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.

(American Thinker)   The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion   (americanthinker.com) divider line 502
    More: Obvious, Framers of the Constitution, second amendment, due process clause, target shooting, Constitution of the United States, importance, U.S. Supreme Court, faiths  
•       •       •

1726 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 8:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-03 08:14:59 AM  
I'm sure there's more of a point to that 225-year old "oldnewsisexciting.jpg" statement, but I'm sure as hell not clicking the article to find out what it might be.
 
2012-12-03 08:19:27 AM  
Militia Clause.
 
2012-12-03 08:21:01 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.


*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.
 
2012-12-03 08:22:00 AM  
the right to practice religion and be free from government-sanctioned religion. the establishment cause cuts two ways, submitter.
 
2012-12-03 08:30:22 AM  
True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads
 
2012-12-03 08:30:47 AM  
The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion*

*Offer not valid to muslims 
 
2012-12-03 08:33:32 AM  

whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads


You are completely correct. The problem is that you're trying to reason with people who probably think this is a documentary.
 
2012-12-03 08:34:58 AM  
thismodernworld.com
/oblig
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 08:39:53 AM  
Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.
 
2012-12-03 08:42:22 AM  

GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.


It's a justification, not a limitation.
 
2012-12-03 08:43:19 AM  
I might have believed this, prior to the Stinker trying to tell me. Now I wouldn't be so sure.
 
2012-12-03 08:44:37 AM  

vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.


I'm in a militia. We meet every week to chat about American Idol and the latest Twilight gossip.
 
2012-12-03 08:45:01 AM  
Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.
 
2012-12-03 08:46:08 AM  

vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.


exactly. and there wasn't police around everywhere like there is now. there also wasn't instant communication. and most people back then lived out on their own for the most part. they had farms and had to deal with wild animals and such. I personally think people should be able to have a gun. but it should not be that easy to get. you should have to undergo a psych eval. and carry liability insurance.
 
2012-12-03 08:46:08 AM  

dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.


Huh?

If you have to justify an action, aren't you limiting all the other ways in which that action can be done that do not fall under the justifying circumstances?
 
2012-12-03 08:46:25 AM  

Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.


This is America. We invent our own threats. Several at a time.
 
2012-12-03 08:47:42 AM  
The Founders also though a large standing army was a grave threat to liberty.
 
2012-12-03 08:47:50 AM  

Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.


Yeah, I'm still waiting for one of these articles to give an actual, documented example of how the Obama Administration is moving to take guns away from their owners, not just "HERP A DERP NOW THAT HE'S BEEN ELECTED FARTBONGO IS GONNA SEND HIS GAY NAZI MUSLIN COMMIE STORMTROOPERS TO GET YOUR GUN"
 
2012-12-03 08:47:52 AM  
NOWAI

/it's not news...
 
2012-12-03 08:48:07 AM  
If you love 1787 so much, why don't you marry it?
 
2012-12-03 08:48:33 AM  

Cythraul: dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

Huh?

If you have to justify an action, aren't you limiting all the other ways in which that action can be done that do not fall under the justifying circumstances?


and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure.
 
2012-12-03 08:48:56 AM  
Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Can't threaten to hurt people.
Can't commit slander/libel.
Can't do the above and claim religious immunity.
Can't kill people and claim religious immunity.
Can't rape people and claim religious immunity.
 
2012-12-03 08:49:55 AM  
GUN PR0N THREAD
 
2012-12-03 08:50:12 AM  
They lived in an era when your typical American would have starved to death without a gun.So,yeah, it was probably up there with other important stuff.
 
2012-12-03 08:50:28 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Can't threaten to hurt people.
Can't commit slander/libel.
Can't do the above and claim religious immunity.
Can't kill people and claim religious immunity.
Can't rape people and claim religious immunity.


BUT I HAVE RIGHTS!!!!
 
2012-12-03 08:50:51 AM  

whistleridge: The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.


There is a specific process to do that. It requires 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress, and ratification by the legislatures of 75% of the states. We've amended the Constitution 17 times since the original 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights were ratified.

The Constitution *IS* a living document, in the sense that it can be changed to suite modern times, but you can't just say "Oh, well, we know better, so we'll just ignore the parts we don't like". The founding fathers understood that times change, and they also understood that people sometimes panic and do stupid things for transient issues, so they made the Constitution changeable, but not *EASILY* changeable.

It's brilliant, actually: It's hard enough to change it that the latest panic about whatever can't be easily written into it, but for long term changes (like stopping slavery, giving women the right to vote, etc.), you can change it. I'd say the only real exception to the "latest panic" in history was the Volstead Act, and we all know what problems that caused.
 
2012-12-03 08:51:16 AM  

dittybopper: It's a justification, not a limitation.


What in the hell does this even mean? If that is the reasoning behind the clause, then that is the justification and...thus...the limitation for stating the reason.

If they wanted to provide justification without the specific limitation, they would've left the "militia" clause out of the entire goddamn thing or they would've put "or for the defense of themselves". They didn't.

The right to keep and bear arms is important within the organization of a well-regulated militia. That's what the goddamn amendment says.
 
2012-12-03 08:51:40 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Can't rape people and claim religious immunity.


www.wgbh.org
Cardinal Law frowns on your shenanigans.
 
2012-12-03 08:52:00 AM  
Your blog sucks.
 
2012-12-03 08:52:10 AM  

Lansydyr: [thismodernworld.com image 720x672]
/oblig


Well...they're right, in a way. It's true: guns don't kill people, any more than chainsaws, lathes, forklifts, or any other piece of powered equipment kills people. A gun is just a machine. In fact, a machine gun has a lot in common with a lathe.

But the people...Jesus Loving Christ, the people...

What the gun nuts don't seem to understand is, it's not your guns that I'm worried about, asshole. It's you.

Your often-stated belief that Armageddon will happen in your lifetime. Your fervent endorsement of literally unhinged candidates like Palin, Santorum, Rand Paul, and Bachmann. Your honest acceptance of the idea that Barack Obama is the WORST. PRESIDENT. EVAR. Your total disregard for the environment. Your utter lack of understanding of basic financial principles. The way you think you can cut taxes, increase military spending, AND balance the budget - while fighting two wars. Your constant harping on how bad it is that teachers can't lead classroom prayers and Creationism isn't taught in school, while simultaneously complaining that Islam is beginning to pervade government and we're secretly trending towards sharia law. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SHARIA IS.

And this isn't about you being 'conservative', either. Reagan was a conservative's conservative. I didn't like him, but I could work for him. George H. W. Bush was a conservative, and while I didn't agree with his fiscal policies I did and do respect the hell out of the man. He's everything a proud public servant should embody. I don't agree with all conservative policies, but I acknowledge there is underlying logic to many of them, and - pay attention, because this is important - I can work with them.

But you...you're ignorant, uneducated, absolutist, utterly unwilling to compromise, and apparently divorced from reality. And no...I don't want you to have a gun. If you honestly think Obama was born in Kenya, the Ryan Budget can work, and war with Iran is inevitable, you aren't safe to trust with a bb gun, much less an assault rifle.
 
2012-12-03 08:52:21 AM  
American Stinker- Those who brought you this gem: "What's with the revenge theme coming from two successful black multimillionaires? First it was Barack Obama. Now Beyonce has posted this vengeful message on her Tumblr account following Romney's defeat:
Take That Mitches".


American Stinker, beating back the uppity ni**ers since 1776!
 
2012-12-03 08:52:23 AM  

vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.


No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.
 
2012-12-03 08:52:58 AM  
www.californiauctioneers.com
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.
 
2012-12-03 08:53:14 AM  

dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.


Strange that no other amendment needed a "justification". Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting.
 
2012-12-03 08:53:38 AM  

bulldg4life: dittybopper: It's a justification, not a limitation.

What in the hell does this even mean? If that is the reasoning behind the clause, then that is the justification and...thus...the limitation for stating the reason.

If they wanted to provide justification without the specific limitation, they would've left the "militia" clause out of the entire goddamn thing or they would've put "or for the defense of themselves". They didn't.

The right to keep and bear arms is important within the organization of a well-regulated militia. That's what the goddamn amendment says.


yep. my interpretation of that is that it requires membership into a group like police or national guard. a state sanctioned force.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 08:54:11 AM  

dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.


It explains exactly what they were trying to accomplish, so yes, it's a limitation.
 
2012-12-03 08:54:26 AM  

Hobodeluxe: and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure.


"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"

Whoever wrote the above is a commie socialist freedom hating bastard.
 
2012-12-03 08:54:35 AM  

whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).


Maybe you mean to say that blacks counted as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes (as in, how many seats a state got in the House and how many EVs a state got). Slaves didn't have the right to vote, and any white man with property that did still only got one vote. 

This is actually a common misconception...even TDS got it wrong, for humor ("I cast my 5 slaves' 3 votes for James K. Polk"). If people who made the misconception were correct, then women and children would have been voting as well (as they are counted as "free persons" in that clause of the Constitution, despite not having the right to vote.)
 
2012-12-03 08:54:39 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-03 08:55:39 AM  
I'll.... buy that, sure.

Though I'd put the first amendment and all that it covers, along with equal protection, before the right to bear arms.
 
2012-12-03 08:56:41 AM  
That's right subby, the "Framers" all shared one consciousness and agreed on every single aspect of the Constitution.

/read a book, dumb ass
//I support gun ownership
///but not ignorance
 
2012-12-03 08:56:56 AM  
Guns are like abortions. If you don't want one . Don't get one.

/ Only one these was written into the Constitution. They other one was mined out of abstraction.
 
2012-12-03 08:56:58 AM  

whistleridge: What the gun nuts don't seem to understand is, it's not your guns that I'm worried about, asshole. It's you.


If you're worried about me, then the guns are irrelevant, because I have any number of things I can quickly and efficiently kill you with.

Failing that, I could just make a gun. It's not that hard: Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made with tools and materials far inferior to what you can find at your local Home Depot. I could make a dandy single shot zip gun with some steel gas pipe, a few hardware doo-dads, some strike-anywhere matches, and maybe a chunk of wood for a stock, and that gun will kill you just as dead as the latest polymer-framed "Wonder Nine".
 
2012-12-03 08:57:09 AM  

dittybopper: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.


rjw57.github.com
 
2012-12-03 08:57:33 AM  
It must be horrible to live in a world when even when "your side" wins, it's just a terrible reminder of how you might one day lose.
 
2012-12-03 08:57:52 AM  

dittybopper: No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.


Saying it repeatedly doesn't make it true.
 
2012-12-03 08:58:02 AM  
Guys, they discussed all of this on paper. You don't have to speculate or bring up fossil firearms.

What they felt was important was to maintain a certain level of the ability to do violence at the grassroots level, to mitigate the imbalance of power that exists whenever you have a government.
Governments always have the capacity to exert physical force. The 2nd amendment is to preserve the people's right to use physical force if necessary, both for self defense and as an impediment for tyrannical rulers.

They have discussed this at great length and in a number of important books and papers. Instead of speculating about what they meant, you should read the documents they wrote to explain themselves.

/scholarship- it works, biatches.
 
2012-12-03 08:58:30 AM  

dittybopper: whistleridge: What the gun nuts don't seem to understand is, it's not your guns that I'm worried about, asshole. It's you.

If you're worried about me, then the guns are irrelevant, because I have any number of things I can quickly and efficiently kill you with.

Failing that, I could just make a gun. It's not that hard: Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made with tools and materials far inferior to what you can find at your local Home Depot. I could make a dandy single shot zip gun with some steel gas pipe, a few hardware doo-dads, some strike-anywhere matches, and maybe a chunk of wood for a stock, and that gun will kill you just as dead as the latest polymer-framed "Wonder Nine".


I can also make large bombs with common materials, so those should be perfectly legal too, right?
 
2012-12-03 08:59:23 AM  

ChaoticLimbs: Guys, they discussed all of this on paper. You don't have to speculate or bring up fossil firearms.

What they felt was important was to maintain a certain level of the ability to do violence at the grassroots level, to mitigate the imbalance of power that exists whenever you have a government.
Governments always have the capacity to exert physical force. The 2nd amendment is to preserve the people's right to use physical force if necessary, both for self defense and as an impediment for tyrannical rulers.

They have discussed this at great length and in a number of important books and papers. Instead of speculating about what they meant, you should read the documents they wrote to explain themselves.

/scholarship- it works, biatches.


Them's just sissy communist words..
 
2012-12-03 08:59:24 AM  
If only Button Gwinnett wasn't killed in a duel in 1777 things woulda been different.

/damn you Lachlan McIntosh
 
2012-12-03 08:59:52 AM  

IlGreven: whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

Maybe you mean to say that blacks counted as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes (as in, how many seats a state got in the House and how many EVs a state got). Slaves didn't have the right to vote, and any white man with property that did still only got one vote. 

This is actually a common misconception...even TDS got it wrong, for humor ("I cast my 5 slaves' 3 votes for James K. Polk"). If people who made the misconception were correct, then women and children would have been voting as well (as they are counted as "free persons" in that clause of the Constitution, despite not having the right to vote.)


Ding! Ding! You win the prize!

I always like to state one counter-argument totally wrong in these idiot threads, just to see if people actually have the first idea of what they're talking about. :p

My degree is history, and I did my honors thesis on the Constitution and its Amendments. I know it's for apportionment only. It's also why Gerrymandering was basically a northern-only peculiarity prior to the Civil War. Slaves not moving that much and all...

I started to say 'they thought that Senators should be elected by state legislatures', but decided the above would be more fun. Glad to see someone is awake and thinking this morning :)
 
2012-12-03 09:01:22 AM  
I watched a Charlie Rose interview with Scalia. Rose asked him when did the politicization and polarization regarding the SCOTUS begin and when will it end?

Scalia answered it started with the Bork nomination. And he said it won't end until his side--the side that says the Constitution should not be modified by SCOTUS opinion--wins.

There is no hope left. The SCOTUS is the only political contest that cannot be "primaried" if an official makes a bad decision.
 
2012-12-03 09:02:24 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: And he said it won't end until his side--the side that says the Constitution should not be modified by SCOTUS opinion--wins.


Ah Scalia. The strict constitutionalist who happens to only be strict when it is a view he agrees with
 
2012-12-03 09:02:47 AM  
What non-existent threat is American Thinker wetting its pants over this time?
 
2012-12-03 09:02:51 AM  

Cythraul: I'm in a militia. We meet every week to chat about American Idol and the latest Twilight gossip.


Sounds pretty well regulated.
 
2012-12-03 09:03:04 AM  

whistleridge:
I always like to state one counter-argument totally wrong in these idiot threads, just to see if people actually have the first idea of what they're talking about. :p

My degree is history, and I did my honors thesis on the Constitution and its Amendments.


Well aren't you just the most precious little man.
 
2012-12-03 09:03:07 AM  
Maybe the most reasonable article to ever come out of American Thinker. I don't necessarily agree with it, nor do I think trashy reality shows are saving our freedoms, but I never once looked off in the corner and said "What the fark am I reading?"
 
2012-12-03 09:04:03 AM  

dittybopper: whistleridge: What the gun nuts don't seem to understand is, it's not your guns that I'm worried about, asshole. It's you.

If you're worried about me, then the guns are irrelevant, because I have any number of things I can quickly and efficiently kill you with.

Failing that, I could just make a gun. It's not that hard: Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made with tools and materials far inferior to what you can find at your local Home Depot. I could make a dandy single shot zip gun with some steel gas pipe, a few hardware doo-dads, some strike-anywhere matches, and maybe a chunk of wood for a stock, and that gun will kill you just as dead as the latest polymer-framed "Wonder Nine".


So...you agree with my point then? Got it.
 
2012-12-03 09:04:26 AM  

whatsupchuck: I might have believed this, prior to the Stinker trying to tell me. Now I wouldn't be so sure.


THIS.
 
2012-12-03 09:04:30 AM  
What caused this reversal of liberal dogma? Why is "gun control" now a dirty word and a guaranteed political loser?

Because they tried it, got smacked down, realized that it wasn't a winner, and stopped pushing it.

I mean, it was a stupid issue to be pushing in the first place, but in all fairness that describes every hot-button issue ever and it has nothing to do with why they stopped.

If the crazy right-wingers were less outright stupid, they'd maybe take a lesson from this and apply it to, say, the abortion issue. When something's been explicitly resolved by the courts and voters multiple time, it's maybe time to shelve it for a while.
 
2012-12-03 09:07:56 AM  
On the one hand, I'm completely pro-Second Amendment but not a gun owner, and as such I don't really have a horse in this race. On the other hand, American Potato doesn't recognise the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment (the one that says that brown and gay people are human beings), so I just want to say that their hypocritical cherry-picking asses can bite me.

The way these farknuggets wildly masturbate to some parts of the Constitution and completely ignore the rest annoys me even more than the birther bullshiat. The Constitution is not the bloody Bible, it just doesn't work that way.
 
2012-12-03 09:09:24 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I watched a Charlie Rose interview with Scalia. Rose asked him when did the politicization and polarization regarding the SCOTUS begin and when will it end?

Scalia answered it started with the Bork nomination. And he said it won't end until his side--the side that says the Constitution should not be modified by SCOTUS opinion--wins.

There is no hope left. The SCOTUS is the only political contest that cannot be "primaried" if an official makes a bad decision.


Which is why we need SCOTUS term limits, IMHO. 18 year terms, a new justice every two years. Every President gets to put 2 on the court automatically, and there's no fears of having the court locked up for a generation for one side or the other.

It wouldn't greatly alter the composition of the court in a historical sense. The average age of newly appointed justices is about 53, which would get most justices out around retirement age. And it would get around the roadblocking that has begun to pop up since the 70's. Prior to that, the average term for a justice was something like 15 years; since 1970 the average length of service has jumped up big time to something like 25-26 years.
 
2012-12-03 09:10:22 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.

This is America. We invent our own threats. Several at a time.



If only there was an excellent 3 part BBC documentary on exactly this, free on Youtube.

blackandbrownnews.com.
 
2012-12-03 09:10:59 AM  
craigrwhitney.com

/a little slow in places, but makes some interesting points
 
2012-12-03 09:11:07 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: On the one hand, I'm completely pro-Second Amendment but not a gun owner, and as such I don't really have a horse in this race.


"This race" being the inevitable pro-gun vs anti-gun fight in this thread. I didn't read TFA, obviously. :P
 
2012-12-03 09:14:58 AM  
FTA: The sole purpose of this trust would be to finance Second Amendment attorneys to prosecute litigation designed to result in judicial decisions affirming the Constitutional right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

I envisioned raising public, legislative, and judicial knowledge and awareness of the origin of, and the meaning of, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I was looking forward to hiring Second Amendment scholars to identify what we believed to be Second Amendment violations, and to persuading people to whom injustice had been done to become the plaintiffs in our crusade to advance liberty in America by dusting off and exalting the Second Amendment.


Had this been the first amendment you'd be the ACLU or calling yourself a ambulance chaser.
 
2012-12-03 09:15:38 AM  
That doesn't matter!
Only what the bible says matters, and Moses wasn't packing heat.
 
2012-12-03 09:15:43 AM  
"firearm" nope. try reading the text. "Arms", with a capital A

Arms= abbreviation of Armaments.

Notice how none of the right wing derpers ignore that they are already banned from owning nukes, chem/bio weapons, heavy ordnance, etc.
 
2012-12-03 09:17:32 AM  
There's been gun control since this country was founded. Entire towns would ban guns, and you'd have to give your gun to the Sheriff when you came to the town.

I'm in favor of gun ownership, but the 2nd Amendment was not intended the way that people now claim it's intended.
 
2012-12-03 09:17:58 AM  
a.abcnews.com

At least the framers of the Constitution understand me.
 
2012-12-03 09:19:22 AM  

Leader O'Cola: "firearm" nope. try reading the text. "Arms", with a capital A

Arms= abbreviation of Armaments.

Notice how none of the right wing derpers ignore that they are already banned from owning nukes, chem/bio weapons, heavy ordnance, etc.



It'll be interesting to see what the argument about hand-held laser weapons will be, which will be with us in 30 years or so. Are they a nukey-style arm ("Ban them! Especially from foreighns!") or a bullet gun ("MORE! MORE!").

Actually, what's the argument for tasers? I'm not in the US, but to people consider taser ownership a "right"?
 
2012-12-03 09:19:48 AM  
Anyone Else read this as "Farmers of the Constitution"?
 
2012-12-03 09:20:10 AM  

roadkillontheweb: That doesn't matter!
Only what the bible says matters, and Moses wasn't packing heat.


writemiddleeast.files.wordpress.com
Moses is gonna wack you upside the head if you try to take his staff away.
 
2012-12-03 09:21:16 AM  

GAT_00: *shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.


No you aren't you disingenuous tart. You're supposed to recognize that the "no infrigement" clause refers NOT to the militia, but to "the people".

