Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Poll: 6 out of 10 Americans say they don't want new guns laws or stricter ones. Media: "Mixed views are found, but most people like new guns laws"   (nytimes.com ) divider line 268
    More: Fail, Americans, gun laws, mass shooting, target shooting  
•       •       •

1619 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2012 at 10:53 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



268 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-09 10:57:14 AM  

Sargun: HeadLever: Ned Stark: you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.

Correct. The Heller decision held that the prefatory clause of the 2nd does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.

Easy way to fix the obesity crisis: mandate that everyone who owns a gun (ie, the south, ie, the fat-ass rednecks) must be physically fit enough and active in a militia that trains once a week.


Methinks you missed the point. The prefatory clause (about the militia) does not limit anyone in the right detailed in the operative clause (right to bear arms).

So, no.
 
2012-08-09 11:14:31 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-09 11:53:03 AM  

spif: Dear morons. The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the people from the government.


that's not obvious. it's also been argued that the it was designed to create a fighting force to help the gov't through militias, not fight it.
 
2012-08-09 12:01:13 PM  

Loaded Six String: wookiee cookie: no evasive analogies needed. could a modern american gun revolution against the gov't be successful? yes or no. reason, observation, brain says no. i have no idea what right-wingers "think". that's why i ask. and yet this "armed populace against govt oppression" pony show is trotted out all the time

and how can something "no one thinks is realistic" also be a possiblity? is this some kind of zen koan? bc it looks like contradictory derp.

re: necessity: without picking apart the sentence for all the connotations and assumptions (which is what "unpacking" means, and is tedious and boring) in short, your statement basically refutes the reason to do anything "necessary" at all. it's nonsense. and it doesn't answer the specifics i asked for: "what conditions would make it nessa to revolt against the govt?" bueller?

but continue to evade all the specifics i wondered about in my original post (what to change in the govt with this revolution and who would lead it)

evading direct and honest questions is where right-wingers are vikings

maybe you should sober up before you attempt posting a response. drunk is not working in your favor here.

If I may interject my own response please. An armed revolution would be necessary in the circumstance of a governing body seriously restricting representation by the public in government affairs. An example would be a head of office declaring martial law, removing the cabinet from office, and delaying or abolishing the electoral process, determining all government appointment from within the government.

As to whether an armed revolt in the US would be succesful, you might be surprised. Yes it is often brought up that the government has a standing military with superior firepower, however that military is formed of soldiers who are citizens first and foremost. It is unlikely that a majority of the armed forces would obey an order to fire upon fellow citizens, especially if the example of tyranny given had occurred. Every member of the armed forces is sworn to protect the nation from all threats, foreign and domestic. That would be the difference from a revolution and a coup d' etat (sp?). An armed revolt with no tyrannical spark to set it off would be quelled as a domestic threat. Just as a government removing the representation of the citizenry is also a domestic threat.

So then there's the nitty gritty. What if the military and the armed citizenry did in fact clash? Artillery and air strikes would be out of the question as there would be too much colateral damage to innocent citizenry. Nuclear arms and biological warfare are out for the same reason, as well as being against international treaty, which would bring aid from other countries to the rebellion. So any fight would have to be waged by infantry and light armored units. Guerrilla tactics are very capable against a larger better equipped enemy. They worked in the American Revolution, the Vietnam War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any armed rebellion would be able to easily organize with use of cell phones and internet useage, unless the government has a way of removing both of those from availability. An armed rebellion's priorities would be to take control of important installations (military bases if possible, utilities, supply stations for food, fuel, ammunition, etc.) and finally march on the capitol with the intent of creating a checkmate. Government would lose control and the nation would be in turmoil. It would be a long, bloody conflict, not an easy military sweep by any stretch of the imagination. The only way the conflict would end would be government acquiescing or the decimation of the nation's population and citizenry.

Let's say the governing body concedes so we can come to the final point: what would be done to change the government in such an outcome? Most likely, the officials responsible would be put on trial or dead. Next, it would be determined by leaders of the rebellion and supportive government/ legal experts as to how the previous system failed and what measures could be done to repair or improve it, probably serious restructuring of the elective process as well as the influence of money in the government system. Then would come emergency elections and damage control/ rebuilding.

