding the ammunition he'd need to shoot that round of skeet. The Prez is a well known serial liar, so we don't have to pay much attention to any of that. It's one of those "he's not after your guns" types of bullshit.

What is absolutely true is that he is holding and firing a shotgun which he apparently uses in whatever shooting he does. Apparently, he passed the dealer background check at whatever store he bought it at. Let's just say it's pretty unlikely that he attended a gun show, filled with gun owners, in Chicago somewhere to take advantage of the "gun show loophole" he's always talking about.

However, one of the disqualifying conditions for passing a background check is: "An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance".

So here we have probably the most famous unlawful user of cocaine and marijuana in the world. He even openly confessed his use of cocaine and marijuana in his books - it's right there in his books that he wrote and published.

Which leaves us wondering how, when the most famous openly illegal drug user in the world can pass a background check and get a shotgun, how exactly is "universal background checks" supposed to reduce crime?

Maybe it's more about starting to collect a database of those who have legally acquired firearms (obviously, the criminals buying firearms don't normally do it through legal channels, Obama being one of the few exceptions to that truism).

Which would make it about people control, not crime control. And really, that's what gun control has always been about, right back to its racist origins.

For those of you who don't have the patience to read through long rants, here's a summary:

- Only Anglo service members can be patriots or heroes
- Only Anglo presidents can shoot skeet - others are to be hated
- Background checks are BAD for Anglos, but OK for others

Have I got it right?

dhally wrote:

For those of you who don't have the patience to read through long rants, here's a summary:

- Only Anglo service members can be patriots or heroes
- Only Anglo presidents can shoot skeet - others are to be hated
- Background checks are BAD for Anglos, but OK for others

Have I got it right?

Na...the far right is very careful in calling him anything but a ni....nice guy. They are very practiced at that.
But they have no problem ranting about how your black/muslim/immigrant/druggie president is so devious that he duped 300+ million people on his plan to give white peoples money to his unemployed immigrant friends.
and how he obviously needs to take all their guns first before implementing his commie utopia.
The fact that this smear fest began the instant they saw him compete for pres...and their hardest core members just can't let it go. Says something about their intelligence over the majority of this planet...

Then again, you could be on to something...

History lessen... USA 1964

Race had a big part in the formation of gun control in the USA. That fact does not make the injustice any better though.

dhally wrote:

For those of you who don't have the patience to read through long rants, here's a summary:

Oh dear... it's obvious from this that it isn't just the president that's doing drugs. Or following Mucker's example of doing a little writing after doing a lot of drinking.

Let's deconstruct the fumbling, shall we?

Quote :

- Only Anglo service members can be patriots or heroes

It has to be drugs. Has to be. Or maybe too much time drinking the water coming from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

Just looked back through this thread. And this post by dhally happens to be the very first to make any mention whatsoever of race. Indeed, one wonders what sort of a warped mind looks for some evidence of race and racism where no mention of race even exists, and the topic is proposed legislation that has no consideration for race.

Of course, this is all the more weird when you look up a few posts and see where I just finished arguing that being in the military doesn't automatically make you a patriot. Which leaves me wondering what dhally is smoking out there when he posts the exact opposite as his "summary".

Quote :

- Only Anglo presidents can shoot skeet - others are to be hated

Again with the race thing, despite the fact that race has not been a part of this thread until you brought it up. Why is that anyways - are you on this kick because the Klu Klux Klan rejected your membership application, or what?

Suffice it to say, you can claim you "shoot skeets" all you want - but when your photographic "proof" has the shotgun on an angle where the only thing you'd hit is the low house trap boy (race unknown), and you seem to have forgotten all your shells that would be needed when shooting skeet, all we really have is evidence you're a liar.

Quote :

- Background checks are BAD for Anglos, but OK for others

So we have a self-confessed drug user of a president, the most famous illegal drug user in the world, who can apparently pass a background check despite the fact that users of illegal drugs are not allowed to purchase firearms - even shotguns for "skeets shooting". Yet that same druggie president tells us all that background checks are necessary to screen out those who aren't supposed to have access to firearms. dhally apparently fails to see the hypocrisy and stupidity in that statement and position.

Butt somehow or other, dhally finds a race issue in all of that. Weird.

Quote :

Have I got it right?

No, you mostly got it left. In fact, it's about as dumb as the comment somebody made earlier that environmentalists are "shot on sight in China". Seems almost drug induced.