There is a reason for that. If they had meant the right to be only for the militia, they would have said so.
This is elementary school reading and comprehension you are failing at.
 
2012-12-03 09:22:49 AM  

Cythraul: If you have to justify an action, aren't you limiting all the other ways in which that action can be done that do not fall under the justifying circumstances?


Not when you say, "the right of **the people**...will not be infringed."
 
2012-12-03 09:23:00 AM  
Actually, no it wasn't in their original plans. It was added as an amendment in order to get enough States to ratify the constitution.
 
2012-12-03 09:24:01 AM  
Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-12-03 09:24:21 AM  

Hobodeluxe: and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure.


"The People" ≠ "A Militia" Even tho a militia is comprised of the people.
 
2012-12-03 09:24:26 AM  

the_foo: [craigrwhitney.com image 200x302]

/a little slow in places, but makes some interesting points


Most of us libby lib liberals live just fine with guns.

It's the buck-toothed inbred lunatics who are constantly screaming that somebody's coming to take them or that everybody who thinks there should be any measure at all to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people that we have a problem with.
 
2012-12-03 09:25:06 AM  

vpb: It explains exactly what they were trying to accomplish, so yes, it's a limitation.


No, it isn't.
 
2012-12-03 09:25:36 AM  
If conservatives think guns are far and away the most important thing, then why don't they do more to reduce crime? Why do conservatives instead want to cut social spending and all the other things that help reduce the crime rate? If the crime rate was at all time lows, then there wouldn't be any substance to the argument to ban guns.
 
2012-12-03 09:26:19 AM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion*

*Offer not valid to muslims


From that article:

Rather than allowing the building of more mega-mosques in the United States, we should halt existing projects and seriously consider shutting down existing mosques to prevent the proliferation of an ideology that has publicly pledged to destroy America.

Because freedom.
 
2012-12-03 09:27:59 AM  
No one is trying to take your guns. Seriously. Chill.
 
2012-12-03 09:28:08 AM  

s2s2s2: vpb: It explains exactly what they were trying to accomplish, so yes, it's a limitation.

No, it isn't.


Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind?
 
2012-12-03 09:28:48 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting


Which other amendments say "the right of the people will not be infringed" as a limitation on "the people"? Did they not know what "infringed" means?

infringe |inˈfrinj|
verb ( infringes, infringing, infringed ) [ with obj. ]
• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

How odd!
 
2012-12-03 09:29:12 AM  
When it comes to the Constitution, I think we need to be very strict in our interpretation. So I think the second amendmant does allow for personal ownership of guns. But because I am so strict in my interpretation, I think it should be restricted only the guns available at the time the Constitution was written. In other words, you can own all the flint-lock rifles you want. Hell, you can have cannons as well. Basically, all blackpowder weapons. Anything else wasn't mention in the constitutions, so can be fully regulated. Knock yourself out with your smooth bore muskets.
 
2012-12-03 09:29:24 AM  

mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]


Yes, it was totally inappropriate the way he discussed a relevant story that was recent. That kind of discussion is reserved for quiet rooms rented out by the NRA. For a Constitution circle jerk, you sure are hating on that First Amendment awfully hard.
 
2012-12-03 09:29:37 AM  

dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.


Worth reiterating.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" probably fell over the crowd like a wet blanket before somebody said, "Why?"

And then someone said "well, a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state, for starters."

And another was all "That's pretty good, let's work with that."

Then they probably went HERE HERE and called in the whores.
 
2012-12-03 09:30:49 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind?


Yes, I do.
 
2012-12-03 09:31:23 AM  

mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]


I always forget that one of the rules of responsible gun ownership is never talking about gun violence.

If you bring it up shortly after the gun owner murders people, you're being insensitive and capitalizing on tragedy. If you bring it up awhile after the gun owner murders people, it's old news and can't you just shut up, liberal?
 
2012-12-03 09:31:38 AM  

mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]


Yes, because we should never talk about gun control after a recent tragedy involving guns. Which also means we will NEVER talk about gun control, since there's ALWAYS a recent tragedy involving guns.
 
2012-12-03 09:31:46 AM  

Bungles: Leader O'Cola: "firearm" nope. try reading the text. "Arms", with a capital A

Arms= abbreviation of Armaments.

Notice how none of the right wing derpers ignore that they are already banned from owning nukes, chem/bio weapons, heavy ordnance, etc.


It'll be interesting to see what the argument about hand-held laser weapons will be, which will be with us in 30 years or so. Are they a nukey-style arm ("Ban them! Especially from foreighns!") or a bullet gun ("MORE! MORE!").

Actually, what's the argument for tasers? I'm not in the US, but to people consider taser ownership a "right"?


Generally speaking, the second amendment is considered to cover personal armaments. Things one person can carry that can only reasonably target one person. Guns are the ones that usually come up because they're the most... equalizing of the personal arms, but technically it covers swords, knives, bows and arrows, tasers, pepper spray and so on.

Is it slightly arbitrary? Yeah. But so is the line where we allow restriction of the first amendment.
 
2012-12-03 09:31:58 AM  

Bungles: Leader O'Cola: "firearm" nope. try reading the text. "Arms", with a capital A

Arms= abbreviation of Armaments.

Notice how none of the right wing derpers ignore that they are already banned from owning nukes, chem/bio weapons, heavy ordnance, etc.


It'll be interesting to see what the argument about hand-held laser weapons will be, which will be with us in 30 years or so. Are they a nukey-style arm ("Ban them! Especially from foreighns!") or a bullet gun ("MORE! MORE!").

Actually, what's the argument for tasers? I'm not in the US, but to people consider taser ownership a "right"?


I don't think laser guns will be all that much fun, because they aren't going to be your slow Star Wars beams. It'll be like deadly laser tag. No recoil. No nothing. Hell the laser may even cauterize the would it causes.
 
2012-12-03 09:32:13 AM  
so?
 
2012-12-03 09:33:17 AM  

s2s2s2: Tyrone Slothrop: Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting

Which other amendments say "the right of the people will not be infringed" as a limitation on "the people"? Did they not know what "infringed" means?

infringe |inˈfrinj|
verb ( infringes, infringing, infringed ) [ with obj. ]
• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

How odd!


Nukes for everyone!
 
2012-12-03 09:33:35 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion*

*Offer not valid to muslims

From that article:

Rather than allowing the building of more mega-mosques in the United States, we should halt existing projects and seriously consider shutting down existing mosques to prevent the proliferation of an ideology that has publicly pledged to destroy America.

Because freedom.


Now THAT'S the blatant hypocrisy that I've come to known and expect from American Thinker. 

Seriously though, did we just step back into the 1990's? I thought we all agreed that gun control is a political no-go.
 
2012-12-03 09:33:58 AM  

GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.


No, we're supposed to pretend that it means something different from how it was intended.

"Hey Clem, let's make it possible for people to form them there militias."
"Well, Billy-Bob, can't have none no militias if people done got no guns."
"I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"
"Billy-Bob, don't fergit to put in there that we need guns BECAUSE we need militias."
"Will do, Clem."

Fast-forward:

"The government provides you a militia, so you can have a gun if you join it."

Ghosts of Clem and Billy-Bob facepalm.
 
2012-12-03 09:34:24 AM  
Oh crap! I had totally forgotten that the Kenyan usurper was going to confiscate my guns! Well, I better go cash in my retirement and buy a bunch of guns and ammo. That'll show 'em!

//pro second amendment, but I don't get the paranoia. I guess I should watch Fox News more often.
 
2012-12-03 09:34:37 AM  

one small post for man: s2s2s2: Tyrone Slothrop: Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting

Which other amendments say "the right of the people will not be infringed" as a limitation on "the people"? Did they not know what "infringed" means?

infringe |inˈfrinj|
verb ( infringes, infringing, infringed ) [ with obj. ]
• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

How odd!

Nukes for everyone!


That brings up a very important question. If you had a nuclear weapon, who would you nuke?
 
2012-12-03 09:34:49 AM  

Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.


No one. Certainly not Obama, who has only expanded gun rights.
 
2012-12-03 09:34:51 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind?

Yes, I do.


Why do you support infringing the right of the people?
 
2012-12-03 09:36:01 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

I always forget that one of the rules of responsible gun ownership is never talking about gun violence.

If you bring it up shortly after the gun owner murders people, you're being insensitive and capitalizing on tragedy. If you bring it up awhile after the gun owner murders people, it's old news and can't you just shut up, liberal?


Was the guy ever convicted of anything else before hand?

If he wasn't, then I don't think gun control would've made that much of a difference, it was just a domestic dispute gone horribly, horribly wrong.

I'm more concerned about what his mental state was when he did that more than anything else.
 
2012-12-03 09:36:47 AM  

dittybopper: whistleridge: The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

There is a specific process to do that. It requires 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress, and ratification by the legislatures of 75% of the states. We've amended the Constitution 17 times since the original 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights were ratified.

The Constitution *IS* a living document, in the sense that it can be changed to suite modern times, but you can't just say "Oh, well, we know better, so we'll just ignore the parts we don't like". The founding fathers understood that times change, and they also understood that people sometimes panic and do stupid things for transient issues, so they made the Constitution changeable, but not *EASILY* changeable.

It's brilliant, actually: It's hard enough to change it that the latest panic about whatever can't be easily written into it, but for long term changes (like stopping slavery, giving women the right to vote, etc.), you can change it. I'd say the only real exception to the "latest panic" in history was the Volstead Act, and we all know what problems that caused.


It's probably harder to change than the Founders foresaw. There's actually been a mathematical proof done fairly recently that, despite the proportions not changing, the fact that we've gone from 13 to 50 states actually makes it significantly harder to amend the constitution.
 
2012-12-03 09:37:11 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I thought we all agreed that gun control is a political no-go.


In all fairness, we're on the internet. The internet loves arguing about issues that were resolved pretty definitely a long time ago. Whether abortion should be legal, whether Ron Paul is nationally electable, etc.
 
2012-12-03 09:37:31 AM  

EyeballKid: [www.californiauctioneers.com image 640x264]
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.


There wasn't private ownership of semi-automatic weapons at the time.

There was, however, private ownership of artillery.
 
2012-12-03 09:38:15 AM  

vygramul: There was, however, private ownership of artillery.


Yes, but that was back before we thought of the children.
 
2012-12-03 09:38:34 AM  

EyeballKid: [www.californiauctioneers.com image 640x264]
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.


Oh, and while I'm at it, this rationale also means we can censor the Internet because the Founders didn't foresee such a powerful communications medium as the Internet. You only have free speech with movable-block printing presses.
 
2012-12-03 09:38:41 AM  

Mrtraveler01: HotWingConspiracy: mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

I always forget that one of the rules of responsible gun ownership is never talking about gun violence.

If you bring it up shortly after the gun owner murders people, you're being insensitive and capitalizing on tragedy. If you bring it up awhile after the gun owner murders people, it's old news and can't you just shut up, liberal?

Was the guy ever convicted of anything else before hand?

If he wasn't, then I don't think gun control would've made that much of a difference, it was just a domestic dispute gone horribly, horribly wrong.

I'm more concerned about what his mental state was when he did that more than anything else.


You have to say this for Belcher. He lived the NRA slogan to its fullest.

cybehype.com
 
2012-12-03 09:39:48 AM  

one small post for man: s2s2s2: Tyrone Slothrop: Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting

Which other amendments say "the right of the people will not be infringed" as a limitation on "the people"? Did they not know what "infringed" means?

infringe |inˈfrinj|
verb ( infringes, infringing, infringed ) [ with obj. ]
• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

How odd!

Nukes for everyone!


Yeah, right? How DARE we freedom-loving Americans try and restrict the Second Amendment rights of Iran!
 
2012-12-03 09:40:23 AM  
reappropriate.co
 
2012-12-03 09:40:25 AM  

ChaoticLimbs: Guys, they discussed all of this on paper. You don't have to speculate or bring up fossil firearms.

What they felt was important was to maintain a certain level of the ability to do violence at the grassroots level, to mitigate the imbalance of power that exists whenever you have a government.
Governments always have the capacity to exert physical force. The 2nd amendment is to preserve the people's right to use physical force if necessary, both for self defense and as an impediment for tyrannical rulers.

They have discussed this at great length and in a number of important books and papers. Instead of speculating about what they meant, you should read the documents they wrote to explain themselves.

/scholarship- it works, biatches.


Let's not cloud the issues with the facts.
 
2012-12-03 09:41:18 AM  

one small post for man: s2s2s2: Tyrone Slothrop: Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting

Which other amendments say "the right of the people will not be infringed" as a limitation on "the people"? Did they not know what "infringed" means?

infringe |inˈfrinj|
verb ( infringes, infringing, infringed ) [ with obj. ]
• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

How odd!

Nukes for everyone!


Except brown people of course! Let's be ridiculous!
 
2012-12-03 09:41:42 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Cythraul: dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

Huh?

If you have to justify an action, aren't you limiting all the other ways in which that action can be done that do not fall under the justifying circumstances?

and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure.

food, guns, training and equipment.

It's "well regulated" not "well ordered" but both words carry the dual meaning. It's not really as clear as it's made out to be. That was on purpose. Like most things in the constitution, The Founders punted. Their job was to agree on the framework enough to put them in a new and fragile nation's basis of law. In the process, they were able to settle precisely fark all. That's why we have been perfecting and clarifying the verbiage for 2 centuries.

The Well Regulated Militia, was argued by federalists to mean a standing army, and was therefore treated as the training, arming, uniforming, and most importantly, centralization of the armed forces.

The anti-federalists argued that it was the role of the states to regulate their own militia, equip, train and lead them. And to allow the federal government to call on them in national defense with proper authority given by congress.

It was phrased as it was specifically to PROMOTE this confusion, rather than assuage it. It got the AF's and the F's to sit down at a table and think that the second amendment was written with them in mind.
 
2012-12-03 09:42:19 AM  

bulldg4life: dittybopper: It's a justification, not a limitation.

What in the hell does this even mean? If that is the reasoning behind the clause, then that is the justification and...thus...the limitation for stating the reason.


"A well established credit rating, being necessary to the procurement of rental cars, the right of the people to keep and bear Credit Cards, shall not be infringed."

That's a justification - you need a credit card to rent a car, thus you should get a credit card. That's not a limitation - there's other justifications for having a credit card (like being poor and still wanting booze, or wanting to establish a credit rating), and it makes no commentary on the legitimacy (or not) of those other justifications.
 
2012-12-03 09:43:06 AM  
And that's why the Constitution could use a good rewriting to get rid of cruft like this. In the Framers' time, your personal firepower was on par with the government's, and such an amendment made sense. Now, the government greatly outweapons you, and your guns aren't going to be watering the tree of liberty with the blood of revolution anytime soon. Act up, and you'll get a big old dose of Ruby Ridge or Waco shoved up your ass. And if that fails, you'll get obliterated by a UAV-launched missile you never see coming. Owning guns is a fine, useful thing for hunting and protecting your home, but it's not any more useful to your day-to-day well-being than the right to own a car or a computer, now that it isn't possible for Joe Sixpack to pose a credible threat to the government. We don't enshrine the rights to own cars and computers with special amendments, so it isn't clear why gun owning, or soldier-quartering-in-homes amendments need to be up there with crucial stuff like free speech and jury trials.
 
2012-12-03 09:43:35 AM  

mod3072: Oh crap! I had totally forgotten that the Kenyan usurper was going to confiscate my guns! Well, I better go cash in my retirement and buy a bunch of guns and ammo. That'll show 'em!

//pro second amendment, but I don't get the paranoia. I guess I should watch Fox News more often.


Fox News is the Cthulhu of television. The more you find out about it, the more insane you become.
 
2012-12-03 09:44:11 AM  

vygramul: EyeballKid: [www.californiauctioneers.com image 640x264]
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.

There wasn't private ownership of semi-automatic weapons at the time.

There was, however, private ownership of artillery.


"At nine o'clock every night, Greenwich time," said Wemmick, "the gun fires. There he is, you see! And when you hear him go, I think you'll say he's a Stinger."

The piece of ordnance referred to, was mounted in a separate fortress, constructed of lattice-work. It was protected from the weather by an ingenious little tarpaulin contrivance in the nature of an umbrella.

/those were the days
 
2012-12-03 09:44:17 AM  
farm4.staticflickr.com

LOL it's about freedom though
 
2012-12-03 09:44:32 AM  
Who gives a shiat? Nobody thinks gun rights are under attack except for a few whiny paranoids.
Let them whine - I pay them no mind.
 
2012-12-03 09:44:40 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind?

Yes, I do.

Why do you support infringing the right of the people?


Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to say anything they want to/about anyone at any time or any place?
 
2012-12-03 09:44:47 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

I always forget that one of the rules of responsible gun ownership is never talking about gun violence.

If you bring it up shortly after the gun owner murders people, you're being insensitive and capitalizing on tragedy. If you bring it up awhile after the gun owner murders people, it's old news and can't you just shut up, liberal?


Jesus. Sensitive, aren't they? He "used the tragedy" to decry Gun Culture. It was a social commentary, not a political one. If anyone took that as a call for legislative intervention, they are jumping at shadows.
 
2012-12-03 09:44:52 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

Strange that no other amendment needed a "justification". Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting.


Regardless of whether it's strange or not, it doesn't say that the right is limited to those actively enrolled in an organize militia.

It's not all that strange, either:

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts near where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed... N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXVII (1784).

Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXIII (1784).

Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, especially in a young one; no pension shall be granted, but in consideration of actual services, and such pensions ought to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never for more than one year at a time. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXXVI (1784).


The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . R.I. Const. art. I, § 20 (1842)

I bolded the non-limiting justification clauses.

I'm sure I could dig up other examples, but there are at least 4 examples of non-limiting justification clauses that are roughly contemporaneous to the Second Amendment (three predate it, one comes after) In fact, the Rhode Island freedom of the press looks to be basically cribbed directly from the Second Amendment.

No, it's not strange, and it doesn't
 
2012-12-03 09:46:00 AM  
Gun thread based on American Thinker thread. Popcorn is sold out
 
2012-12-03 09:46:14 AM  

jso2897: Who gives a shiat? Nobody thinks gun rights are under attack except for a few whiny paranoids.
Let them whine - I pay them no mind.


But without them, think of how dull the Politics tab would be.
 
2012-12-03 09:47:00 AM  
Um, duh?
 
2012-12-03 09:47:00 AM  

mod3072: /pro second amendment, but I don't get the paranoia. I guess I should watch Fox News more often.


If there were more of you and less of the NRA types, I would probably start taking pro-gun advocates seriously.
 
2012-12-03 09:47:20 AM  

jso2897: Who gives a shiat? Nobody thinks gun rights are under attack except for a few whiny paranoids.
Let them whine - I pay them no mind.


Ignore those whiny supreme court justices.
 
2012-12-03 09:47:45 AM  

monoski: Gun thread based on American Thinker thread. Popcorn is sold out


Why do you think Ethonol is 10% of fuel rather than 100%?
 
2012-12-03 09:48:12 AM  

dittybopper: No, it's not strange, and it doesn't


Shush, you. EVERY word in the holy Constitution MUST be considered as significant as every other word. The Founding Fathers were just that damned good.
 
2012-12-03 09:48:16 AM  

Cythraul: dittybopper: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.

[rjw57.github.com image 500x420]


justification (plural justifications)
A reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.

Hmmm. "The militia clause in the Second Amendment is a [justification, reason, explanation, excuse] for the individual right enumerated in the operative clause".

Nope. I'm using it the correct way.
 
2012-12-03 09:48:18 AM  

Epoch_Zero: [farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x481]

LOL it's about freedom though


I'm impressed that there's only one misspelling in that sign.
 
2012-12-03 09:48:51 AM  

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind?

Yes, I do.

Why do you support infringing the right of the people?

Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to say anything they want to/about anyone at any time or any place?


Yes I do. I recognize that the rights in First and Second Amendments are not absolute.
 
2012-12-03 09:49:43 AM  

Epoch_Zero: LOL it's about freedom though


If killing people because they pinched my yard sign is wrong I don't want to be right.
 
2012-12-03 09:50:10 AM  

vygramul: jso2897: Who gives a shiat? Nobody thinks gun rights are under attack except for a few whiny paranoids.
Let them whine - I pay them no mind.

But without them, think of how dull the Politics tab would be.


Is that why we need three crybaby gun threads in less than 24 hours? I guess anything that attracts obsessive-compulsives is good for lots of clicks.
 
2012-12-03 09:50:19 AM  

Epoch_Zero: [farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x481]

LOL it's about freedom though

alleged

Obama supporters. You have no proof. Maybe they were just art lovers who wanted a pretty picture? Circumstantial evidence is always so damning...

Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

Shooting them offhand certainly is speedy, and I suppose technically it is also facing your accuser, but otherwise it just tramples all over those other rights.
 
2012-12-03 09:51:26 AM  

whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.


hey look ad hominem
 
2012-12-03 09:51:37 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Why do you support infringing the right of the people?