And no, I honestly do not fantasize about armed rebellion, nor am I affiliated with either of our major political parties, nor the Tea Party. Just thought I should get that out of the way before someone trips on an ad hominem and embarasses themselves. It doesn't make for good discussion.


thx, a solid response. don't fully buy it but it would make a fantastic book or movie

someone get on that
 
2012-08-09 12:11:47 PM  

Loaded Six String: Firethorn: Loaded Six String: Sorry about the wall of text, but this is something I'm quite interested and mentally invested in.

Bravo. You pretty much nailed my views on the subject as well.

Thank you. I have a concealed weapons license and my father is active in gun rights. It is one of the few things I can speak of with and informed basis and comes up more often than Star Trek :P


im also impressed. im actually fairly neutral about the gun debate, am open to both sides, and want to purchase and learn a firearm myself

it's just irritating to see a reasonable open discussion about gun control is practically verboten in this country. espcially after massacres. and clearly we have a gun violence problem.
 
2012-08-09 12:24:47 PM  

Bacontastesgood: GAT_00: The NYT promotes their own agenda, nothing else.

Couple days ago when most every news site had Curiosity and the Olympic wins as top stories, NYTimes had them as 5th-6th place, based on position and font size. No photo either.

If someone threw a rock somewhere in the West Bank, it would have been the top story.


it's these kinds of comments that make it difficult for reasonable people to take the right wing seriously
 
2012-08-09 12:35:06 PM  

wookiee cookie: Loaded Six String: Firethorn: Loaded Six String: Sorry about the wall of text, but this is something I'm quite interested and mentally invested in.

Bravo. You pretty much nailed my views on the subject as well.

Thank you. I have a concealed weapons license and my father is active in gun rights. It is one of the few things I can speak of with and informed basis and comes up more often than Star Trek :P

im also impressed. im actually fairly neutral about the gun debate, am open to both sides, and want to purchase and learn a firearm myself

it's just irritating to see a reasonable open discussion about gun control is practically verboten in this country. espcially after massacres. and clearly we have a gun violence problem.


The gun violence problem has its causes tho.
If you want to really not-talk about fixes, let's talk about ending the drug war and expanding access to mental health care. Let's talk about sex education, jobs, social security, infrastructure, and equal housing opportunities.

Because if you want to put a stop on gun violence, you do more by fixing the economy. This is something all the statisticals will tell you.
If you want to see people from both the NRA and Brady dodge an issue, lock up, or clear the room then stop talking gun bills and start talking about real issues.

Gun control is just a wedge issue that goes nowhere. That's why everyone is happy to debate it in circles.
 
2012-08-09 12:37:51 PM  
I love how the folks who claim "gun free zones" should be outlawed tend to also be the folks who think allowing smoking in a business should be the property owners' right.

Rather than stricter gun control (though better tracking of legally purchased weapons would not be a bad thing as it'd protect owners to some extent if their weapons were stolen.) Some sort of system similar to license plates would be a good idea; guns come with ownership documentation and transfers of ownership need to be reported to the state. Though given the quantity of guns in the U.S. I'm not sure if it's feasible to set up such a system.
 
2012-08-09 01:00:35 PM  

mokinokaro: I love how the folks who claim "gun free zones" should be outlawed tend to also be the folks who think allowing smoking in a business should be the property owners' right.

Rather than stricter gun control (though better tracking of legally purchased weapons would not be a bad thing as it'd protect owners to some extent if their weapons were stolen.) Some sort of system similar to license plates would be a good idea; guns come with ownership documentation and transfers of ownership need to be reported to the state. Though given the quantity of guns in the U.S. I'm not sure if it's feasible to set up such a system.


What you just said was "Rather than using system A, we should use something exactly like System A."
 
2012-08-09 03:50:49 PM  

LasersHurt: BeesNuts: So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:
[img805.imageshack.us image 496x231]

You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"

So the only possible interpretation isn't the obvious one, but the convoluted one that relies on what they really meant, like, man.


... no. I mean... do you think that it makes sense to say that regulating arms is necessary in keeping a free state, or do you think it makes sense to say that keeping an able-bodied militia with all the requisite equipment to defend themselves is necessary?