After all, when you're incapable of intelligent comment, babble about "racism" - create an issue that never did exist. Remember, your buddy Saul Alinsky did say "In the beginning the radical's first job is to create the issues or problems."

Would you care to be the first of your group of little friends brave enough to take on the task of explaining what the words "shall not be infringed" means to you, dhally?

mucker wrote:

Na...the far right is very careful in calling him anything but a ni....nice guy. They are very practiced at that.

Mucker, you have an astounding talent for instantly dropping the average IQ in the room by 20 points, simply by showing up.

Your racist crap and handwringing might have just a slight air of credibility if you said anything when Herman Cain was getting racist smears. Or when Marko Rubio was being smeared. Or Ted Kruz. But no, that doesn't bother you in the slightest - after all, they're from the "far right" and deserve what they get.

It's only racist when it's conservatives - and better yet, they don't even have to mention race and they're still automatically racists. How intelligent.

Quote :

But they have no problem ranting about how your black/muslim/immigrant/druggie president is so devious that he duped 300+ million people on his plan to give white peoples money to his unemployed immigrant friends.

Let's try a little drug rehabilitation with you as well.

First, Obama barely won the popular vote in the last election, and a large portion of voters didn't even show up at the polls. So let's dispense with the "duped 300+ million people" hallucination you're trying to share with us.

Second, tax rates - like gun control laws - do not have one set of laws for "white peoples" and another set of laws for "non-white peoples". There's no racial refund clause in his "redistribute the wealth" plan.

Third, if you bothered to look at the recipients of Obama's redistribution - Solyndra, the SIEU and other unions, etc - they are neither unemployed nor immigrants.

But, is he a druggie? Hell yes - he boasted about it.

Quote :

The fact that this smear fest began the instant they saw him compete for pres...and their hardest core members just can't let it go. Says something about their intelligence over the majority of this planet...

So he boasts about years spent in a drug and alcohol induced haze... but it's a smear to repeat that.

He has a voting record since entering politics of being extremely anti-Second Amendment - but it's a smear to report that.

He has been recorded saying he's working "under the radar" on more gun control, and seeking ways to bypass not just the Second Amendment but Congress as well - but it's a smear to repeat what he said.

Yeah, you're really dumb if you bring that up. Says something about your intelligence and all that stuff. Should be doing something more proper like giving him the Nobel Peace Prize before even taking office, or something like that.

I gotta hand it to you - you radical socialist types stick together no matter what. He could be pouring gasoline on kids, and you'd be running up to ask him if he'd like to borrow your lighter.

Quote :

Then again, you could be on to something...

More likely, you're both on something.

If you've got your whiskey courage with you tonight, would you care to take a shot at explaining what the words "shall not be infringed" mean in the Second Amendment?

IndigoWolf wrote:

Race had a big part in the formation of gun control in the USA. That fact does not make the injustice any better though.

Racism was very much at the root of gun control laws in the US. Sadly amusing, but while New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was making his "state of the union" speech a few weeks ago, he bragged about New York leading the way with great gun control laws, and mentioned the Sullivan Act by way of example.

The Sullivan Act was intended and used by Sullivan's criminal supporters in Tammany Hall, who were doing a brisk business in robbing and extorting immigrants. The immigrants had taken up the despicable practice of arming themselves for self defense, which was leading to a tragic loss of life among the Tammany Hall crowd, who were increasingly being shot and killed while attempting to ply their trade of robbery and/or extortion. The Tammany Hall crowd - not surprisingly - were Democrats and Tammany Hall was a Democrat political machine. They controlled New York politics at the time, and thus, the carrying of pistols for self defense quickly became illegal, making the immigrants once again much easier prey for the Democrat thugs feeding off them.

And Cuomo sees that as a guiding light for the world!

In the south, laws enacted shortly after the Civil War made it illegal for Negroes to own or possess firearms - they had formed the contemptible habit of shooting Kluxers out of their saddles when they showed up with a rope. I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that these laws were passed by Democrat politicians in Democrat states.

Later on, it was gun control in the coal mining districts. Striking coal miners, many immigrants, and their families were being openly fired on by strike breakers hired by the coal companies. They too picked up the disrespectful habit of arming themselves and shooting back - making strike breaking far more hazardous (and therefore, the wages more expensive) than they should be. The companies complained, and the politicians rewarded them with gun control laws aimed at disarming the coal miners. Anybody astonished to learn that, once again, these were laws brought in by Democrats?

And here we are again, Democrats once again attempting to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment. Why would we be surprised at this? Nothing new here.