This discussion isn't about what people support, it is about what the constitution says. Had I written the amendment in question, I'd have worded it for 21st century idiots, of course.
 
2012-12-03 09:51:45 AM  

whistleridge: and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).


I could be wrong, but I think the 3/5ths thing didn't have anything to do with voting directly. Slaves couldn't vote, period, and their masters didn't get more than one vote. It had to do with calculating the number of votes a state would get in the electoral college, a compromise between not including blacks at all, since they couldn't vote, which would have resulted in very few electoral votes for the southern states, and counting them the same as whites.
 
2012-12-03 09:52:38 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Epoch_Zero: [farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x481]

LOL it's about freedom though

I'm impressed that there's only one misspelling in that sign.


Out of the 2 Constitutional amendments mentioned in the sign, both are misused. Next time, I'd forego the whole ink and words thing and stick with smearing one's own feces.
 
2012-12-03 09:52:56 AM  
equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and, the right to practice religion and the right to own slaves.

ftfy
 
2012-12-03 09:53:09 AM  

whistleridge: Shooting them offhand certainly is speedy, and I suppose technically it is also facing your accuser, but otherwise it just tramples all over those other rights.


If myopically focusing exclusively on a single right in exclusion to all others when it's convenient for my personal dogma is wrong, I don't want to be right.

sprawl15: hey look ad hominem


Don't use words you don't understand.
 
2012-12-03 09:53:27 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind?

Yes, I do.

Why do you support infringing the right of the people?


You see why I don't trust you to interpret the second amendment?
 
2012-12-03 09:53:32 AM  

sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem


For you newbs, if sprawl15 is against it, it's probably a good idea.
 
2012-12-03 09:54:12 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind?

Yes, I do.

Why do you support infringing the right of the people?

Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to say anything they want to/about anyone at any time or any place?

Yes I do. I recognize that the rights in First and Second Amendments are not absolute.


And hence, we cannot own nuclear weapons, and our artillery and automatic weapon options are highly limited and highly regulated. So pretty much, we can own semi-automatic weapons. We're limited to 1945 technology for firearms (and not even all of that) for the second amendment. The first is limited only in how one is allowed to use technology, not the technology itself.

And I'm fine with it being there. If large numbers of people tell me I have to limit myself to the 19th century, like pre-Heller DC and Chicago and Massachusetts, I'm going to take issue with it.
 
2012-12-03 09:54:48 AM  

jso2897: vygramul: jso2897: Who gives a shiat? Nobody thinks gun rights are under attack except for a few whiny paranoids.
Let them whine - I pay them no mind.

But without them, think of how dull the Politics tab would be.

Is that why we need three crybaby gun threads in less than 24 hours? I guess anything that attracts obsessive-compulsives is good for lots of clicks.


I was thinking more broadly, but yes.
 
2012-12-03 09:55:41 AM  
This thread needs more gun porn.

3.bp.blogspot.com

Yes, that's right, it fires .45 ACP, .45 Colt Long, and .410 shotgun shells.

Now if I could just get my hands on some .410 buck and ball.
 
2012-12-03 09:55:45 AM  

vygramul: If large numbers of people tell me I have to limit myself to the 19th century, like pre-Heller DC and Chicago and Massachusetts the South, I'm going to take issue with it.




ftfy
/19th Century, mind you, on a good day
 
2012-12-03 09:55:55 AM  

ghare: For you newbs, if sprawl15 is against it, it's probably a good idea.


Considering that you don't realise that Sprawl is an overly-sarcastic libby libpants (not even a troll, just very sarcastic), I don't think you're really in a position to call anybody else "Newbs." :P
 
2012-12-03 09:56:32 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind?

Yes, I do.

Why do you support infringing the right of the people?

You see why I don't trust you to interpret the second amendment?


I apologize for being inexact. Let me rephrase it for your legally and grammatically keen mind.

Do you believe any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind is legitimate under the Second Amendment?
 
2012-12-03 09:57:26 AM  
That's nice... *pats American Thinker on the head*
 
2012-12-03 09:57:31 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: This thread needs more gun porn.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

Yes, that's right, it fires .45 ACP, .45 Colt Long, and .410 shotgun shells.

Now if I could just get my hands on some .410 buck and ball.


Oh man, I bet you could kill a few bystanders with that load. Lol amirite?
 
2012-12-03 09:58:27 AM  

ghare: sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem

For you newbs, if sprawl15 is against it, it's probably a good idea.


But.... what if his troll account is against it?
 
2012-12-03 09:58:36 AM  

jake_lex: Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for one of these articles to give an actual, documented example of how the Obama Administration is moving to take guns away from their owners, not just "HERP A DERP NOW THAT HE'S BEEN ELECTED FARTBONGO IS GONNA SEND HIS GAY NAZI MUSLIN COMMIE STORMTROOPERS TO GET YOUR GUN"


And when he leaves office four years from now without taking their guns, it will only be because of their vigilance and the sacrifice of the NRA!
 
2012-12-03 09:59:20 AM  

keylock71: That's nice... *pats American Thinker on the head*


Wipe your hand. You wouldn't want any of that derp sticking to you.
 
2012-12-03 09:59:29 AM  

vygramul: And hence, we cannot own nuclear weapons, and our artillery and automatic weapon options are highly limited and highly regulated. So pretty much, we can own semi-automatic weapons. We're limited to 1945 technology for firearms (and not even all of that) for the second amendment. The first is limited only in how one is allowed to use technology, not the technology itself.

And I'm fine with it being there. If large numbers of people tell me I have to limit myself to the 19th century, like pre-Heller DC and Chicago and Massachusetts, I'm going to take issue with it.


And that's the point. Pretty much everyone but the most extreme people accepts that there is some level of regulation and prohibition allowed under the Second Amendment. Where exactly that line is drawn is a legitimate political discussion.
 
2012-12-03 09:59:40 AM  

sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem


Tibi clausa meretrix os, puberes loquimur nunc.
 
2012-12-03 10:00:10 AM  

vygramul: EyeballKid: [www.californiauctioneers.com image 640x264]
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.

There wasn't private ownership of semi-automatic weapons at the time.

There was, however, private ownership of artillery.


There still is:

i46.tinypic.com

My 3" bore mortar. I can place a 1 lb tin can half-full of cement 300 yards down range with a roughly 400 grain powder charge. Traditionally, mortars like that used hollow balls filled with powder with a fuse timed to "air burst" over the target, but that's a destructive device under federal law, so I just use solid, non-assploding shot: The tin cans "shuttlecock", flying nose first, similar to a giant shotgun slug If I used similar weight round balls, I could probably get a bit more range, because they would be a tad more aerodynamic. Some people mold zinc balls for their mortars, and I could probably get 400 yards easy with a properly shaped, finned projectile, but in both cases that's a lot of work for a single-use projectile. Filling used tin cans with mortar mix is a whole lot quicker and cheaper.
 
2012-12-03 10:01:07 AM  

ghare: For you newbs, if sprawl15 is against it, it's probably a good idea.


things that ghare thinks are probably a good idea (part one of many):

anime
hitler
milli vanilli
gerrymandering
beer before liquor
male genital piercings
declaring all potential opponents incompetent to avoid having to consider an opposing viewpoint
changing lanes without using a blinker
hipster superfruit
licking hotel nightstands
torture
aids
hiatler again
animatronic singing vermin
dubya
lederhosen
deathpolka
swap.avi
youtube comments
 
2012-12-03 10:03:42 AM  

dittybopper: Cythraul: dittybopper: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.

[rjw57.github.com image 500x420]

justification (plural justifications)
A reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.

Hmmm. "The militia clause in the Second Amendment is a [justification, reason, explanation, excuse] for the individual right enumerated in the operative clause".

Nope. I'm using it the correct way.


'Morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence' suggests there are cases when that particular behavior, belief or occurrence is not acceptable, which would be a limitation. Otherwise, why would a justification be necessary to begin with?
 
2012-12-03 10:03:47 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: This thread needs more gun porn.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

Yes, that's right, it fires .45 ACP, .45 Colt Long, and .410 shotgun shells.

Now if I could just get my hands on some .410 buck and ball.

Oh man, I bet you could kill a few bystanders with that load. Lol amirite?


Don't quote me on that ".45 ACP" thingee. Both those rounds in that pic are .45 Colt Long and Taurus' website says it fires .45.
 
2012-12-03 10:04:07 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: This thread needs more gun porn.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

Yes, that's right, it fires .45 ACP, .45 Colt Long, and .410 shotgun shells.

Now if I could just get my hands on some .410 buck and ball.

Oh man, I bet you could kill a few bystanders with that load. Lol amirite?


Actually, probably not. It's not a good self-defense load at all - the penetration is crap. It's one of those things impractical things that nevertheless appeal to people. Of course, as with any load, it could kill someone, and, as a result of it being multiple projectiles, could kill multiple people with any given shot. It might even be uniquely more likely to kill bystanders than your target by dint of it possibly hitting more bystanders than targets.
 
2012-12-03 10:04:24 AM  

whistleridge: sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem

Tibi clausa meretrix os, puberes loquimur nunc.


People called Romanes, they go the house?

Fluorescent Testicle: Considering that you don't realise that Sprawl is an overly-sarcastic libby libpants


Amusingly, I'm really not very liberal. It's just a case where I tend to disagree with the left's positions while getting physically ill by the right's positions. BSABSVTraficant
 
2012-12-03 10:05:15 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: vygramul: And hence, we cannot own nuclear weapons, and our artillery and automatic weapon options are highly limited and highly regulated. So pretty much, we can own semi-automatic weapons. We're limited to 1945 technology for firearms (and not even all of that) for the second amendment. The first is limited only in how one is allowed to use technology, not the technology itself.

And I'm fine with it being there. If large numbers of people tell me I have to limit myself to the 19th century, like pre-Heller DC and Chicago and Massachusetts, I'm going to take issue with it.

And that's the point. Pretty much everyone but the most extreme people accepts that there is some level of regulation and prohibition allowed under the Second Amendment. Where exactly that line is drawn is a legitimate political discussion.


Then we are in agreement.

/Note that in Heller, even Scalia said that there are limits to the second amendment
 
2012-12-03 10:05:33 AM  

dittybopper: i46.tinypic.com

My 3" bore mortar. I can place a 1 lb tin can half-full of cement 300 yards down range with a roughly 400 grain powder charge. Traditionally, mortars like that used hollow balls filled with powder with a fuse timed to "air burst" over the target, but that's a destructive device under federal law, so I just use solid, non-assploding shot: The tin cans "shuttlecock", flying nose first, similar to a giant shotgun slug If I used similar weight round balls, I could probably get a bit more range, because they would be a tad more aerodynamic. Some people mold zinc balls for their mortars, and I could probably get 400 yards easy with a properly shaped, finned projectile, but in both cases that's a lot of work for a single-use projectile. Filling used tin cans with mortar mix is a whole lot quicker and cheaper.


Yeah, that's farking awesome, right there...
 
2012-12-03 10:05:58 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: On the one hand, I'm completely pro-Second Amendment but not a gun owner, and as such I don't really have a horse in this race. On the other hand, American Potato doesn't recognise the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment (the one that says that brown and gay people are human beings), so I just want to say that their hypocritical cherry-picking asses can bite me.

The way these farknuggets wildly masturbate to some parts of the Constitution and completely ignore the rest annoys me even more than the birther bullshiat. The Constitution is not the bloody Bible, it just doesn't work that way.


And in reality, the Bible doesn't work that way, either.
 
2012-12-03 10:06:02 AM  

sprawl15: aids
hiatler again


LOL, filterowned.
 
2012-12-03 10:06:49 AM  
Well that football player was probably raised listening to music that direspects women by calling them biatches and hoes. If it wasn't a gun he probably would have stabbed her, or bludgeoned her or choked her with his own hands.

Maybe we should restrict the content of music and whatnot.
 
2012-12-03 10:07:17 AM  

sprawl15: Amusingly, I'm really not very liberal. It's just a case where I tend to disagree with the left's positions while getting physically ill by the right's positions. BSABSVTraficant


Ditto (outside of America, I consider myself to be a centre-right moderate), but by modern American standards, we're still libs.

Of course, by modern American standards, Mussolini was a lib...
 
2012-12-03 10:07:33 AM  
Those nutjobs on the Right just can't except the fact that OBAMA IS NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS so they are making up BS story that the reason he's doing nothing on gun control is because of stupid shows that run on the Discovery channel.

What a sad sad bunch of people, you have my sympathy.
 
2012-12-03 10:08:29 AM  

dittybopper: vygramul: EyeballKid: [www.californiauctioneers.com image 640x264]
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.

There wasn't private ownership of semi-automatic weapons at the time.

There was, however, private ownership of artillery.

There still is:

[i46.tinypic.com image 640x480]

My 3" bore mortar. I can place a 1 lb tin can half-full of cement 300 yards down range with a roughly 400 grain powder charge. Traditionally, mortars like that used hollow balls filled with powder with a fuse timed to "air burst" over the target, but that's a destructive device under federal law, so I just use solid, non-assploding shot: The tin cans "shuttlecock", flying nose first, similar to a giant shotgun slug If I used similar weight round balls, I could probably get a bit more range, because they would be a tad more aerodynamic. Some people mold zinc balls for their mortars, and I could probably get 400 yards easy with a properly shaped, finned projectile, but in both cases that's a lot of work for a single-use projectile. Filling used tin cans with mortar mix is a whole lot quicker and cheaper.


I had an Antiquities & Collectibles federal firearms license for a while, and they distribute a list of what qualifies. The license was cheap, like $30 for 3 years. I bought it because I wanted to get a Thompson, a new full-auto weapon requiring a $2000/yr license. Anyway, the list of qualifying weapons included things like 75mm pack howitzers, 160mm air-air rockets, and so on.
 
2012-12-03 10:08:56 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you believe any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind is legitimate under the Second Amendment?


Yes. I believe they did not define "arms" so broadly, if only because of the narrower spectrum of armaments available at the time.
 
2012-12-03 10:09:08 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Can't threaten to hurt people.
Can't commit slander/libel.
Can't do the above and claim religious immunity.
Can't kill people and claim religious immunity.
Can't rape people and claim religious immunity.


so wtf does this have to do with being allowed to buy a gun and go to the range and shoot it?
 
2012-12-03 10:09:56 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: sprawl15: Amusingly, I'm really not very liberal. It's just a case where I tend to disagree with the left's positions while getting physically ill by the right's positions. BSABSVTraficant

Ditto (outside of America, I consider myself to be a centre-right moderate), but by modern American standards, we're still libs.

Of course, by modern American standards, Mussolini was a lib...


Mussolini was a lib by lib standards.
 
2012-12-03 10:10:04 AM  

sprawl15: whistleridge: sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem

Tibi clausa meretrix os, puberes loquimur nunc.

People called Romanes, they go the house?

Fluorescent Testicle: Considering that you don't realise that Sprawl is an overly-sarcastic libby libpants

Amusingly, I'm really not very liberal. It's just a case where I tend to disagree with the left's positions while getting physically ill by the right's positions. BSABSVTraficant


It... it says "Romans go home"
 
2012-12-03 10:10:12 AM  
Colonial era ammunition magazine........
farm3.static.flickr.com

Modern day ammunition magazine.......
blogs.courant.com

Approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com

Really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws..................
static.guim.co.uk

Really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
www.jihadwatch.org

Really, really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
timeopinions.files.wordpress.com

Really, really, really, really approves of stuff........but not really sure what or why.....but please sign that check at the bottom........you betcha!
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-03 10:10:15 AM  
Yes, the Framers of the Constitution valued it so much in 1787 that they waited until 1791 to pass it.
 
2012-12-03 10:10:18 AM  

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: vygramul: And hence, we cannot own nuclear weapons, and our artillery and automatic weapon options are highly limited and highly regulated. So pretty much, we can own semi-automatic weapons. We're limited to 1945 technology for firearms (and not even all of that) for the second amendment. The first is limited only in how one is allowed to use technology, not the technology itself.

And I'm fine with it being there. If large numbers of people tell me I have to limit myself to the 19th century, like pre-Heller DC and Chicago and Massachusetts, I'm going to take issue with it.

And that's the point. Pretty much everyone but the most extreme people accepts that there is some level of regulation and prohibition allowed under the Second Amendment. Where exactly that line is drawn is a legitimate political discussion.

Then we are in agreement.

/Note that in Heller, even Scalia said that there are limits to the second amendment


The paradox being, of course, that such limits entirely gut the 'well-regulated militia' bit. If you think a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles and sport guns (even fully automatic ones) are going to even slow down a modern army, you're dreaming.

Go look at an armored gunship. Even an old one, like a cobra. If you shoot at that with anything less than a javelin, you're asking to die. Personal weaponry isn't enough to meet that clause, but it's too much to stop the Loughners of the world.

So we need to be consistent: either make enough weaponry legal that the militia could actually survive (we'll overlook cost for a minute), or regulate it to the point that it's actually hard to shoot someplace up. This in-between crap is bs.
 
2012-12-03 10:10:37 AM  

dittybopper: Regardless of whether it's strange or not, it doesn't say that the right is limited to those actively enrolled in an organize militia.

It's not all that strange, either:

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts near where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed... N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXVII (1784).


That one is referring specifically to criminal prosecutions and is explaining why this clause is necessary. And the second clause is directly related to the first. You can't look at that and say it applies to civil cases as well. You could use this to explain that the Second Amendment is indeed limiting arms to members of the militia.

Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXIII (1784).

That one refers to an ex post facto laws, and then says they can't be made, so it's limiting. The clause also explains the need for this article. You can't turn around and say this limits anything other than "retrospective laws." So it's not a direct comparison to the 2nd Amendment's phrasing.

Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, especially in a young one; no pension shall be granted, but in consideration of actual services, and such pensions ought to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never for more than one year at a time. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXXVI (1784).

That one is explaining the rationale for the law.

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . R.I. Const. art. I, § 20 (1842)

As is this one.

The last two are not limiting, but the first two look like they are.
 
2012-12-03 10:11:42 AM  

Cythraul: dittybopper: Cythraul: dittybopper: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.

[rjw57.github.com image 500x420]

justification (plural justifications)
A reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.

Hmmm. "The militia clause in the Second Amendment is a [justification, reason, explanation, excuse] for the individual right enumerated in the operative clause".

Nope. I'm using it the correct way.

'Morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence' suggests there are cases when that particular behavior, belief or occurrence is not acceptable, which would be a limitation. Otherwise, why would a justification be necessary to begin with?


You mean like how other nations strictly limit their citizens from owning firearms, or like how a person can be arrested and convicted for misusing firearms in the United States?
 
2012-12-03 10:11:46 AM  

vygramul: /Note that in Heller, even Scalia said that there are limits to the second amendment


Correct. That's that whole 10th amendment thing about how states can regulate where the federal government cannot.

You, sir, are a "tenther".
 
2012-12-03 10:12:15 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com 

mmm, bare arms.
 
2012-12-03 10:12:21 AM  

homelessdude: Colonial era ammunition magazine........
[farm3.static.flickr.com image 130x152]

Modern day ammunition magazine.......
[blogs.courant.com image 100x100]

Approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
[c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com image 188x105]

Really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws..................
[static.guim.co.uk image 173x104]

Really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
[www.jihadwatch.org image 131x92]

Really, really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
[timeopinions.files.wordpress.com image 225x150]

Really, really, really, really approves of stuff........but not really sure what or why.....but please sign that check at the bottom........you betcha!
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 250x172]


Can we apply that reasoning to limit 1st amendment rights to colonial printing capabilities? After all, at least one of those guys ordered ammunition off the Internet, which didn't exist when they wrote the 1st amendment...
 
2012-12-03 10:12:44 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: And that's the point. Pretty much everyone but the most extreme people accepts that there is some level of regulation and prohibition allowed under the Second Amendment. Where exactly that line is drawn is a legitimate political discussion.


A lot of gun nuts seem to be great fans of the "slippery slope" argument. We can't have any regulation of guns because it will lead to gun bans. Funnily enough, the same people I know who scream the loudest at this also make the same argument against legalizing pot; because then they'll just legalize crack, you know?

(oddly, some people I know also make the claim they ignore any gun law they want because of the Constitution, including prohibitions on carrying/keeping a concealed weapon regardless of state; but the same people will say that anyone caught with pot should serve hard time because it's the law!)

(these topics have come up at work recently. should note that I have six firearms, concealed carry permit, and have never smoked weed in my life)
 
2012-12-03 10:13:29 AM  

Giltric: Well that football player was probably raised listening to music that direspects women by calling them biatches and hoes. If it wasn't a gun he probably would have stabbed her, or bludgeoned her or choked her with his own hands.

Maybe we should restrict the content of music and whatnot.


or outlaw knives, bludgeons and hands.

or go to the root cause and outlaw football (concussions), alcohol and pain killers.
 