Which do you think makes more sense?

Alternatively, for the grammar-inclined:
The second amendment begins with what is traditionally known as an absolutive clausal adjunct - a gerund-participial clause functioning as an adjunct in clause structure. It is understood as if it began with since or because or in view of the fact that (notice that Our situation being hopeless, we surrendered means "Since our situation was hopeless, we surrendered). In this context, "Since a well regulated militia is necessary in keeping a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." Now, frankly, it wouldn't matter if the sentence read:

"Colorful tattoos and grandfather clocks being totally kick ass, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged"

And the function of the amendment would be unchanged. When coming to SC decisions, the purpose clause is our only legal view into the minds of the framers. Otherwise we have to go to secondary sources and try and suss out some kind of agreement on the topic (there was none).

It doesn't rightly matter what they "really meant, man" when they describe the militia as well regulated. But the explanation of the terminology provided above is accurate, accepted, well documented, and supported by over a century and a half of case law in this country.

So I guess believe what you, like, want, man.
 
2012-08-09 03:55:18 PM  

Loaded Six String: rohar: Loaded Six String: LasersHurt: BeesNuts: So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:
[img805.imageshack.us image 496x231]

You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"

So the only possible interpretation isn't the obvious one, but the convoluted one that relies on what they really meant, like, man.

Convoluted in what way? Had the prefatory clause read "In order to ensure that much ass may be kicked, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the amendment would not change in any meaningful way. The right of the people shall not be infringed, regardless of the reason given for that right to be protected constitutionally.

This is honestly a silly argument over nothing. The bigger question is: Does the bill of rights grant the federal government any powers?

I'd suggest it does not, every decision the supreme court has ever made on the bill of rights proves as much. To that end, the argument over regulation, in the 2nd amendment, is silly.

I tend to agree. The Bill of Rights does not grant the federal government powers. It is a list of rights which no governing body in the nation can restrict or absolve without going through the necessary amendment process.


Also this. By and large the bill of rights is a list of things that are "Not To Be Farked With". It's our magna carta. Our sacrosanct principles. Our line in the sand.

It's not that it gives us rights. It's protects those rights from the tyranny of politics. At least, ostensibly that's what it does. In reality it's really only the first two amendments, cause remembering ten things is hard, so we just do speech and guns. And those two are not so much used as protection as they are used as political footballs to get ambitious people elected.

que sera, sera.
 
2012-08-09 03:57:02 PM  

redmid17: First of all its completely legal to call a cop an asshole. If you get arrested for that, enjoy the money from your lawsuit.


Never gotten a DC, have we?

Or if the cop is in the middle of "business" you might just get an obstruction charge thrown down and then all bets are off.
 
2012-08-09 04:07:21 PM  

BeesNuts: redmid17: First of all its completely legal to call a cop an asshole. If you get arrested for that, enjoy the money from your lawsuit.

Never gotten a DC, have we?

Or if the cop is in the middle of "business" you might just get an obstruction charge thrown down and then all bets are off.


You don't read much do you:

Link

Link

Link

If you can tell a call to go fark himself or flip him off, I feel pretty safe calling a cop an asshole. Hell I've even done it before without getting arrested, though it helped that the senior patrol dude basically told the junior officer he was wasting their time. Like I said, feel free to collect your settlement when all is said and done.

"A famous 1971 Supreme Court case upheld the right of a young man to enter the Los Angeles County Court House wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words 'F___ the Draft.' "
 
2012-08-09 05:06:42 PM  

redmid17: BeesNuts: redmid17: First of all its completely legal to call a cop an asshole. If you get arrested for that, enjoy the money from your lawsuit.

Never gotten a DC, have we?

Or if the cop is in the middle of "business" you might just get an obstruction charge thrown down and then all bets are off.

You don't read much do you:

Link

Link

Link

If you can tell a call to go fark himself or flip him off, I feel pretty safe calling a cop an asshole. Hell I've even done it before without getting arrested, though it helped that the senior patrol dude basically told the junior officer he was wasting their time. Like I said, feel free to collect your settlement when all is said and done.