2012-12-03 10:13:36 AM  

whistleridge: The paradox being, of course, that such limits entirely gut the 'well-regulated militia' bit. If you think a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles and sport guns (even fully automatic ones) are going to even slow down a modern army, you're dreaming.

Go look at an armored gunship. Even an old one, like a cobra. If you shoot at that with anything less than a javelin, you're asking to die. Personal weaponry isn't enough to meet that clause, but it's too much to stop the Loughners of the world.

So we need to be consistent: either make enough weaponry legal that the militia could actually survive (we'll overlook cost for a minute), or regulate it to the point that it's actually hard to shoot someplace up. This in-between crap is bs.


Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?
 
2012-12-03 10:13:57 AM  

mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]


I have heard Mr. Costas speak before. And I have read your posts before.

I'm fairly certain that Mr. Costas is smarter than you are...


Holocaust Agnostic: Mussolini was a lib by lib standards.


...but this guy is way, way dumber than you.
 
2012-12-03 10:14:14 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: roadkillontheweb: That doesn't matter!
Only what the bible says matters, and Moses wasn't packing heat.

[writemiddleeast.files.wordpress.com image 800x450]
Moses is gonna wack you upside the head if you try to take his staff away.


I'll give you my staff when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
 
2012-12-03 10:14:22 AM  

homelessdude: Colonial era ammunition magazine........
farm3.static.flickr.com


Colonial era medical treatment:

i.imgur.com

Colonial era facial hair:

i.imgur.com

Colonial era labor solutions:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-03 10:14:42 AM  

dittybopper: Cythraul: dittybopper: Cythraul: dittybopper: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.

[rjw57.github.com image 500x420]

justification (plural justifications)
A reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.

Hmmm. "The militia clause in the Second Amendment is a [justification, reason, explanation, excuse] for the individual right enumerated in the operative clause".

Nope. I'm using it the correct way.

'Morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence' suggests there are cases when that particular behavior, belief or occurrence is not acceptable, which would be a limitation. Otherwise, why would a justification be necessary to begin with?

You mean like how other nations strictly limit their citizens from owning firearms, or like how a person can be arrested and convicted for misusing firearms in the United States?


I think I was trying to say that your original statement that it's a justification and not a limitation was wrong because in my mind, it's both.

But, never mind. I think I'll drop it now as my attention span for debates is very limited.
 
2012-12-03 10:14:47 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Can't threaten to hurt people.
Can't commit slander/libel.
Can't do the above and claim religious immunity.
Can't kill people and claim religious immunity.
Can't rape people and claim religious immunity.


Right, because the 1st, much like the 2nd, is about how "the people" deal with "the government".
 
2012-12-03 10:14:50 AM  

the801: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 300x400] 

mmm, bare arms.


When looking at that pic, I find myself to suddenly take on some of the same aspects as the AK.
 
2012-12-03 10:17:09 AM  

s2s2s2: vygramul: /Note that in Heller, even Scalia said that there are limits to the second amendment

Correct. That's that whole 10th amendment thing about how states can regulate where the federal government cannot.

You, sir, are a "tenther".


Typically, yes, but I'd state it more accurately as states being able to regulate that which is not forbidden to be regulated. A state can't limit your freedom of speech any more than the feds can.
 
2012-12-03 10:17:10 AM  

vygramul: the801: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 300x400] 

mmm, bare arms.

When looking at that pic, I find myself to suddenly take on some of the same aspects as the AK.


And one wonders why the gun crowd gets angry when the Freudian aspects of gun-nuttery are mentioned...
 
2012-12-03 10:17:33 AM  

homelessdude: Colonial era ammunition magazine........
[farm3.static.flickr.com image 130x152]

Modern day ammunition magazine.......
[blogs.courant.com image 100x100]

Approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
[c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com image 188x105]

Really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws..................
[static.guim.co.uk image 173x104]

Really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
[www.jihadwatch.org image 131x92]

Really, really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
[timeopinions.files.wordpress.com image 225x150]

Really, really, really, really approves of stuff........but not really sure what or why.....but please sign that check at the bottom........you betcha!
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 250x172]


ok, can you now compare the healthcare provided by the government during colonial times and now?

is someone on your lawn?
 
2012-12-03 10:17:35 AM  

one small post for man: vygramul: EyeballKid: [www.californiauctioneers.com image 640x264]
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.

There wasn't private ownership of semi-automatic weapons at the time.

There was, however, private ownership of artillery.

"At nine o'clock every night, Greenwich time," said Wemmick, "the gun fires. There he is, you see! And when you hear him go, I think you'll say he's a Stinger."

The piece of ordnance referred to, was mounted in a separate fortress, constructed of lattice-work. It was protected from the weather by an ingenious little tarpaulin contrivance in the nature of an umbrella.

/those were the days


Heh, I thought that looked familiar. I'm just reading that.

/Thanks, Project Gutenberg!
 
2012-12-03 10:18:03 AM  
So people realize that we live in 2012 now, not 1787, right?
 
2012-12-03 10:18:19 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: A lot of gun nuts seem to be great fans of the "slippery slope" argument. We can't have any regulation of guns because it will lead to gun bans. Funnily enough, the same people I know who scream the loudest at this also make the same argument against legalizing pot; because then they'll just legalize crack, you know?


I want drug laws to be so loose meth gets sold in a Walgreens.

If people want to melt their insides and die alone, that's their choice and fark 'em.
 
2012-12-03 10:18:21 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

I have heard Mr. Costas speak before. And I have read your posts before.

I'm fairly certain that Mr. Costas is smarter than you are...


Holocaust Agnostic: Mussolini was a lib by lib standards.

...but this guy is way, way dumber than you.


You don't get it man. Lib just means "anything I don't like"

/hitler was a lib
//tojo was a lib
///that dragoon guy in The Patriot: lib
 
2012-12-03 10:18:26 AM  
I never understood why people supposedly concerned with liberty want their lives ruled by men that have been dead for 200 years.
 
2012-12-03 10:18:33 AM  

whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads


Because every thread deserves a bit of sound reasoning.
 
2012-12-03 10:18:49 AM  

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you believe any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind is legitimate under the Second Amendment?

Yes. I believe they did not define "arms" so broadly, if only because of the narrower spectrum of armaments available at the time.


So the armaments capabilities and availability of the time is a legitimate consideration?
 
2012-12-03 10:19:18 AM  

Epoch_Zero: And one wonders why the gun crowd gets angry when the Freudian aspects of gun-nuttery are mentioned...


Is it because of their tiny penises? It's because of their Lilliputian baby-batter stir-sticks, isn't it?
 
2012-12-03 10:19:56 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: dittybopper: Regardless of whether it's strange or not, it doesn't say that the right is limited to those actively enrolled in an organize militia.

It's not all that strange, either:

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts near where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed... N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXVII (1784).

That one is referring specifically to criminal prosecutions and is explaining why this clause is necessary. And the second clause is directly related to the first. You can't look at that and say it applies to civil cases as well. You could use this to explain that the Second Amendment is indeed limiting arms to members of the militia.


Nope. Let's take out the bolded part: " no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed". Doesn't change how that law works.

Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXIII (1784).

That one refers to an ex post facto laws, and then says they can't be made, so it's limiting. The clause also explains the need for this article. You can't turn around and say this limits anything other than "retrospective laws." So it's not a direct comparison to the 2nd Amendment's phrasing.


Let's do the same as above: "No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences", referring to "Retrospective laws". Doesn't change the meaning one whit.

Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, especially in a young one; no pension shall be granted, but in consideration of actual services, and such pensions ought to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never for more than one year at a time. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXXVI (1784).

That one is explaining the rationale for the law.


Exactly. It's the same for the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment. It's a rationale, not a limitation.

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . R.I. Const. art. I, § 20 (1842)

As is this one.

The last two are not limiting, but the first two look like they are.


Nope. Above, I edited the comments to remove the explanatory clauses, and the operative clauses still read the same. Perhaps the second example I gave is reaching a *LITTLE* (but not too much), but then I still gave 3 solid examples of non-limiting explanatory clauses.

My contention was that having a non-limiting explanatory clause wasn't necessarily "strange", which was the original contention.
 
2012-12-03 10:20:35 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

Strange that no other amendment needed a "justification". Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting.


strange that you don't know history - specifically that people often had to buy their own guns if they joined the military.

actually it is not strange since you are just repeating talking points

1/10 trolling for you.
(1 point for at least pretending you weren't just repeating talking points)
 
2012-12-03 10:21:01 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Guns are like abortions. If you don't want one . Don't get one.

/ Only one these was written into the Constitution. They other one was mined out of abstraction.


*sigh* Aw, geez, not this schitt again....

AMENDMENT IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
2012-12-03 10:21:11 AM  

vygramul: Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?


No, but it might be the part where I point out that good mortar support is crucial to any small unit action and resupply is vital to every military action.

Even if all our hypothetical rednecks have AR-15s to fight off the Mexican invader, without resupply they'll just exhaust their ammo supplies that much faster. And without mortars (to say nothing of tube artillery and close air support), they'll be eaten alive. Ask the Taliban. They have mortars and RPGs. Hell, even 3rd-rate groups like AQIM have mortars and RPGs.
 
2012-12-03 10:21:50 AM  

sprawl15: I want drug laws to be so loose meth gets sold in a Walgreens.

If people want to melt their insides and die alone, that's their choice and fark 'em.


Quiet down. The last thing we need is some desperate conservative to start a "Legalize Meth" campaign in hopes of regaining power. Sadly, I could see the Confederate states, including my Confederate-in-spirit-only state of Kentucky, doing that exact thing, before pot even.
 
2012-12-03 10:21:54 AM  

sprawl15: Satanic_Hamster: A lot of gun nuts seem to be great fans of the "slippery slope" argument. We can't have any regulation of guns because it will lead to gun bans. Funnily enough, the same people I know who scream the loudest at this also make the same argument against legalizing pot; because then they'll just legalize crack, you know?

I want drug laws to be so loose meth gets sold in a Walgreens.

If people want to melt their insides and die alone, that's their choice and fark 'em.


Unfortunately, these people are not always alone.
 
2012-12-03 10:22:10 AM  

BeesNuts: Hobodeluxe: Cythraul: dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.

Huh?

If you have to justify an action, aren't you limiting all the other ways in which that action can be done that do not fall under the justifying circumstances?

and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure. food, guns, training and equipment.

It's "well regulated" not "well ordered" but both words carry the dual meaning. It's not really as clear as it's made out to be. That was on purpose. Like most things in the constitution, The Founders punted. Their job was to agree on the framework enough to put them in a new and fragile nation's basis of law. In the process, they were able to settle precisely fark all. That's why we have been perfecting and clarifying the verbiage for 2 centuries.

The Well Regulated Militia, was argued by federalists to mean a standing army, and was therefore treated as the training, arming, uniforming, and most importantly, centralization of the armed forces.

The anti-federalists argued that it was the role of the states to regulate their own militia, equip, train and lead them. And to allow the federal government to call on them in national defense with proper authority given by congress.


It was phrased as it was specifically to PROMOTE this confusion, rather than assuage it. It got the AF's and the F's to sit down at a table and think that the second amendment was written with them in mind.


The two bolded parts are why we have an active duty Armed Forces, Reserves, and the Army and Air National Guard. We couldn't figure out what they meant, so we ended up with both a federal and a state (albeit federally regulated) military. Some states have their own militias in addition to the National Guard though. (Click to know more)
 
2012-12-03 10:23:09 AM  

s2s2s2: Right, because the 1st, much like the 2nd, is about how "the people" deal with "the government".


I'm not finding that amendment that allows for armed revolution against the government. I see the framers neglected to put that in once they achieved power.
 
2012-12-03 10:23:35 AM  
I just don't see what use a mortar has in civillian life. Other than the "overcompensation" angle, I see none.
 
2012-12-03 10:24:25 AM  

Anti_illuminati: sprawl15: Satanic_Hamster: A lot of gun nuts seem to be great fans of the "slippery slope" argument. We can't have any regulation of guns because it will lead to gun bans. Funnily enough, the same people I know who scream the loudest at this also make the same argument against legalizing pot; because then they'll just legalize crack, you know?

I want drug laws to be so loose meth gets sold in a Walgreens.

If people want to melt their insides and die alone, that's their choice and fark 'em.

Unfortunately, these people are not always alone.


If a good family man sticks his dick in a light socket and such a poor decision hurts those close to him, that's too farking bad. But if it's meth, then we should suction our panties a couple inches deep because it suddenly becomes a magnitude of tragedy greater worthy of government intervention.
 
2012-12-03 10:24:57 AM  

homelessdude: Colonial era ammunition magazine........


Wrong.

This is a colonial era ammunition magazine:

i46.tinypic.com 

High capacity eight shot magazine dangling from my neck. I've fired two of the eight shots.
 
2012-12-03 10:24:58 AM  

sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem


No, this is an ad hominem: You're wrong because you're a dumb doody fathead. So there. Nyeah.
 
2012-12-03 10:25:33 AM  

vygramul: Typically, yes, but I'd state it more accurately as states being able to regulate that which is not forbidden to be regulated. A state can't limit your freedom of speech any more than the feds can.


Which is a lot. Both can regulate it quite a bit. See the DNC invention: "Free Speech Zones".

Let's try something:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Opens thesaurus:

abridge
verb
she was hired to abridge the works of Shakespeare for a children's book club: shorten, cut, cut short, cut down, curtail, truncate, trim, crop, clip, pare down, prune; abbreviate, condense, contract, compress, reduce, decrease, shrink; summarize, sum up, abstract, précis, synopsize, give a digest of, put in a nutshell, edit; rare epitomize. ANTONYMS lengthen.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

infringe
verb
1 the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of; disregard, ignore, neglect; go beyond, overstep, exceed; Law infract. ANTONYMS obey, comply with.
2the surveillance infringed on his rights: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise. ANTONYMS preserve.
 
2012-12-03 10:26:14 AM  

Epoch_Zero: vygramul: the801: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 300x400] 

mmm, bare arms.

When looking at that pic, I find myself to suddenly take on some of the same aspects as the AK.

And one wonders why the gun crowd gets angry when the Freudian aspects of gun-nuttery are mentioned...


The Freudian thing is so misused it's absurd. I mean, people apply it to missiles, as if aerodynamics didn't exist and flying vaginas are practical.
 
2012-12-03 10:27:28 AM  

sprawl15: Anti_illuminati: sprawl15: Satanic_Hamster: A lot of gun nuts seem to be great fans of the "slippery slope" argument. We can't have any regulation of guns because it will lead to gun bans. Funnily enough, the same people I know who scream the loudest at this also make the same argument against legalizing pot; because then they'll just legalize crack, you know?

I want drug laws to be so loose meth gets sold in a Walgreens.

If people want to melt their insides and die alone, that's their choice and fark 'em.

Unfortunately, these people are not always alone.

If a good family man sticks his dick in a light socket and such a poor decision hurts those close to him, that's too farking bad. But if it's meth, then we should suction our panties a couple inches deep because it suddenly becomes a magnitude of tragedy greater worthy of government intervention.


If said good family man sticks his dick in a light socket and causes a fire that kills those close to him, that would be about on par with a meth lab blowing up and killing everyone in the apartment it was in.
 
2012-12-03 10:28:00 AM  

s2s2s2: Let's try something:


Fringe
Adjective
1) Not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme: "fringe theater".

Basically, hipsters are, by definition, constitutionally restricted from owning guns.
 
2012-12-03 10:28:12 AM  

one small post for man: Mr_Fabulous: mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

I have heard Mr. Costas speak before. And I have read your posts before.

I'm fairly certain that Mr. Costas is smarter than you are...


Holocaust Agnostic: Mussolini was a lib by lib standards.

...but this guy is way, way dumber than you.

You don't get it man. Lib just means "anything I don't like"

/hitler was a lib
//tojo was a lib
///that dragoon guy in The Patriot: lib


I don't think you even have a case for Tojo or the movie Brit.
 
2012-12-03 10:28:29 AM  

vygramul: Can we apply that reasoning to limit 1st amendment rights to colonial printing capabilities? After all, at least one of those guys ordered ammunition off the Internet, which didn't exist when they wrote the 1st amendment...


Google Search 01  

Google Search 02

hmm....not quite the same results. a bit of a disconnect. why is that?
 
2012-12-03 10:28:47 AM  

Pincy: So people realize that we live in 2012 now, not 1787, right?


So the constitution expired?
 
2012-12-03 10:29:04 AM  
What is curious is that so many who support the 2nd Amendment seem so opposed to everyone enjoying the protection of the 1st.

And then there are those who just think that the freedom to assemble is quaint as well.

Here's the thing: many of our rights are essentially, at their core, the right to piss other people off. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, we have rights to disagree, and STILL be Americans. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, pagans, Scientologists, and even Moonies. Many of the others are to secure the citizens' ability to seek redress for abrogation of those rights.

Equality under the law is another one that folks seem to be hazy on, as well as privacy. Equally important. The right of the citizen to live their lives without having someone in the government telling them that they're doing it wrong because their neighbors feel oogy about it. So long as that life doesn't impinge on others', then drive on. Say unpopular things, and understand that it freedom of speech doesn't guarantee that others won't exercise their right to disagree, only that the government can't shut you down for being unpopular.
 
2012-12-03 10:29:06 AM  

vygramul: whistleridge: The paradox being, of course, that such limits entirely gut the 'well-regulated militia' bit. If you think a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles and sport guns (even fully automatic ones) are going to even slow down a modern army, you're dreaming.

Go look at an armored gunship. Even an old one, like a cobra. If you shoot at that with anything less than a javelin, you're asking to die. Personal weaponry isn't enough to meet that clause, but it's too much to stop the Loughners of the world.

So we need to be consistent: either make enough weaponry legal that the militia could actually survive (we'll overlook cost for a minute), or regulate it to the point that it's actually hard to shoot someplace up. This in-between crap is bs.

Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?


As a liberal with some military experience, I can tell you it's not useful against an insurgency, because the F-22 is designed as an air superiority (Read: air-to-air interceptor) fighter.

/Yes the F-22 was sold as having a ground attack role, a role it has not once used nor fully developed.
//Too many other problems with the damned albatross to even get to that point.
 
2012-12-03 10:29:45 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind?

Yes, I do.

Why do you support infringing the right of the people?


have you ever made an honest argument?
 
2012-12-03 10:30:11 AM  

IlGreven: sprawl15: Anti_illuminati: sprawl15: Satanic_Hamster: A lot of gun nuts seem to be great fans of the "slippery slope" argument. We can't have any regulation of guns because it will lead to gun bans. Funnily enough, the same people I know who scream the loudest at this also make the same argument against legalizing pot; because then they'll just legalize crack, you know?

I want drug laws to be so loose meth gets sold in a Walgreens.

If people want to melt their insides and die alone, that's their choice and fark 'em.

Unfortunately, these people are not always alone.

If a good family man sticks his dick in a light socket and such a poor decision hurts those close to him, that's too farking bad. But if it's meth, then we should suction our panties a couple inches deep because it suddenly becomes a magnitude of tragedy greater worthy of government intervention.

If said good family man sticks his dick in a light socket and causes a fire that kills those close to him, that would be about on par with a meth lab blowing up and killing everyone in the apartment it was in.


If meth was legal, you wouldn't have a bunch of unregulated death trap meth labs run by rednecks. You would have Walter White making that crap.
 
2012-12-03 10:30:22 AM  

whistleridge: vygramul: Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?

No, but it might be the part where I point out that good mortar support is crucial to any small unit action and resupply is vital to every military action.

Even if all our hypothetical rednecks have AR-15s to fight off the Mexican invader, without resupply they'll just exhaust their ammo supplies that much faster. And without mortars (to say nothing of tube artillery and close air support), they'll be eaten alive. Ask the Taliban. They have mortars and RPGs. Hell, even 3rd-rate groups like AQIM have mortars and RPGs.


If the US ever fell into an insurrection of that type, the rebels would get RPGs from the same place the Syrian rebels do, and it's not the local gun shop.

The bottom line is that an insurrection is never going to be a purely civilians against purely military affair. In such a scenario, it's hard to imagine the military wouldn't fragment, as it did in 1860. After all, Lee turned down Union command, didn't he? But I'll take 20% of the military + 100 million assault rifles over 80% of the military. Especially since the 80% are in isolated, surrounded pockets.
 
2012-12-03 10:30:34 AM  

dittybopper: homelessdude: Colonial era ammunition magazine........
Wrong.
This is a colonial era ammunition magazine:
[i46.tinypic.com image 628x306] 
High capacity eight shot magazine dangling from my neck. I've fired two of the eight shots.



right...magazine and shot are not the same.

Btw.....how long does it take to unload a colonial era clip?
 
2012-12-03 10:31:59 AM  

IlGreven: If said good family man sticks his dick in a light socket and causes a fire that kills those close to him, that would be about on par with a meth lab blowing up and killing everyone in the apartment it was in.


And in both cases, you'd look at the paperwork for the installer. Did the electrician fark his job up so badly that simple genitals could set a house on fire? Did the meth lab fail to follow installation procedures and receive regular inspections?

Hint: making something kosher to sell enables regulation of that product and its production.
 
2012-12-03 10:32:11 AM  

verbaltoxin: The two bolded parts are


...not definitions of "the people" for whom the second amendment states the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.

Why do you folks want to leave out "the people" when talking about the 2nd?

something something.... narrative.
 
2012-12-03 10:32:12 AM  

s2s2s2: vygramul: Typically, yes, but I'd state it more accurately as states being able to regulate that which is not forbidden to be regulated. A state can't limit your freedom of speech any more than the feds can.

Which is a lot. Both can regulate it quite a bit. See the DNC invention: "Free Speech Zones".

Let's try something:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Opens thesaurus:

abridge
verb
she was hired to abridge the works of Shakespeare for a children's book club: shorten, cut, cut short, cut down, curtail, truncate, trim, crop, clip, pare down, prune; abbreviate, condense, contract, compress, reduce, decrease, shrink; summarize, sum up, abstract, précis, synopsize, give a digest of, put in a nutshell, edit; rare epitomize. ANTONYMS lengthen.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

infringe
verb
1 the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of; disregard, ignore, neglect; go beyond, overstep, exceed; Law infract. ANTONYMS obey, comply with.
2the surveillance infringed on his rights: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise. ANTONYMS preserve.


And that's why you can't bring your gun to post offices, schools, churches... the limits for guns are more restricted than the limits on speech in every sense.
 
2012-12-03 10:32:56 AM  

verbaltoxin: The two bolded parts are why we have an active duty Armed Forces, Reserves, and the Army and Air National Guard. We couldn't figure out what they meant, so we ended up with both a federal and a state (albeit federally regulated) military. Some states have their own militias in addition to the National Guard though. (Click to know more)


We also have the unorganized militia:

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


And this unorganized militia is expected to "appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
 
2012-12-03 10:37:17 AM  

vygramul: whistleridge: vygramul: Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?

No, but it might be the part where I point out that good mortar support is crucial to any small unit action and resupply is vital to every military action.

Even if all our hypothetical rednecks have AR-15s to fight off the Mexican invader, without resupply they'll just exhaust their ammo supplies that much faster. And without mortars (to say nothing of tube artillery and close air support), they'll be eaten alive. Ask the Taliban. They have mortars and RPGs. Hell, even 3rd-rate groups like AQIM have mortars and RPGs.

If the US ever fell into an insurrection of that type, the rebels would get RPGs from the same place the Syrian rebels do, and it's not the local gun shop.

The bottom line is that an insurrection is never going to be a purely civilians against purely military affair. In such a scenario, it's hard to imagine the military wouldn't fragment, as it did in 1860. After all, Lee turned down Union command, didn't he? But I'll take 20% of the military + 100 million assault rifles over 80% of the military. Especially since the 80% are in isolated, surrounded pockets.


So...run our country today in perpetual fear of a bloodbath to come? You and I both know that in a nuclear world, there is zero chance of an invader ever setting a non-glowing foot on US soil. If you think a city makes a tempting target, imagine what an invasion fleet full of fat slow troopships would look like.

If we ever get to the point that we're down to 20% of our military relying on assistance from - let's be realistic, 100 million will never happen - 10 million rednecks with assault rifles, we may as well hang it up, because at the point the aliens, vampires, or zombies are probably going to win.

And in the meantime, lots of schools will keep getting shot up...
 
2012-12-03 10:38:03 AM  

whistleridge: Lansydyr: [thismodernworld.com image 720x672]
/oblig

Well...they're right, in a way. It's true: guns don't kill people, any more than chainsaws, lathes, forklifts, or any other piece of powered equipment kills people. A gun is just a machine. In fact, a machine gun has a lot in common with a lathe.

But the people...Jesus Loving Christ, the people...

What the gun nuts don't seem to understand is, it's not your guns that I'm worried about, asshole. It's you.

Your often-stated belief that Armageddon will happen in your lifetime. Your fervent endorsement of literally unhinged candidates like Palin, Santorum, Rand Paul, and Bachmann. Your honest acceptance of the idea that Barack Obama is the WORST. PRESIDENT. EVAR. Your total disregard for the environment. Your utter lack of understanding of basic financial principles. The way you think you can cut taxes, increase military spending, AND balance the budget - while fighting two wars. Your constant harping on how bad it is that teachers can't lead classroom prayers and Creationism isn't taught in school, while simultaneously complaining that Islam is beginning to pervade government and we're secretly trending towards sharia law. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SHARIA IS.

And this isn't about you being 'conservative', either. Reagan was a conservative's conservative. I didn't like him, but I could work for him. George H. W. Bush was a conservative, and while I didn't agree with his fiscal policies I did and do respect the hell out of the man. He's everything a proud public servant should embody. I don't agree with all conservative policies, but I acknowledge there is underlying logic to many of them, and - pay attention, because this is important - I can work with them.

But you...you're ignorant, uneducated, absolutist, utterly unwilling to compromise, and apparently divorced from reality. And no...I don't want you to have a gun. If you honestly think Obama was born in Kenya, the Ryan Budget can work, and war with Iran is in ...


This. The day I stopped contributing to the NRA was the day I realized that, as an atheist and supporter of gay rights, I had more to fear from the average NRA member than I did from the government taking everyone's guns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still pro-gun. I still think shall-issue concealed carry should be the law of the land (though business owners and particularly bars should have the right - but not the obligation - to prohibit concealed carry on their own premises), and that most proposed assault weapons bans (including the one that was law for a decade) have little effect on actual violence. I just have more important things to decide my vote upon.
 
2012-12-03 10:38:06 AM  

vygramul: And that's why you can't bring your gun to post offices, schools, churches... the limits for guns are more restricted than the limits on speech in every sense.


:I

Though not supported by the language of the amendments.
 
2012-12-03 10:39:20 AM  

vygramul: whistleridge: vygramul: Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?

No, but it might be the part where I point out that good mortar support is crucial to any small unit action and resupply is vital to every military action.

Even if all our hypothetical rednecks have AR-15s to fight off the Mexican invader, without resupply they'll just exhaust their ammo supplies that much faster. And without mortars (to say nothing of tube artillery and close air support), they'll be eaten alive. Ask the Taliban. They have mortars and RPGs. Hell, even 3rd-rate groups like AQIM have mortars and RPGs.

If the US ever fell into an insurrection of that type, the rebels would get RPGs from the same place the Syrian rebels do, and it's not the local gun shop.

The bottom line is that an insurrection is never going to be a purely civilians against purely military affair. In such a scenario, it's hard to imagine the military wouldn't fragment, as it did in 1860. After all, Lee turned down Union command, didn't he? But I'll take 20% of the military + 100 million assault rifles over 80% of the military. Especially since the 80% are in isolated, surrounded pockets.


The reason rebels in Syria get that stuff is because there are supply lines established that the Syrian government can't control. Syria is on a huge continent, with lots of back-roads to transport arms over land and by sea. The US government has two coasts it can blockade with impunity, and Canada has a border it can help the US government seal. The US-Mexico border, thanks to the very same policies these gun nuts support, is heavily fortified and militarized. So where are the guns coming in, is the question? How are they getting to the armed, right wing insurrection once the legal supply lines have been shut down?

If any gun-toting Republican really wanted to prep for doomsday and fight off the US government, they're about 200 years too late.
 
2012-12-03 10:39:24 AM  

hubiestubert: What is curious is that so many who support the 2nd Amendment seem so opposed to everyone enjoying the protection of the 1st.


That's a false dichotomy: Most of the staunch Second Amendment people I know value *ALL* of the Bill of Rights. In fact, they get *PISSED* because if you ignore the protection of one amendment (Usually the Second), then there is no reason to believe the others won't be ignored. Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.
 
2012-12-03 10:40:19 AM  

whistleridge: So...run our country today in perpetual fear of a bloodbath to come? You and I both know that in a nuclear world, there is zero chance of an invader ever setting a non-glowing foot on US soil. If you think a city makes a tempting target, imagine what an invasion fleet full of fat slow troopships would look like.

If we ever get to the point that we're down to 20% of our military relying on assistance from - let's be realistic, 100 million will never happen - 10 million rednecks with assault rifles, we may as well hang it up, because at the point the aliens, vampires, or zombies are probably going to win.

And in the meantime, lots of schools will keep getting shot up...


I'm not following what you're saying here - are you saying that the US will fall into a revolution and while that's going on, we'll be invaded by North Korea and China a resurgent Austria-Hungarian Empire and that we'll be left with only 10 million rednecks with whom to defend ourselves?
 
2012-12-03 10:41:11 AM  

dittybopper: Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.


Please introduce me to these people. I have a unique investment opportunity involving some rather special, some have so far as called them "magic," beans, and I feel these are the sort of savvy individuals I could really work with.
 
2012-12-03 10:41:15 AM  
So what they are saying in the article is stop voting in Republicans like Ronald Reagan who kept signing in bans and restrictions on firearms throughout his whole time in politics, and even afterwards? Or sorry I mean down with Obama. He is taking away our guns again just like he did in 2009 after he got into office.
 
2012-12-03 10:43:44 AM  

dittybopper: verbaltoxin: The two bolded parts are why we have an active duty Armed Forces, Reserves, and the Army and Air National Guard. We couldn't figure out what they meant, so we ended up with both a federal and a state (albeit federally regulated) military. Some states have their own militias in addition to the National Guard though. (Click to know more)

We also have the unorganized militia:

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

And this unorganized militia is expected to "appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."


That part of my statement you cut out already provides a link to that: state defense forces, which are still regulated in part by the US government.

"Unorganized" doesn't technically mean the wackos in Hutaree. Those militias are borderline insurgent groups with no helpful use toward state or national security. They are big groups of whackers, who get in the way rather than help out. Sometimes they do some shady sh*t that lands them in jail.
 
2012-12-03 10:43:45 AM  

verbaltoxin: The reason rebels in Syria get that stuff is because there are supply lines established that the Syrian government can't control. Syria is on a huge continent, with lots of back-roads to transport arms over land and by sea. The US government has two coasts it can blockade with impunity, and Canada has a border it can help the US government seal. The US-Mexico border, thanks to the very same policies these gun nuts support, is heavily fortified and militarized. So where are the guns coming in, is the question? How are they getting to the armed, right wing insurrection once the legal supply lines have been shut down?

If any gun-toting Republican really wanted to prep for doomsday and fight off the US government, they're about 200 years too late.


You think the Canadians can seal off that border any better than the US can seal off the Mexican border? And how's that working out, anyway? I thought border fences are trivially defeated by a 6' ladder or a spade you buy at the dollar store. Now it's an impermeable membrane? When did that happen?
 
2012-12-03 10:48:53 AM  

the801: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 300x400] 

mmm, bare arms.


If you noticed the over sized magazine right away, you are way too into guns.
 
2012-12-03 10:48:55 AM  
well, the left wants to take away all four equally.
 
2012-12-03 10:49:01 AM  

dittybopper: Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.


I dunno, man, NRA's been getting a little... nuts with the partisan shiat lately. While they still provide a valuable service in their vehement opposition to any restrictions on the 2nd amendment, since the late 90s or so they've been getting less and less... credible, with the encouraging the "Obama's grabbing our guns" shiat and neglecting the sporting aspect of the organization entirely in favor of almost solely focusing on the self-defense aspect. Which isn't necessarily illegitimate in itself, just kinda... uncomfortably paranoid for an organization supposedly consisting of lawyers and lawmakers.

Basically, I don't think putting the ACLU and the NRA in the same sentence is really legitimate anymore. The ACLU is chugging along basically as it always has, focusing on first and fourth amendment cases over others, while the NRA is now an industry advocate focusing on fearmongering rather than being a civil liberties organization at all.
 
2012-12-03 10:49:17 AM  

vygramul: verbaltoxin: The reason rebels in Syria get that stuff is because there are supply lines established that the Syrian government can't control. Syria is on a huge continent, with lots of back-roads to transport arms over land and by sea. The US government has two coasts it can blockade with impunity, and Canada has a border it can help the US government seal. The US-Mexico border, thanks to the very same policies these gun nuts support, is heavily fortified and militarized. So where are the guns coming in, is the question? How are they getting to the armed, right wing insurrection once the legal supply lines have been shut down?

If any gun-toting Republican really wanted to prep for doomsday and fight off the US government, they're about 200 years too late.

You think the Canadians can seal off that border any better than the US can seal off the Mexican border? And how's that working out, anyway? I thought border fences are trivially defeated by a 6' ladder or a spade you buy at the dollar store. Now it's an impermeable membrane? When did that happen?


I guess you ignored the past year's stream of stories about armed UAV's patrolling the US-Mexico borders. Or the walls that look like this:

s.ngm.com

Or there's the fact that Mexican immigrants are leaving, rather than entering the US right now. Link

So with a militarized border, patrolled by Hellfire-armed UAV's, with Mexico's federales and Army on the other side, tell me, just why should anyone South of the border want to sell a bunch of white, Mexican-hating rednecks guns and ammo? Why when these are the exact same people who support kicking Mexican immigrants out of the country in the first place?
 
2012-12-03 10:49:36 AM  

dittybopper: hubiestubert: What is curious is that so many who support the 2nd Amendment seem so opposed to everyone enjoying the protection of the 1st.

That's a false dichotomy: Most of the staunch Second Amendment people I know value *ALL* of the Bill of Rights. In fact, they get *PISSED* because if you ignore the protection of one amendment (Usually the Second), then there is no reason to believe the others won't be ignored. Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.


It isn't a one for one issue. That is kind of the issue. It's not just about free speech, but about that laundry list that IS the First Amendment, not to mention pesky things like the 14th that some folks seem to forget. I am a strong proponent for the 1st, as well as the 2nd, and even the 5th and 14th.

The 2nd Amendment gives folks the means to secure the 1st. That means if the courts fail, or civil protections go belly up. The rights we have are nested protections, and what is interesting are the folks who chant the loudest for 2nd Amendment protections, are often chanting quite loudly to restrict the rights of their fellow citizens when they say, or do things that annoy them. Not just disagreeing in a loud and vociferous manner, but asking that our government restrict those rights, and therein lies the rub. Not the disagreement, but asking that our own government which should be outside the debate become involved.
 
2012-12-03 10:50:11 AM  
The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion.

Okay, so then go own a firearm. You can buy them at the sporting goods store.

Or is this one of those "war on XYZ" things, where we convince ourselves that the government is about to ban everything on this list?
 
2012-12-03 10:51:38 AM  

SlothB77: well, the left wants to take away all four equally.

 

i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-03 10:51:54 AM  

vygramul: spade you buy at the dollar store.


Is that the going rate for darkies? Oh, sorry. I thought this was colonial America for a second.
 
2012-12-03 10:52:20 AM  

Mithiwithi: This. The day I stopped contributing to the NRA was the day I realized that, as an atheist and supporter of gay rights, I had more to fear from the average NRA member than I did from the government taking everyone's guns.


Show me where the NRA takes a stance on religion or gay rights.

Show me where the NRA has meddled in the legislative process for anything unrelated to guns.

You are blaming the NRA for the actions of some of their members, but the NRA is a single issue organization.

Also, organizations like Pink Pistols are generally welcomed by the largely (but not totally) conservative gun owners, but they get more grief from gay organizations:

Yet Pistols founder Krick says the most controversy -- and, sometimes, outright hostility -- comes not from conservatives, but the gay community.

"We've gotten a lot of support from the gun community in general," Krick says, "but as for the organizations geared towards the queer community, that's where we've been getting a lot more static."
- Pink Pistols: Gay Gun Rights Group Is Ready to Fire
 
2012-12-03 10:52:45 AM  

Xcott: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion.

Okay, so then go own a firearm. You can buy them at the sporting goods store.

Or is this one of those "war on XYZ" things, where we convince ourselves that the government is about to ban everything on this list?


The usual. A bunch of stupid, privileged white people want to feel persecuted.
 
2012-12-03 10:52:48 AM  

vygramul: whistleridge: So...run our country today in perpetual fear of a bloodbath to come? You and I both know that in a nuclear world, there is zero chance of an invader ever setting a non-glowing foot on US soil. If you think a city makes a tempting target, imagine what an invasion fleet full of fat slow troopships would look like.

If we ever get to the point that we're down to 20% of our military relying on assistance from - let's be realistic, 100 million will never happen - 10 million rednecks with assault rifles, we may as well hang it up, because at the point the aliens, vampires, or zombies are probably going to win.

And in the meantime, lots of schools will keep getting shot up...

I'm not following what you're saying here - are you saying that the US will fall into a revolution and while that's going on, we'll be invaded by North Korea and China a resurgent Austria-Hungarian Empire and that we'll be left with only 10 million rednecks with whom to defend ourselves?


"And by the way, gun rights supporters are frequently mocked when they say it deters foreign invasion - after all, come on, grow up, be realistic: Who's nuts enough to invade America? Exactly. It's unthinkable. Good. 2nd Amendment Mission 1 accomplished." - Bill Whittle
 
2012-12-03 10:54:52 AM  

dittybopper: hubiestubert: What is curious is that so many who support the 2nd Amendment seem so opposed to everyone enjoying the protection of the 1st.

That's a false dichotomy: Most of the staunch Second Amendment people I know value *ALL* of the Bill of Rights. In fact, they get *PISSED* because if you ignore the protection of one amendment (Usually the Second), then there is no reason to believe the others won't be ignored. Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.


What hole is that? Backing right wing candidates regardless of their gun control stances?
 
2012-12-03 10:55:32 AM  

LargeCanine: "And by the way, gun rights supporters are frequently mocked when they say it deters foreign invasion - after all, come on, grow up, be realistic: Who's nuts enough to invade America? Exactly. It's unthinkable. Good. 2nd Amendment Mission 1 accomplished." - Bill Whittle


Yes, because the only reason we haven't been invaded is because Jethro owns a few rifles. Derp!
 
2012-12-03 10:57:24 AM  

dittybopper: Mithiwithi: This. The day I stopped contributing to the NRA was the day I realized that, as an atheist and supporter of gay rights, I had more to fear from the average NRA member than I did from the government taking everyone's guns.

Show me where the NRA takes a stance on religion or gay rights.

Show me where the NRA has meddled in the legislative process for anything unrelated to guns.

You are blaming the NRA for the actions of some of their members, but the NRA is a single issue organization.

Also, organizations like Pink Pistols are generally welcomed by the largely (but not totally) conservative gun owners, but they get more grief from gay organizations:


Yet Pistols founder Krick says the most controversy -- and, sometimes, outright hostility -- comes not from conservatives, but the gay community.

"We've gotten a lot of support from the gun community in general," Krick says, "but as for the organizations geared towards the queer community, that's where we've been getting a lot more static." - Pink Pistols: Gay Gun Rights Group Is Ready to Fire


Whose members then vote for regressive policies on civil rights for others who aren't like them. You left that part out, probably intentionally.

Re: Pink Pistols. They get grief because they, to quote Jon Stewart graphic, "aren't helping." The reason why is what I just stated, and what you are trying to skirt around. NRA members are more likely to vote conservative, and support anti-gay policies. It's a positive correlation between the two. The Pink Pistols want to have their cake and eat it too, but can't because some NRA members (Which you just admitted with your "but not totally" clause) don't accept them, and supportin the NRA effectively occludes their push for equal rights on other issues.

If the NRA wasn't packed to the gills with and spoke loudest for the reactionary right, you'd have a point.
 
2012-12-03 10:59:21 AM  

dittybopper: Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.


You mean fear of imaginary threats?

The ACLU steps in when people are being censored. The NRA steps in when alternate reality Obama enacts his invisible fake-out plan to not ban guns because he's totally about to ban guns.
 
2012-12-03 11:00:15 AM  
Which part of 'well-regulated' do you not understand?
 
2012-12-03 11:00:36 AM  

verbaltoxin:

Or there's the fact that Mexican immigrants are leaving, rather than entering the US right now. Link

So with a militarized border, patrolled by Hellfire-armed UAV's, with Mexico's federales and Army on the other side, tell me, just why should anyone South of the border want to sell a bunch of white, Mexican-hating rednecks guns and ammo? Why when these are the exact same people who support kicking Mexican immigrants out of the country in the first place?


First, they're not leaving because the wall makes it harder for those already here.
Second, that fence and hellfire-armed UAV's still lets in plenty of other "product" - which brings me to...
Third, drug cartels care fark-all about rednecks. As long as they get paid, they'll smuggle RPGs inside bales of marijuana. Oh, wait, no drugs get in because of the wall, right?
 