"A famous 1971 Supreme Court case upheld the right of a young man to enter the Los Angeles County Court House wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words 'F___ the Draft.' "


That's what manufactured charges are for. The Disorderly Conduct charge has been a catch all for Contempt of Cop for a while now.

Should we be able to tell a cop to fark off without concern? Absolutely. In reality, make sure you have witnesses or footage of the whole thing, or else how would one prove that one didn't make physical contact with the officer, or that one didn't threaten him with violence?

"its completely legal to call a cop an asshole." True.
"If you get arrested for that, enjoy the money from your lawsuit." Also true.

But you won't get arrested for that. You'd get arrested (or ticketed) for something else entirely.

/I'm kind of just saying "don't press your luck when it comes to the police."
//Really? Of course I read. Plenty. I'm on fark, aren't I?
///Just finished Wealth of Nations and The Prince and I'm moving on to Don Quixote, thankyouverymuch
 
2012-08-09 08:28:41 PM  

James F. Campbell: a certain gun nut who frequents this site got a vacation (I think/hope) after threatening me.


A certain set of muslims blew up the WTC. What's your point?
 
2012-08-09 08:46:41 PM  
CPennypacker Wait, so your point is it could have been more deadly if he didn't have access to semi-automatic firepower with 100 drum magazines?


yes. (you mean the 100 rd drum that jammed after 20 rounds?)

....like I said,ask Timothy Veigh.


Guns are NOT the best choice for mass killing. Not even close.
All the top mass killings in US history were caused by:
Planes/box-cutters (9/11 Terrorists) 3000 dead
Gasoline (hotel arson) 100 dead
Gasoline (nightclub arson) 87 dead
TNT (Bath Michigan School bombing) 55 dead
Fertilizer/rental truck (Oklahoma federal building) 170 dead

It is a GOOD thing that these psychos have these idiotic "terminator" murder fantasies. Their own sociopathic delusion ACTUALLY saves lives.

I say keep the myth alive.
Fewer will die.
 
2012-08-10 12:59:08 AM  

craigdamage: Let us imagine that somehow Holmes couldn't spend the thousands of dollars he did on guns and ammo and tactical gear. Some gun-law thwarted his "shoot fantasy"


Would that have somehow made him LESS sociopathic? Less violent?


Instead of leaving the exit propped open....he BLOCKS the exit somehow. Instead of returning through the front dressed and armed all "terminator" style he shows up with gallon cans of gasoline and makeshift fuses.....


....instead of 12 dead and 58 injured,


we now have a HUNDRED dead and HUNDREDS injured.


Same with Cho at Virginia Tech. The most diabolical thing Cho did on his rampage was NOT his selecting a Glock 9mm...it was how he chained shut the corridor doors as he passed from hall to hall. Again,imagine Cho with NO gun but containers of gas or kerosene...etc. Multiple fires in all the building wings and sealed exits. He would have quadrupled his body count easily.

Every victim who died at Virginia tech had at least THREE gunshot wounds. Many survived with 3-4 bullet wounds. He wasted his time with a gun. Period.


Just ask Timothy McVeigh.


This is my line of thinking. If Hollywood and the Liberal MSM Mainsteam Media™ didn't plant in the heads of these nuts that billion round assault murderdeathkill rifles are the ultimate killing weapons, the carnage would be much, much worse. You should all be thanking Bruce Willis and 20/20 for their public service.

Like the real Joker said, dynamite and gunpowder and gasoline, are cheap.
 
2012-08-10 07:39:44 AM  

magusdevil: LasersHurt: So everyone in the reserves and JROTC and such can have a gun. Could be worse.

I'm personally willing to expand that. Anyone who is willing to go to basic training, pass an annual physical, qualify annually on a physical training test, and qualify with their personal weapons on a range (all at their own expense) should be allowed to own non-hunting weapons. I think that's reasonable gun control.


You're both missing the 'people' part of the 2nd.

Personally, I'd institute mandatory gun safety and usage training in schools and expand the CMP(Civilian Marksmanship Program). After that, actually build a functional reform system in prisons, have schools that actually educate, and a functional mental health system.
 
Displayed 18 of 268 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report