2012-12-03 11:01:38 AM  

LargeCanine: vygramul: whistleridge: So...run our country today in perpetual fear of a bloodbath to come? You and I both know that in a nuclear world, there is zero chance of an invader ever setting a non-glowing foot on US soil. If you think a city makes a tempting target, imagine what an invasion fleet full of fat slow troopships would look like.

If we ever get to the point that we're down to 20% of our military relying on assistance from - let's be realistic, 100 million will never happen - 10 million rednecks with assault rifles, we may as well hang it up, because at the point the aliens, vampires, or zombies are probably going to win.

And in the meantime, lots of schools will keep getting shot up...

I'm not following what you're saying here - are you saying that the US will fall into a revolution and while that's going on, we'll be invaded by North Korea and China a resurgent Austria-Hungarian Empire and that we'll be left with only 10 million rednecks with whom to defend ourselves?

"And by the way, gun rights supporters are frequently mocked when they say it deters foreign invasion - after all, come on, grow up, be realistic: Who's nuts enough to invade America? Exactly. It's unthinkable. Good. 2nd Amendment Mission 1 accomplished." - Bill Whittle


The ICBMs are stationed North of your state, Mr. Big Dog. There's a pretty good chance those are ensuring your security more than your AR-15.
 
2012-12-03 11:04:20 AM  

Xcott: dittybopper: Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.

You mean fear of imaginary threats?

The ACLU steps in when people are being censored. The NRA steps in when alternate reality Obama enacts his invisible fake-out plan to not ban guns because he's totally about to ban guns.


The NRA was the first group to step in when the National Guard and NOLA police were confiscating guns from people in the before and after Katrina hit. There's a lot of derp coming out of LaPierre's mouth, but the NRA isn't all bad.
 
2012-12-03 11:05:19 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Which part of 'well-regulated' do you not understand?


Which part of "the people" do you not understand?
 
2012-12-03 11:05:28 AM  

Fart_Machine: Yes, because the only reason we haven't been invaded is because Jethro owns a few rifles. Derp!


We'd be much better off as a nation if people really believed this. Then it would make no sense to invade Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein is amassing weapons of mass destruction, and any day now he's going to march his army across the secret land-bridge connecting the Middle East to America and gun us all down in cold blood after giving us 1000 more 9/11s."

"But we all have guns."

"Oh, right, point. Let's build roads and bridges instead."
 
2012-12-03 11:06:33 AM  

homelessdude: dittybopper: homelessdude: Colonial era ammunition magazine........
Wrong.
This is a colonial era ammunition magazine:
[i46.tinypic.com image 628x306] 
High capacity eight shot magazine dangling from my neck. I've fired two of the eight shots.

right...magazine and shot are not the same.

Btw.....how long does it take to unload a colonial era clip?


I read somewhere that a properly trained redcoat could fire 3 shots per minute. A really good redcoat could shoot 4. So I guess your answer is 2 and a half minutes.
 
2012-12-03 11:07:18 AM  

EyeballKid: dittybopper: Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.

Please introduce me to these people. I have a unique investment opportunity involving some rather special, some have so far as called them "magic," beans, and I feel these are the sort of savvy individuals I could really work with.


Gee, a simple Google of:

Fark "NRA and ACLU"

brought up a couple of examples:

Fark Thread 6100887:
yeastinfarktion
2011-04-08 07:28:01 PM
I work at a national lab, I'm currently listening to Zappa, and am an NRA and ACLU member.


Fark Thread 5934495:
jbuist
2011-02-06 11:34:58 AM
...
As a member of both the NRA and ACLU I'm OK with the ACLU not stepping up the fight on 2A issues. I just wish they'd wipe that "collective right" crap from their official stance.


Flipping the query to "ACLU and NRA" brought up another one:

Fark Thread 2044694
bboy
2006-05-03 10:48:56 AM
...
Are you also boycotting the NRA until they protect the first amendment? I hope you are.

/Gun nut, freedom lover, and card-carrying member, ACLU and NRA


I suppose I could find more with better google-fu, but using simple queries I found at least 3 farkers who claim to belong to both the NRA and the ACLU. You sarcastically contended that there were none.

upload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-03 11:07:41 AM  
The right to greenlight an American Derper link every day was considered by the Framers of the [Politics] Tab in 2008 to be equal in importance to the right to HERP DERPly, the right to flame-war and the right to drive page-clicks
 
2012-12-03 11:08:17 AM  

vygramul: verbaltoxin:

Or there's the fact that Mexican immigrants are leaving, rather than entering the US right now. Link

So with a militarized border, patrolled by Hellfire-armed UAV's, with Mexico's federales and Army on the other side, tell me, just why should anyone South of the border want to sell a bunch of white, Mexican-hating rednecks guns and ammo? Why when these are the exact same people who support kicking Mexican immigrants out of the country in the first place?

First, they're not leaving because the wall makes it harder for those already here.
Second, that fence and hellfire-armed UAV's still lets in plenty of other "product" - which brings me to...
Third, drug cartels care fark-all about rednecks. As long as they get paid, they'll smuggle RPGs inside bales of marijuana. Oh, wait, no drugs get in because of the wall, right?


They get in because of human trafficking and drug subs, both of which are frequently interdicted by the US Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Customs. Yes they do catch these guys all the time, even if other stuff slips through.

Here's the rub: drugs for a hungry populace of all colors is not the same as a bunch of white rednecks, who want ammo to overthrow the US government, and kick out more minorities if they took over. So the drug lords of South America don't have much of a stake in helping out Shays Rebellion part II. In fact keeping the US as it is helps them more, because a stable America is a wealthy and drug-hungry America that keeps their supply lines going. An unstable one creates greater risk; it's the devil you know type situation for a cartel.

What's ironic though is not only are you arguing in support of the overthrow of the United States government in this hypothetical situation, you are arguing in favor of using the Zetas to help do it. Are you prepared to dial up Hezbollah too if things aren't going your way?
 
2012-12-03 11:09:09 AM  

whistleridge: your overpriced penis-extending toys


Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes a gun is just a gun...

Unless you really really enjoy fantasizing about penises, which may be the case here. NTTAWWT.
 
2012-12-03 11:11:24 AM  

dittybopper: I suppose I could find more with better google-fu, but using simple queries I found at least 3 farkers who claim to belong to both the NRA and the ACLU. You sarcastically contended that there were none.


I was not implying that they didn't exist, but rather that they were likely rather naive and gullib....I mean, that they're very, very, very sharp people, and mayhap I misjudged your mental acuity. You just might be with-it enough to take advantage of my special investment opportunity. Forget gold and silver, magic beans will keep you safe in the future!
 
2012-12-03 11:11:26 AM  

whistleridge: So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen


Five whole posts before some dumbass starts talking about the penis. Damn, people, get some new material already.
 
2012-12-03 11:12:20 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: Five whole posts before some dumbass starts talking about the penis. Damn, people, get some new material already.


But we like talking about penis.
 
2012-12-03 11:12:32 AM  

s2s2s2: Princess Ryans Knickers: Which part of 'well-regulated' do you not understand?

Which part of "the people" do you not understand?


that's racist

wait, sorry, that's "you people".
Carry on
 
2012-12-03 11:14:59 AM  

dittybopper: You are blaming the NRA for the actions of some of their members, but the NRA is a single issue organization.


And yet they routinely back gun grabbing Republicans over pro-gun Democrats.
 
2012-12-03 11:16:05 AM  

verbaltoxin: They get in because of human trafficking and drug subs, both of which are frequently interdicted by the US Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Customs. Yes they do catch these guys all the time, even if other stuff slips through.

Here's the rub: drugs for a hungry populace of all colors is not the same as a bunch of white rednecks, who want ammo to overthrow the US government, and kick out more minorities if they took over. So the drug lords of South America don't have much of a stake in helping out Shays Rebellion part II. In fact keeping the US as it is helps them more, because a stable America is a wealthy and drug-hungry America that keeps their supply lines going. An unstable one creates greater risk; it's the devil you know type situation for a cartel.

What's ironic though is not only are you arguing in support of the overthrow of the United States government in this hypothetical situation, you are arguing in favor of using the Zetas to help do it. Are you prepared to dial up Hezbollah too if things aren't going your way?


If there is widespread enough demand for military weapons north of the border, the drug demand is going to be going down a lot. The US is not going to be stable or wealthy in that scenario. If drug demand goes down, the cartels would most certain augment that revenue with gun running. Hell they do it to a certain extent already. They would just reverse the direction.

As for the bolded part, Henry's got your back.

www.tvgasm.com
 
2012-12-03 11:19:34 AM  
Bob Costas must have missed that memo.
 
2012-12-03 11:21:07 AM  
Fark Libs just hate that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens prevent them from killing those who don't vote the way that they like.
 
2012-12-03 11:21:37 AM  

verbaltoxin: If the NRA wasn't packed to the gills with and spoke loudest for the reactionary right, you'd have a point.


The NRA as an organization has *ZERO* interest in anything other than firearms.

See the kerfuffle a few years ago when the NRA had to remind the Republican Party that the "R" stood for "Rifle", not "Republican".

The NRA has, and does, endorse people who hold stereotypical liberal positions on things other than firearms, so long as their firearms.

It is true that the majority of the people the NRA endorses are relatively conservative. It's not because the NRA itself is necessarily that conservative, it's that conservatives have generally (though not wholly) embraced a broad reading of the Second Amendment, and liberals have generally (though not wholly) embraced a very narrow reading of the Second Amendment.

In other words, the NRA is mostly (but not wholly) composed of, and generally (though not always) endorses conservatives not because it is itself a conservative organization, but because liberals generally (but not completely) don't believe guns are an individual right.

I mean, we're *STILL* arguing this 4 years after DC v. Heller settled the issue, and two years after McDonald v. Chicago incorporated it against the states.

www.wearysloth.com

We are here to help the Democrats, because inside every liberal there is a gun owner trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this gun control craze blows over.
 
2012-12-03 11:22:02 AM  
They're a-comin' to take yer guuuuns! Better buy my overpriced ammo in large quantities!
 
2012-12-03 11:22:30 AM  

EyeballKid: dittybopper: I suppose I could find more with better google-fu, but using simple queries I found at least 3 farkers who claim to belong to both the NRA and the ACLU. You sarcastically contended that there were none.

I was not implying that they didn't exist, but rather that they were likely rather naive and gullib....I mean, that they're very, very, very sharp people, and mayhap I misjudged your mental acuity. You just might be with-it enough to take advantage of my special investment opportunity. Forget gold and silver, magic beans will keep you safe in the future!


Yeah, I only skimmed your comment.

/Reading is fundamental.
 
2012-12-03 11:23:02 AM  

dittybopper: The NRA as an organization has *ZERO* interest in anything other than firearms.


Which is why they supported Romney, who has a history of signing stringent gun control legislation, over Obama, who has a history of extending gun rights.
 
2012-12-03 11:24:40 AM  

beta_plus: Fark Libs just hate that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens prevent them from killing those who don't vote the way that they like.


I am still SHOCKED that it is possible for republicans to watch NASCAR when I see hard right turns like this.
 
2012-12-03 11:24:42 AM  
And, I'll post this for you people who don't understand how the 2nd amendment works.

The 2nd Amendment, like many other parts of the Constitution contains an operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") and a prefatory clause ("well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State").

The operative clause gives a limitation on the power of the Federal Government. (Note that no where in Heller, or any other prior case, has the 2nd Amendment been held as enforceable against the States under the 14th Amendment. Whether or not Heller limits the power of States to ban or regulate handguns is still an open question currently working its way through the courts.) The prefatory clause serves as one explanation of why that limitation exists, but in general explanatory phrases in the Constitution are not interpreted to be exclusive, especially where only one example is provided. (The interpretory maxim "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" generally applies only to lists of multiple examples.)

So as to what the phrase "well regulated" means, the answer is "not much". The 2nd Amendment does not only protect the rights of people in a well regulated Militia to own firearms. It protects the right of the People to own and bear firearms so that in times of need they could, on their own without the permission of the government, form a "well regulated militia".

This makes sense given the way that militias operated at the time the Constitution was adopted. People didn't go out and buy firearms so they could join a militia (or vice-versa). When a militia was needed, the citizens formed and mobilized the militia using the personal arms that they already owned. To require that people first be part of a "well regulated militia" in order to be able to own a firearm wouldn't make much sense. Militias by their nature are generally not permanent or even long lasting organizations. If you had to be in a militia in order to own a firearm, then when the time came that we actually needed an armed militia, most people wouldn't have their own arms to use.

/not mine, but the best explanation I've found
 
2012-12-03 11:26:05 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: dittybopper: You are blaming the NRA for the actions of some of their members, but the NRA is a single issue organization.

And yet they routinely back gun grabbing Republicans over pro-gun Democrats.


Then how do you explain things like this:

NRA Endorses 14 House Democrats Over Republicans
by FRANK JAMES
October 06, 201011:32 PM
The NRA has earned a reputation over the decades as a pro-gun advocacy group that's solidly in the Republican camp.

But in what will no doubt come as a surprise to many, the organization is endorsing 14 House Democrats in close races because their Second Amendment views line up with the with those of the gun-rights group.

It's an unwelcome move as far as Republicans are concerned. They've come to take NRA endorsements of their candidates as a given.

The Washington Post reports the NRA's policy in recent years is to support incumbents when their positions on gun rights are similar to the NRA's and their challengers.

That approach favors more than a dozen Democrats in tough races this year, according to the WaPo.

An excerpt:

Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

The result: Of the 20 most endangered incumbent House Democrats in the country - based on race ratings by The Washington Post's "The Fix" - 14 have received the endorsement of the NRA's Political Victory Fund.
 
2012-12-03 11:27:37 AM  

Hobodeluxe: yep. my interpretation of that is that it requires membership into a group like police or national guard. a state sanctioned force.


Except you're wrong. See my previous post.
 
2012-12-03 11:28:53 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Which is why they supported Romney, who, has a history of signing stringent gun control legislation, as Boehner's muppet, would sign any Republican-approved bill and veto any Democrat-approved bill, over Obama, who has a history of extending gun rights of being a Democrat.


Fixed that for the issues the NRA (at a national level) cares about. The local branches might be all about gun rights, but the national organization is purely partisan at this point.
 
2012-12-03 11:30:13 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: dittybopper: The NRA as an organization has *ZERO* interest in anything other than firearms.

Which is why they supported Romney, who has a history of signing stringent gun control legislation, over Obama, who has a history of extending gun rights.


Even disregarding Obama's memberships and positions on firearms before he was president, his administration specifically chose not to appeal a federal court decision on the Bush administration's attempt to pass the National Parks provision. It got tacked onto one of the cornerstones of his economic reform policy as an unrelated rider. At best, he saw something he had already rejected as worth pursuing and decided he could swallow it given what he was signing.
 
2012-12-03 11:39:25 AM  

Hobodeluxe: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

exactly. and there wasn't police around everywhere like there is now. there also wasn't instant communication. and most people back then lived out on their own for the most part. they had farms and had to deal with wild animals and such. I personally think people should be able to have a gun. but it should not be that easy to get. you should have to undergo a psych eval. and carry liability insurance.


I'm not sure about all that, but I find it interesting that in my state, every time I buy a hunting license, I have to show my hunter/firearm safety certificate, but every time I buy an actual gun, I don't.
 
2012-12-03 11:40:41 AM  

vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.


"The people" ≠ "Militias"
 
2012-12-03 11:43:36 AM  

oldass31: Hobodeluxe: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

exactly. and there wasn't police around everywhere like there is now. there also wasn't instant communication. and most people back then lived out on their own for the most part. they had farms and had to deal with wild animals and such. I personally think people should be able to have a gun. but it should not be that easy to get. you should have to undergo a psych eval. and carry liability insurance.

I'm not sure about all that, but I find it interesting that in my state, every time I buy a hunting license, I have to show my hunter/firearm safety certificate, but every time I buy an actual gun, I don't.


Because they are giving you permission to fire the gun or use a deadly weapon on publicly owned land during specifically laid out times of year while at the same time knowing which animals are fair game and which aren't. There's no reason* to ask when or where or why you are buying a gun.

*no legal requirement anyway
 
2012-12-03 11:43:50 AM  
Costas' remark was guns do not make people safer. This is statistically a valid statement. People with guns are more likely to be the victims of gun violence. That said, it is also not a strong correlation as it ignores many other factors that apply.
 
2012-12-03 11:44:31 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: dittybopper: The NRA as an organization has *ZERO* interest in anything other than firearms.

Which is why they supported Romney, who has a history of signing stringent gun control legislation


No he didn't. From the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League report on Governor Romney, with important parts bolded:

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

This is a perfect example of don't believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the "assault weapon" ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:

1. Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.

For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.


Sounds pro-gun to me.

2. Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.


Pro-gun again.

3. Extended the term of the state's firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.


Pro-gun.

4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.


Pro-gun. What the bill did was keep the exemptions in MA state law that were tied to the federal ban in, so that you wouldn't have all semi-autos with removable magazines banned under the more vague state definition. At the very *WORST*, it preserved the status quo in the face of a potential disaster for gun owners in Massachusetts.


5. Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.


Sounds like a pro-gun provision to me.

6. Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.


Pro-gun again.

7. Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.


This one is a wash, not very pro-gun, but not anti-gun either.

8. Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver's license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3" x 4".


Weakly pro-gun.

9. Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.


It's a wash on this last one.

So Romney was misinformed or misspoke about what he signed, but it was a distinct relaxation of the original 1998 Massachusetts AWB, which was enacted prior to him taking office in 2003.
 
2012-12-03 11:51:00 AM  
What I don't get is why people are either pretending to be illiterate or are against the idea of having the government follow its own rules.

/and why would a military or a state run militia need special rights to own weapons? You'd tend to assume that's a given.
/Which is probably why the 2nd amendment says "The people" and not "These people".
 
2012-12-03 11:52:32 AM  

way south: What I don't get is why people are either pretending to be illiterate or are against the idea of having the government follow its own rules.


"pretending?" Are you not familiar with the lofty standards of a Confederate education?
 
2012-12-03 11:54:04 AM  

way south: What I don't get is why people are either pretending to be illiterate or are against the idea of having the government follow its own rules.

/and why would a military or a state run militia need special rights to own weapons? You'd tend to assume that's a given.
/Which is probably why the 2nd amendment says "The people" and not "These people".


What do you mean these people?
 
2012-12-03 11:55:18 AM  

Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.


This.

The War on Guns is quickly surpassing the War on Christmas as the non-extant Conservative boogeyman.


And now for the folks on the other side of the argument:

homelessdude:

The "The founding fathers didn't forsee *insert* advances in gun technology *insert" argument for *insert* gun control *insert*


You realize this is exactly the same argument the right makes for pushing internet censorship laws right?
 
2012-12-03 11:57:17 AM  

dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.


This explains their Romney endorsement.
 
2012-12-03 11:58:50 AM  
Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then
 
2012-12-03 12:00:32 PM  

incendi: A Dark Evil Omen: Which is why they supported Romney, who, has a history of signing stringent gun control legislation, as Boehner's muppet, would sign any Republican-approved bill and veto any Democrat-approved bill, over Obama, who has a history of extending gun rights of being a Democrat.

Fixed that for the issues the NRA (at a national level) cares about. The local branches might be all about gun rights, but the national organization is purely partisan at this point.


No, they aren't. Kirsten Gillibrand is the *PERFECT* example of why they might seem that way: The NRA endorsed Democrat Gillibrand when she was a representative for upstate New York, because she voted like her constituents wanted: Pro-gun. She was otherwise relatively liberal.

When she was appointed as a senator by the Governor of New York to fill in a vacancy left by Senator Hillary Clinton (who had been appointed SecState by President Obama), she modified her stance to be in favor of gun control so that she wouldn't lose votes in the more liberal NYC area, which dominates state politics. *THAT* is why the NRA stopped endorsing her.

The NRA endorses pro-gun democrats at the national level in *EVERY*FARKING*ELECTION*, and we have to go around and around every time pointing this out to people who think they are clever, but actually have a very shallow understanding the NRA.

So, for the billionth time: The NRA is a single issue organization. Period. When you truly understand that, all of their actions become quite rational and logical.
 
2012-12-03 12:02:33 PM  

Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then


And the other last thing you want is to have your slaves armed when they revolt.

/as true today as it was then
 
2012-12-03 12:03:44 PM  

vygramul: I'm not following what you're saying here - are you saying that the US will fall into a revolution and while that's going on, we'll be invaded by North Korea and China a resurgent Austria-Hungarian Empire and that we'll be left with only 10 million rednecks with whom to defend ourselves?


No, I'm saying that after the zombies kill and eat and convert a good chunk of the population, a max of 10 million people would be willing and able to fight on. Because that's the only way any of these stupid freeper scenarios have any chance of coming to pass.

LargeCanine: "And by the way, gun rights supporters are frequently mocked when they say it deters foreign invasion - after all, come on, grow up, be realistic: Who's nuts enough to invade America? Exactly. It's unthinkable. Good. 2nd Amendment Mission 1 accomplished." - Bill Whittle


No one is nuts enough to invade the US because 1. it's more profitable to trade with us, 2. we have the largest and most powerful Navy in history, and 3. we have a very powerful nuclear arsenal. Take those 3 things away, and see how quick the world's other powers carve us up the way Europe did with China in the 19th century.
 
2012-12-03 12:04:16 PM  

Bag of Hammers: The War on Guns is quickly surpassing the War on Christmas as the non-extant Conservative boogeyman.


Yeah, because no one ever has tried to ban guns in the past, and no one wants to reinstate any of those gun bans that never existed in the first place.
 
2012-12-03 12:04:34 PM  

Epoch_Zero: [farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x481]

LOL it's about freedom though


Tresspassed. LOL.
 
2012-12-03 12:05:55 PM  

vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"


You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government
 
2012-12-03 12:08:50 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government


It is in what I believe the Constitution says.
 
2012-12-03 12:08:59 PM  

dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.


You mean the Romney who enacted a number of pro-gun and pro-sportsman measures in Massachusetts? As opposed to the incumbent who had spent 8 years helping to funnel millions of dollars into anti-gun advocacy?
 
2012-12-03 12:10:13 PM  
If I were a gun dealer, I would basically promote every organization and website that predicted government confiscation of all guns.

Ever watch the survivalist shows on NatGeo? Some of those guys have arsenals that make Koresh's look like a handful of popguns.
 
2012-12-03 12:12:39 PM  

Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then


this is about arming the "slaves" though.
 
2012-12-03 12:17:02 PM  

skullkrusher: Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then

this is about arming the "slaves" though.


Next up; armed gangs of uppity women who are tired of working for 30% less
 
2012-12-03 12:17:26 PM  

dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.


In reality, according to their own policies, they should have endorsed Obama or neither candidate. Instead they shamelessly endorsed Romney putting to rest any argument that they are not in the pocket of the GOP.
 
2012-12-03 12:17:43 PM  

Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then


you need to do a little research. Find out how many slaves were on the average plantation and how many white folks were on that same plantation. Then figure out how long it takes to re-load those old muskets and you will find out real soon that guns were not going to save the lives of the whites.

They used coercion, not fire arms to keep the slaves in line.
 
2012-12-03 12:20:08 PM  

dittybopper: The NRA endorses pro-gun democrats at the national level in *EVERY*FARKING*ELECTION*


Except for Harry Reid.

And endorsing Mitt Romney despite his voting in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban.
 
2012-12-03 12:20:27 PM  

dittybopper: The NRA is a single issue organization. Period.


The single issue being to promote the GOP. Otherwise they would have not supported Romney in the last election, and would have either supported Obama or no candidate according to their own rules.
 
2012-12-03 12:22:31 PM  

Fart_Machine: dittybopper: The NRA endorses pro-gun democrats at the national level in *EVERY*FARKING*ELECTION*

Except for Harry Reid.

And endorsing Mitt Romney despite his voting in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban.


To provide fair consideration: they may have believed Mr. Mitt Romney of 2012 to be an entirely separate person from Mr. Mitt Romney of 2006. Given the substantial variances in political positions between the two Mr. Romney's, such confusion is understandable.
 
2012-12-03 12:24:15 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government


Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. It includes a right of revolution. One might argue, successfully I think, that in a representative government that right is embodied in the franchise to vote, but it's still there in its more violent form, lying dormant, waiting for such time as that franchise becomes ineffectual or meaningless, or is abolished.

I can, with near 100% confidence, predict that we won't need to take up arms against an oppressive government in 5 years. I am somewhat less confident about the next 50 years, but I'd place it somewhere above 80%. I'm almost 100% certain that we will have to take up arms against an oppressive government within the next 500 years.

It's inevitable, if history is any guide.

So if they aren't going to be needed soon, why keep them? Because the attitudes and skills necessary don't just spring from whole cloth. They need to be passed down and practiced. Perhaps I'm different, but I don't want my son's great-grandchildren to end up in a concentration camp. I care about the future.
 
2012-12-03 12:27:55 PM  
when the right wing's at your door
how you gonna come?
with your hands on your head
or on the trigger of your gun?
 
2012-12-03 12:27:58 PM  

Fart_Machine: dittybopper: The NRA endorses pro-gun democrats at the national level in *EVERY*FARKING*ELECTION*

Except for Harry Reid.

And endorsing Mitt Romney despite his voting in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban.


I mean they gave Reid a B and Angle an A, but they didn't endorse either of them: Link. They actually gave money to Reid as well.
 
2012-12-03 12:31:10 PM  

skullkrusher: Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then

this is about arming the "slaves" though.


Who funds the NRA? Who attends their rallies?

Gun rights advocates are mainly middle-class and upper-class people who worry that "law-abiding" people will be prevented by gun-control laws from arming themselves against "those people," who will find ways of getting guns no matter what the law says.
 
2012-12-03 12:31:16 PM  

dittybopper: Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. It includes a right of revolution.


Um, then why isn't it included the Constitution?

/hint: because the Founders didn't want the masses taking up arms against them either. Example: Shays' Rebellion
 
2012-12-03 12:31:55 PM  
Anyone else scroll through this looking for funny pictures?
 
2012-12-03 12:33:58 PM  

Fart_Machine: And endorsing Mitt Romney despite his voting in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban.


Don't worry, if you haven't already you will soon be treated to the story of how he was tricked into signing that, but it was actually a good thing anyway.
 
2012-12-03 12:36:47 PM  

dittybopper: Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government

Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. It includes a right of revolution. One might argue, successfully I think, that in a representative government that right is embodied in the franchise to vote, but it's still there in its more violent form, lying dormant, waiting for such time as that franchise becomes ineffectual or meaningless, or is abolished.

I can, with near 100% confidence, predict that we won't need to take up arms against an oppressive government in 5 years. I am somewhat less confident about the next 50 years, but I'd place it somewhere above 80%. I'm almost 100% certain that we will have to take up arms against an oppressive government within the next 500 years.

It's inevitable, if history is any guide.

So if they aren't going to be needed soon, why keep them? Because the attitudes and skills necessary don't just spring from whole cloth. They need to be passed down and practiced. Perhaps I'm different, but I don't want my son's great-grandchildren to end up in a concentration camp. I care about the future.


I can, with 100% confidence, claim that most of your comments in this thread are pulled straight from your ass.
 
2012-12-03 12:39:46 PM  
Bag of Hammers: homelessdude:
The "The founding fathers didn't forsee *insert* advances in gun technology *insert" argument for *insert* gun control *insert*
You realize this is exactly the same argument the right makes for pushing internet censorship laws right?


hmmm....

FYI - I did not say that. Maybe it was part of a quoted response, but I did not write that particular part or anything like that.
 
2012-12-03 12:43:18 PM  

dittybopper:
Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence.


no, the founding document of the united states of america is the constitution. it contains the 2nd amendment, a thing i've come to support because recent history teaches that it's useful to be able to defend oneself against rightwingers (see my previous post, (cf. the clash)).
 
2012-12-03 12:44:55 PM  

dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.

You mean the Romney who enacted a number of pro-gun and pro-sportsman measures in Massachusetts? As opposed to the incumbent who had spent 8 years helping to funnel millions of dollars into anti-gun advocacy?


Can you answer these:
Number of weapon bans signed by Obama=??
Number of weapon bans signed by Romney=??
Number of weapon bans decided to be OK by your link because a Republican did it=??
 
2012-12-03 12:46:23 PM  

verbaltoxin: dittybopper: Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government

Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. It includes a right of revolution. One might argue, successfully I think, that in a representative government that right is embodied in the franchise to vote, but it's still there in its more violent form, lying dormant, waiting for such time as that franchise becomes ineffectual or meaningless, or is abolished.

I can, with near 100% confidence, predict that we won't need to take up arms against an oppressive government in 5 years. I am somewhat less confident about the next 50 years, but I'd place it somewhere above 80%. I'm almost 100% certain that we will have to take up arms against an oppressive government within the next 500 years.

It's inevitable, if history is any guide.

So if they aren't going to be needed soon, why keep them? Because the attitudes and skills necessary don't just spring from whole cloth. They need to be passed down and practiced. Perhaps I'm different, but I don't want my son's great-grandchildren to end up in a concentration camp. I care about the future.

I can, with 100% confidence, claim that most of your comments in this thread are pulled straight from your ass.


No...those are all pretty reasonable. Because they're broad and qualified. Let me show you what comments that people have pulled from their ass actually look like:

*There are WMDs in Iraq
* Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda
* Mission Accomplished
* McCain is going to win
* Romney is going to win
* The polls are skewed
* QE2 risks inflation...and QE3 will surely cause it
* Obama was born in Kenya/went to a madrassa in Indonesia/faked his transcripts/etc
* Obamacare will tank the stock market/leave 250 million uninsured/destroy private insurers/etc
* The US will go through a 'Great Depression x 100'/bailout will kill us/etc
* GM & Chrysler can't be saved, let them die
* US will default if we raise debt ceiling

...are you beginning to sense the theme yet? I could literally do this for days. Years, even.
 
2012-12-03 12:51:12 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: GUN PR0N THREAD


Only gun pr0n? Or can we extend that to arms of the not-fire-kind so I can show off my lovely Hadhafang replica?
 
2012-12-03 12:58:32 PM  

whistleridge: verbaltoxin: dittybopper: Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government

Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. It includes a right of revolution. One might argue, successfully I think, that in a representative government that right is embodied in the franchise to vote, but it's still there in its more violent form, lying dormant, waiting for such time as that franchise becomes ineffectual or meaningless, or is abolished.

I can, with near 100% confidence, predict that we won't need to take up arms against an oppressive government in 5 years. I am somewhat less confident about the next 50 years, but I'd place it somewhere above 80%. I'm almost 100% certain that we will have to take up arms against an oppressive government within the next 500 years.

It's inevitable, if history is any guide.

So if they aren't going to be needed soon, why keep them? Because the attitudes and skills necessary don't just spring from whole cloth. They need to be passed down and practiced. Perhaps I'm different, but I don't want my son's great-grandchildren to end up in a concentration camp. I care about the future.

I can, with 100% confidence, claim that most of your comments in this thread are pulled straight from your ass.

No...those are all pretty reasonable. Because they're broad and qualified. Let me show you what comments that people have pulled from their ass actually look like:

*There are WMDs in Iraq
* Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda
* Mission Accomplished
* McCain is going to win
* Romney is going to win
* The polls are skewed
* QE2 risks inflation...and QE3 will surely cause it
* Obama was born in Kenya/went to a madrassa in Indonesia/faked his transcripts/etc
* Obamacare will tank the stock market/leave 250 million uninsured/de ...


Broad yes. Qualified? No.

Founding document? Yes, but the DOI is not law. It means little without proper context and qualification for this discussion, which we never get from pro-gun, NRA apologists. They use it to excuse their gun-hoarding, not explain why it's necessary or needful to a republic.

Saying there will be a revolution sometime in the next 500 years is like a psychic saying there will be a natural disaster in the same timeframe. Sure it could prove correct, but it's meaningless, because anyone could get that prediction right. What relevance does it have to the discussion? So because the United States may have a revolution in the next 500 years means we should what? Let private citizens own RPGs today? That makes no sense whatsoever, based on this line of logic.

Furthermore, his "history as a guide" statement is misleading. Point to previous revolutions and you'll see they have things in common, but more often turn out bad for citizens rather than good. France's revolution lead to Napoleon, a despot. Other, more contemporary revolutions have lead to situations like Iran. Egypt's revolution has lead to Muhammad Morsi, a member of the Islamic Brotherhood, claiming absolute power. Revolutions happen, but they're usually terrible. "Revolutions devour their children," is the famous quote I'm remembering here.

So for these libertarian, prepping, whacker, far-right whackaloons to think that a) they could fend off the might of the US military; b) resupply themselves by turning to the very parties they claim to hate; and c) the revolution would restore the US to a golden age is a patently, unashamedly absurd claim. Revising history, like this fellow farker is doing here, contributes to the delusion.

Regarding the other stuff in your statement, I've by and large agreed with you in this thread, so condecension is wholly unnecessary on your part.
 
2012-12-03 01:01:58 PM  

TNel: Anyone else scroll through this looking for funny pictures?


Yes, and I am largely disappointed.
 
2012-12-03 01:04:33 PM  

verbaltoxin: vygramul: verbaltoxin:

Or there's the fact that Mexican immigrants are leaving, rather than entering the US right now. Link

So with a militarized border, patrolled by Hellfire-armed UAV's, with Mexico's federales and Army on the other side, tell me, just why should anyone South of the border want to sell a bunch of white, Mexican-hating rednecks guns and ammo? Why when these are the exact same people who support kicking Mexican immigrants out of the country in the first place?

First, they're not leaving because the wall makes it harder for those already here.
Second, that fence and hellfire-armed UAV's still lets in plenty of other "product" - which brings me to...
Third, drug cartels care fark-all about rednecks. As long as they get paid, they'll smuggle RPGs inside bales of marijuana. Oh, wait, no drugs get in because of the wall, right?

They get in because of human trafficking and drug subs, both of which are frequently interdicted by the US Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Customs. Yes they do catch these guys all the time, even if other stuff slips through.

Here's the rub: drugs for a hungry populace of all colors is not the same as a bunch of white rednecks, who want ammo to overthrow the US government, and kick out more minorities if they took over. So the drug lords of South America don't have much of a stake in helping out Shays Rebellion part II. In fact keeping the US as it is helps them more, because a stable America is a wealthy and drug-hungry America that keeps their supply lines going. An unstable one creates greater risk; it's the devil you know type situation for a cartel.

What's ironic though is not only are you arguing in support of the overthrow of the United States government in this hypothetical situation, you are arguing in favor of using the Zetas to help do it. Are you prepared to dial up Hezbollah too if things aren't going your way?


Don't wet your pants, this is a pure hypothetical. It could be the Communist Revolution.
 
2012-12-03 01:07:04 PM  
I'm happy for many of you, and Imma let y'all finish, but I hope you realize how moot guns are becoming...

img.photobucket.com

/31% of military aircraft are now various kinds of these
 
2012-12-03 01:10:05 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government


The constitution does not define the purpose of militias beyond ensuring the a free state ("state" being consistenly used in the constitution to mean one of the thirteen). Article I section 8 gives the federal government to call out the militia (as well as arm it - it leaves one to wonder what shortfall the Founders were addressing by adding the second amendment if one accepts the "militia" interpretation.)
 
2012-12-03 01:10:09 PM  

verbaltoxin: verbaltoxin: Broad yes. Qualified? No.

Founding document? Yes, but the DOI is not law. It means little without proper context and qualification for this discussion, which we never get from pro-gun, NRA apologists. They use it to excuse their gun-hoarding, not explain why it's necessary or needful to a republic.

Agreed

Saying there will be a revolution sometime in the next 500 years is like a psychic saying there will be a natural disaster in the same timeframe. Sure it could prove correct, but it's meaningless, because anyone could get that prediction right. What relevance does it have to the discussion? So because the United States may have a revolution in the next 500 years means we should what? Let private citizens own RPGs today? That makes no sense whatsoever, based on this line of logic.

Agreed. But he DID qualify. Yeah, it's a Doomsday Prepper mindset, but it's still a qualification of sorts. I'm just saying.

Furthermore, his "history as a guide" statement is misleading. Point to previous revolutions and you'll see they have things in common, but more often turn out bad for citizens rather than good. France's revolution lead to Napoleon, a despot. Other, more contemporary revolutions have lead to situations like Iran. Egypt's revolution has lead to Muhammad Morsi, a member of the Islamic Brotherhood, claiming absolute power. Revolutions happen, but they're usually terrible. "Revolutions devour their children," is the famous quote I'm remembering here.

Yes and no. When revolutions don't get out of hand, they can be good things. The US revolution being the obvious example, but the Glorious Revolution, the Orange Revolution, and the fall of Communism/the Berlin Wall all also spring to mind. I think you're confusing 'revolution' with 'civil war'. If a revolution trips and falls into civil war, it's inevitably a bloodbath, and then we agree.

So for these libertarian, prepping, whacker, far-right whackaloons to think that a) they could fend off the might of the US military; b) resupply themselves by turning to the very parties they claim to hate; and c) the revolution would restore the US to a golden age is a patently, unashamedly absurd claim. Revising history, like this fellow farker is doing here, contributes to the delusion.

Absolutely agreed.

Regarding the other stuff in your statement, I've by and large agreed with you in this thread, so condecension is wholly unnecessary on your part.

Sincere apologies. That was a fair and measured response, and I'm entirely at fault. I'll plead the habit of snark as a reason but not an excuse, and use this as a reminder to be more careful in the future :)

 
2012-12-03 01:10:28 PM  

Cornelius Dribble: skullkrusher: Cornelius Dribble: Of course. When your slaves revolted, the last thing you wanted was to find yourself unarmed.

/as true today as it was then

this is about arming the "slaves" though.

Who funds the NRA? Who attends their rallies?

Gun rights advocates are mainly middle-class and upper-class people who worry that "law-abiding" people will be prevented by gun-control laws from arming themselves against "those people," who will find ways of getting guns no matter what the law says.


huh? Who are the slaves then? Cuz they'll be allowed to arm themselves as well
 
2012-12-03 01:10:37 PM  

whistleridge: verbaltoxin: dittybopper: Tyrone Slothrop: vygramul: "I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"

You may want to look up the purpose of militias as defined in the Constitution.

/hint: it's not to oppose the government

Founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence. It includes a right of revolution. One might argue, successfully I think, that in a representative government that right is embodied in the franchise to vote, but it's still there in its more violent form, lying dormant, waiting for such time as that franchise becomes ineffectual or meaningless, or is abolished.

I can, with near 100% confidence, predict that we won't need to take up arms against an oppressive government in 5 years. I am somewhat less confident about the next 50 years, but I'd place it somewhere above 80%. I'm almost 100% certain that we will have to take up arms against an oppressive government within the next 500 years.

It's inevitable, if history is any guide.

So if they aren't going to be needed soon, why keep them? Because the attitudes and skills necessary don't just spring from whole cloth. They need to be passed down and practiced. Perhaps I'm different, but I don't want my son's great-grandchildren to end up in a concentration camp. I care about the future.

I can, with 100% confidence, claim that most of your comments in this thread are pulled straight from your ass.

No...those are all pretty reasonable. Because they're broad and qualified. Let me show you what comments that people have pulled from their ass actually look like:

*There are WMDs in Iraq
* Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda
* Mission Accomplished
* McCain is going to win
* Romney is going to win
* The polls are skewed
* QE2 risks inflation...and QE3 will surely cause it
* Obama was born in Kenya/went to a madrassa in Indonesia/faked his transcripts/etc
* Obamacare will tank the stock market/leave 250 million uninsured/de ...


Obamacare will be found unconstitutional.
 
2012-12-03 01:11:17 PM  

vygramul: verbaltoxin: vygramul: verbaltoxin:

Or there's the fact that Mexican immigrants are leaving, rather than entering the US right now. Link

So with a militarized border, patrolled by Hellfire-armed UAV's, with Mexico's federales and Army on the other side, tell me, just why should anyone South of the border want to sell a bunch of white, Mexican-hating rednecks guns and ammo? Why when these are the exact same people who support kicking Mexican immigrants out of the country in the first place?

First, they're not leaving because the wall makes it harder for those already here.
Second, that fence and hellfire-armed UAV's still lets in plenty of other "product" - which brings me to...
Third, drug cartels care fark-all about rednecks. As long as they get paid, they'll smuggle RPGs inside bales of marijuana. Oh, wait, no drugs get in because of the wall, right?

They get in because of human trafficking and drug subs, both of which are frequently interdicted by the US Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Customs. Yes they do catch these guys all the time, even if other stuff slips through.

Here's the rub: drugs for a hungry populace of all colors is not the same as a bunch of white rednecks, who want ammo to overthrow the US government, and kick out more minorities if they took over. So the drug lords of South America don't have much of a stake in helping out Shays Rebellion part II. In fact keeping the US as it is helps them more, because a stable America is a wealthy and drug-hungry America that keeps their supply lines going. An unstable one creates greater risk; it's the devil you know type situation for a cartel.

What's ironic though is not only are you arguing in support of the overthrow of the United States government in this hypothetical situation, you are arguing in favor of using the Zetas to help do it. Are you prepared to dial up Hezbollah too if things aren't going your way?

Don't wet your pants, this is a pure hypothetical. It could be the Communist Revolution.


You're just proving my point that most of these 2nd amendment humpers are wetting themselves over Red Dawn actually happening.
 
2012-12-03 01:12:47 PM  

ckccfa: I'm happy for many of you, and Imma let y'all finish, but I hope you realize how moot guns are becoming...

[img.photobucket.com image 850x637]

/31% of military aircraft are now various kinds of these


Yes...but you also realize that is a single-prop plane operating over a country with exactly zero air defense? Any WWII fighter could shoot it down in a heartbeat, as could any 50's-era SAM site. Hell...flack alone would be enough.

They're useful tools to be sure, but until and unless we can figure out a way to use them in an area where we don't have total air superiority, we shouldn't become too reliant on them.
 
2012-12-03 01:16:08 PM  

verbaltoxin: You're just proving my point that most of these 2nd amendment humpers are wetting themselves over Red Dawn actually happening.


It's pretty much irrelevant. The Founders were constantly wetting themselves about Red Dawn actually happening, and they wrote the thing.
 
2012-12-03 01:16:57 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: And that's why the Constitution could use a good rewriting to get rid of cruft like this. In the Framers' time, your personal firepower was on par with the government's, and such an amendment made sense. Now, the government greatly outweapons you, and your guns aren't going to be watering the tree of liberty with the blood of revolution anytime soon. Act up, and you'll get a big old dose of Ruby Ridge or Waco shoved up your ass. And if that fails, you'll get obliterated by a UAV-launched missile you never see coming. Owning guns is a fine, useful thing for hunting and protecting your home, but it's not any more useful to your day-to-day well-being than the right to own a car or a computer, now that it isn't possible for Joe Sixpack to pose a credible threat to the government. We don't enshrine the rights to own cars and computers with special amendments, so it isn't clear why gun owning, or soldier-quartering-in-homes amendments need to be up there with crucial stuff like free speech and jury trials.


That's a rather defeatist attitude. The govt' totally outguns you these days so you might as well just walk yourself to the concentration camp if they go rouge. You encourage women to lie back and enjoy it if they're raped because the guy is bigger than them and they'll just get hurt if they fight back too?
 
2012-12-03 01:17:17 PM  

whistleridge: * QE2 risks inflation...and QE3 will surely cause it


This is my favorite one, as the lack of inflation is a direct contradiction to what they say this is.

/ Not that Republicans are empirical.
 
2012-12-03 01:25:43 PM  

whistleridge: verbaltoxin: verbaltoxin: Broad yes. Qualified? No.

Founding document? Yes, but the DOI is not law. It means little without proper context and qualification for this discussion, which we never get from pro-gun, NRA apologists. They use it to excuse their gun-hoarding, not explain why it's necessary or needful to a republic.

Agreed

Saying there will be a revolution sometime in the next 500 years is like a psychic saying there will be a natural disaster in the same timeframe. Sure it could prove correct, but it's meaningless, because anyone could get that prediction right. What relevance does it have to the discussion? So because the United States may have a revolution in the next 500 years means we should what? Let private citizens own RPGs today? That makes no sense whatsoever, based on this line of logic.

Agreed. But he DID qualify. Yeah, it's a Doomsday Prepper mindset, but it's still a qualification of sorts. I'm just saying.

Furthermore, his "history as a guide" statement is misleading. Point to previous revolutions and you'll see they have things in common, but more often turn out bad for citizens rather than good. France's revolution lead to Napoleon, a despot. Other, more contemporary revolutions have lead to situations like Iran. Egypt's revolution has lead to Muhammad Morsi, a member of the Islamic Brotherhood, claiming absolute power. Revolutions happen, but they're usually terrible. "Revolutions devour their children," is the famous quote I'm remembering here.

Yes and no. When revolutions don't get out of hand, they can be good things. The US revolution being the obvious example, but the Glorious Revolution, the Orange Revolution, and the fall of Communism/the Berlin Wall all also spring to mind. I think you're confusing 'revolution' with 'civil war'. If a revolution trips and falls into civil war, it's inevitably a bloodbath, and then we agree.

So for these libertarian, prepping, whacker, far-right whackaloons to think that a) they could fend off ...


Thank you for that and I'll only add this.

The Glorious Revolution was great.....for the English, Scots,and British Protestants in general. For Irish Catholics, not so well. The Orange Revolution has turned out great for Viktor Yushchenko and those who support him, but not so well for his opponents, such as former PM Yulia Tymoshenko. Even the fall of Communism hasn't been pretty: see the Balkan War, Slobodan Milosevic, Hungary's Jobbik Party, Russian quashing of civil liberties, the Russian-Chechen War, the Russian-Georgian War, and so on. All that was short and long term fall out of revolution.

Revolutions have consequences, not always civil war, but often political disenfranchisement, even for those (Such as Tymoshenko) who initially supported the revolution. When the French revolution broke down and the Reign of Terror started, being labeled a royalist was often an excuse to send you to the guillotine, not because you were proven to be a royalist. It's how Robespierre tried to purge his political enemies and consolidate power.

America's is unique because so few found themselves in the gallows when it was over, albeit the Loyalists had a bad time, and some ended up absconding to Canada, rather than face mobs or vengeful local governments.

With all that said, it takes a certain level of naivete to assume one could survive a revolution in this country, and assume your faction winds up on top because yours hoarded weapons and camped in the woods a lot.
 
2012-12-03 01:29:15 PM  

verbaltoxin: Yulia Tymoshenko


She's still hot.
 
2012-12-03 01:29:49 PM  

ckccfa: I'm happy for many of you, and Imma let y'all finish, but I hope you realize how moot guns are becoming...

[img.photobucket.com image 850x637]

/31% of military aircraft are now various kinds of these


The Afghan War has shown that while UAV's are useful for tactical strikes and lingering reconnaissance assets in friendly air space, air superiority does little to ensure ground superiority without proper ground forces support. The planes all run out of gas sometime. What the US has though is really good ground support to make up for it.
 
2012-12-03 01:37:29 PM  
Either take this argument to its logical conclusion and argue that all Americans should have the right to own Apache gunships and Abrams tanks, or just STFU. There are infinitely more important issues at hand these days that your right to pack heat when your shopping for underwear at Walmart.
 
2012-12-03 01:39:08 PM  

verbaltoxin:
With all that said, it takes a certain level of naivete to assume one could survive a revolution in this country, and assume your faction winds up on top because yours hoarded weapons and camped in the woods a lot.


You misspelled 'ignorance' :p
 
2012-12-03 01:39:42 PM  

vygramul: verbaltoxin: You're just proving my point that most of these 2nd amendment humpers are wetting themselves over Red Dawn actually happening.

It's pretty much irrelevant. The Founders were constantly wetting themselves about Red Dawn actually happening, and they wrote the thing.


Yep, so they said you could have firearms as part of a well regulated militia.

See? I can beg the question, too!
 
2012-12-03 01:42:03 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Either take this argument to its logical conclusion and argue that all Americans should have the right to own Apache gunships and Abrams tanks, or just STFU. There are infinitely more important issues at hand these days that your right to pack heat when your shopping for underwear at Walmart.


You can buy military helicopters and tanks assuming they've been decommissioned. I don't think there are any Apaches or Abrams sitting around waiting to be purchased by civilians, but you can definitely find some older stuff. Since you're clearly interested in purchasing one, here's a handy link:
 
2012-12-03 01:43:25 PM  
Guns are people, my friend.
 
2012-12-03 01:44:16 PM  

lilbjorn: Guns are people, my friend.


except that they don't kill people.
 
2012-12-03 01:52:04 PM  
I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.
 
2012-12-03 01:53:51 PM  

bulldg4life: dittybopper: It's a justification, not a limitation.

What in the hell does this even mean? If that is the reasoning behind the clause, then that is the justification and...thus...the limitation for stating the reason.

If they wanted to provide justification without the specific limitation, they would've left the "militia" clause out of the entire goddamn thing or they would've put "or for the defense of themselves". They didn't.

The right to keep and bear arms is important within the organization of a well-regulated militia. That's what the goddamn amendment says.


They wanted to be sure that effective militias could be formed in the event that the military or government became abusive. Who the hell do you think is in the militia anyway? Regular people, that's who.

Even with your completely distortion of the second amendment, everyone gets to own a gun.
 
2012-12-03 01:54:08 PM  

Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.


I think the meta went to plaid, but them my sarcasmometer broke and now I have a weird boner.

// so I'm getting a kick, etc
 
2012-12-03 01:54:46 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: vygramul: verbaltoxin: You're just proving my point that most of these 2nd amendment humpers are wetting themselves over Red Dawn actually happening.

It's pretty much irrelevant. The Founders were constantly wetting themselves about Red Dawn actually happening, and they wrote the thing.

Yep, so they said you could have firearms as part of a well regulated militia.

See? I can beg the question, too!


That's not begging the question. It would be, if that was the initial proposition. It isn't, it was a response to what is really an ad hominem (and therefore a new proposition) and not part of the initial proposition.
 
2012-12-03 02:02:22 PM  
"A well educated populace being necessary to the prosperity of the state, the right of the people to read and own books shall not be abridged"


"Engineers being necessary to construct civil infrastructure, the right of the people to keep calculators and perform calculations shall not be abridged"


There's no textual precondition. It's plain English. You people are dumb.
 
2012-12-03 02:08:23 PM  

redmid17: You can buy military helicopters and tanks assuming they've been decommissioned. I don't think there are any Apaches or Abrams sitting around waiting to be purchased by civilians, but you can definitely find some older stuff. Since you're clearly interested in purchasing one, here's a handy link:


I wouldn't mind getting a Scimitar or Scorpion scout tank.

Though, France and Switzerland have made some very nice wheeled scout tanks/armored recon units.
 
2012-12-03 02:09:10 PM  

dr_blasto: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.

You mean the Romney who enacted a number of pro-gun and pro-sportsman measures in Massachusetts? As opposed to the incumbent who had spent 8 years helping to funnel millions of dollars into anti-gun advocacy?

Can you answer these:
Number of weapon bans signed by Obama= 0
Number of weapon bans signed by Romney= 0
Number of weapon bans decided to be OK by your link because a Republican did it= 0


I changed your question marks with the proper answers.

Romney didn't sign any weapons ban:

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

This is a perfect example of don't believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the "assault weapon" ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:
...
4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.


What Romney signed was a bill that *PROTECTED* the ownership of 'grandfathered' pre-1994 "assault weapons" and that also protected the ownership of semi-auto guns that could accept removable magazines in Massachusetts. Without those, the existing vaguely worded Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban, enacted years before Romney took office, could have been used to ban guns that were legal to own prior to the sunset of the federal ban.

At it's very worst, what Romney signed protected the status quo in Massachusetts in the face of a very real threat.
 
2012-12-03 02:12:36 PM  

Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons.


I'm a Liberal and I don't piss my pants at the thought of people owning guns. But I also think it is perfectly reasonable to put restrictions on gun ownership and to mock people who think they need to own a gun in case they have to overthrow the government someday.
 
2012-12-03 02:14:02 PM  

Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.


This.

i50.tinypic.com

They lost, Ernesto.
 
2012-12-03 02:14:17 PM  

jake_lex: Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for one of these articles to give an actual, documented example of how the Obama Administration is moving to take guns away from their owners, not just "HERP A DERP NOW THAT HE'S BEEN ELECTED FARTBONGO IS GONNA SEND HIS GAY NAZI MUSLIN COMMIE STORMTROOPERS TO GET YOUR GUN"


I'm legitimately curious (though not enough to...ya know, ACTUALLY RESEARCH IT) how many of these publications/EiC of the publication owns stock in gun/ammo manufacturers. Despite the fact that gun legislation hasn't really changed (except becoming LOOSER), it seems like we have several of these articles every month. Almost like they're trying to drum up business.
 
2012-12-03 02:15:43 PM  

dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.

You mean the Romney who enacted a number of pro-gun and pro-sportsman measures in Massachusetts? As opposed to the incumbent who had spent 8 years helping to funnel millions of dollars into anti-gun advocacy?

Can you answer these:
Number of weapon bans signed by Obama= 0
Number of weapon bans signed by Romney= 0
Number of weapon bans decided to be OK by your link because a Republican did it= 0

I changed your question marks with the proper answers.

Romney didn't sign any weapons ban:

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

This is a perfect example of don't believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the "assault weapon" ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:
...
4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal l ...


maybe you two have not heard but the election is over.
 
2012-12-03 02:19:06 PM  

Pincy: But I also think it is perfectly reasonable to put restrictions on gun ownership and to mock people who think they need to own a gun in case they have to overthrow the government someday.


Why?
 
2012-12-03 02:30:56 PM  

Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.


Exactly.

My opinion is that the Dems won't give until the deadender in the Senate finally retire or die. Outside of Reid, the Democratic leadership in the Senate is the last bastion of the prohibitionist mentality left that has any power in the Federal gov't. They will not compromise (still pushing the failed AWB) and they pay no political price for their intransigence.

Want to finish off the Repubs? Start acting like true liberals and support liberal gun rights policies. Prohibition (AWB) is not a liberal position, it is a statist, authoritarian position.
 
2012-12-03 02:42:42 PM  

Pincy: Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons.

I'm a Liberal and I don't piss my pants at the thought of people owning guns.


Good.

But I also think it is perfectly reasonable to put restrictions on gun ownership


Aye, there's the rub. What would you consider reasonable? We already have some reasonable laws, and some unreasonable ones.

and to mock people who think they need to own a gun in case they have to overthrow the government someday.


What, like that has never happened before? Don't you read history at *ALL*?

See, one of the *NICE* things about widespread private ownership of guns is that it makes totalitarianism that much harder to implement.

You don't have to be able to win, you just have to make it expensive enough that they won't try.
 
2012-12-03 02:47:51 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.

Exactly.

My opinion is that the Dems won't give until the deadender in the Senate finally retire or die. Outside of Reid, the Democratic leadership in the Senate is the last bastion of the prohibitionist mentality left that has any power in the Federal gov't. They will not compromise (still pushing the failed AWB) and they pay no political price for their intransigence.

Want to finish off the Repubs? Start acting like true liberals and support liberal gun rights policies. Prohibition (AWB) is not a liberal position, it is a statist, authoritarian position.


the labels rarely work. The same party that does not want the government telling them what to do also wants the government to tell women that they cannot get abortions and that the govt. should tell gays that they are allowed to marry.

Liberals believe that people should not be allowed to shoot up entire neighborhoods without at least having to at least reload. They error on the side of human life. Conservatives hang their beliefs on an outdated portion of the Constitution and believe that every man has the right to own machine guns.
 
2012-12-03 02:48:54 PM  
What caused this reversal of liberal dogma? Why is "gun control" now a dirty word and a guaranteed political loser?

Because you wingnuts got our credit rating downgraded, are trying to use theocracy as legal basis for discrimination, and are trying to claim special rights for your churches above and beyond what you actually need. Plus, the Middle East is currently trying to commit suicide, again. As The Modern World put it, the occasional civilian mass murder is just the price the rest of us have to pay for you guys throwing enough temper tantrums so we can't handle this and handle other pressing issues at the same time.

/I mean, really. Not like the rest of the world exists or anything.
 
2012-12-03 02:51:33 PM  

PsiChick: What caused this reversal of liberal dogma? Why is "gun control" now a dirty word and a guaranteed political loser?

Because you wingnuts got our credit rating downgraded, are trying to use theocracy as legal basis for discrimination, and are trying to claim special rights for your churches above and beyond what you actually need. Plus, the Middle East is currently trying to commit suicide, again. As The Modern World put it, the occasional civilian mass murder is just the price the rest of us have to pay for you guys throwing enough temper tantrums so we can't handle this and handle other pressing issues at the same time.

/I mean, really. Not like the rest of the world exists or anything.


Can i get an AMEN!!


the nail, you hit it right on the head!!!
 
2012-12-03 02:57:28 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Either take this argument to its logical conclusion and argue that all Americans should have the right to own Apache gunships and Abrams tanks, or just STFU.


That is not a logical conclusion at all. Apache aircraft and tanks take trained crews to operate and maintain, use advanced technology and use munitions that would be considered destructive devices in the civilan world which are already highly regulate and most don't have easy or legal access to. A handgun is not in the same ballpark as a tank or Apache, it's not even the same farking game.
 
2012-12-03 03:03:29 PM  

Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.


This, I disagree with the right on every basic issue I can think of. The exception is that I own guns and think any law abiding person should be allowed to as well. We have background checks, waiting periods, etc., We have the gun control we claimed we wanted, we won. We aren't going to ban guns and we shouldn't be trying to, it is a waste of time. We should focus on underlying social issues that lead to violence, not banning the tools that are used to commit violence.
 
2012-12-03 03:13:48 PM  

chuckufarlie: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.

You mean the Romney who enacted a number of pro-gun and pro-sportsman measures in Massachusetts? As opposed to the incumbent who had spent 8 years helping to funnel millions of dollars into anti-gun advocacy?

Can you answer these:
Number of weapon bans signed by Obama= 0
Number of weapon bans signed by Romney= 0
Number of weapon bans decided to be OK by your link because a Republican did it= 0

I changed your question marks with the proper answers.

Romney didn't sign any weapons ban:

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

This is a perfect example of don't believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the "assault weapon" ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:
...
4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on ...


dittybopper: At it's very worst, what Romney signed protected the status quo in Massachusetts in the face of a very real threat.


What was his position on guns in 94 when he ran for senate? Well, let's just say, in Romney's own words his position was, "not going to make me the hero of the NRA."
 
2012-12-03 03:15:29 PM  
Oh look, another thread on an American Dimwit "ZOMG Fartbongo wants our guns" post.

*leaving*
 
2012-12-03 03:28:27 PM  

dittybopper: At it's very worst, what Romney signed protected the status quo in Massachusetts in the face of a very real threat.


This is what GOAL had to say at the time: "Firearm Reform Bill Signed, Romney Takes Opportunity to Betray Gun Owners."

And this is what Romney thought he was signing to ban: "Romney described assault weapons as "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

Basically GOAL and the GOP are trying to rewrite history here to make it look like Romney did not EXTEND the AWB in Mass. But he did, and the NRA was participating in the rewrite of history because they are shills for the GOP.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/03/nra-rewrites-history-to-hide- r omney-support-for/190318
 
2012-12-03 03:30:05 PM  

whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads


I love this...

Here... let's take a moment to shift a paradigm for a moment.

"so grow up and accept that some regulation of your rights to free speech may happen. And if your newspaper/tvstation doesn't stop getting so nosy you can expect federal officials to start raiding their offices"

Look, the Constitution _isn't_ the bible... it's considerably more important given that it's the basis of our entire rule of law in the US. You have to either respect the foundation of the law or it has no basis.

In the same way that we treasure the 1st amendment we MUST give exactly the same weight to the 2nd amendment. Why? Because the premise for it is to provide us a means to enforce our rights when others seek to restrict them.

Furthermore the founders were revolutionaries... they saw that to keep or declare your liberty you must at times fight and shed blood to protect those rights. They also saw first had how europe had disarmed its populace and enforced a dictatorial regime over its people and sought to not have the same happen in the US.
 
2012-12-03 03:44:58 PM  

Bell-fan: whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads

I love this...

Here... let's take a moment to shift a paradigm for a moment.

"so grow up and accept that some regulation of your rights to free speech may happen. And if your newspaper/tvstation doesn't stop getting so nosy you can expect federal officials to start raiding their offices"

Look, the Constitution _isn't_ the bible... it's considerably more important given that it's the basis of our entire rule of law in the US. You have to either respect the foundation of the law or it has no basis.

In the same way that we treasure the 1st amendment we MUST give exactly the same weight to the 2nd amendment. Why? Because the premise for it is to provide us a means to enforce our rights when others seek to restrict them.

Furthermore the founders were revolutionaries... they saw that to keep or declare your liberty you must at times fight and shed blood to protect those rights. They also saw first had how europe had disarmed its populace and enforced a dictatorial regime over its people and sought to not have the same happen in the US.


There is nothing about any Amendment that can keep it from being repealed. It has happened in the past.

The founding fathers were not revolutionaries by the time they all sat down to write the Constitution. Just more claptrap.

What the founding fathers did not see was that some day weapons would be far more potent than the average flintlock. Try defending your liberty against a modern army. You would need something a lot more powerful than a rifle or even a machine gun.

In short, that argument no longer holds water. If you want a rifle to go hunting - great. If you want a handgun for defense - outstanding. If you want something to protect you from the coming zombie apocalypse - dandy.

But do not tell me that you need your rifle to defend your freedom. Take a look at the arsenal of even a second rate military and then compute how long you would last against it, armed with you rifle or automatic weapon.
 
2012-12-03 03:45:45 PM  

manimal2878: chuckufarlie: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.

You mean the Romney who enacted a number of pro-gun and pro-sportsman measures in Massachusetts? As opposed to the incumbent who had spent 8 years helping to funnel millions of dollars into anti-gun advocacy?

Can you answer these:
Number of weapon bans signed by Obama= 0
Number of weapon bans signed by Romney= 0
Number of weapon bans decided to be OK by your link because a Republican did it= 0

I changed your question marks with the proper answers.

Romney didn't sign any weapons ban:

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

This is a perfect example of don't believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the "assault weapon" ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:
...
4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban di ...


????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
2012-12-03 03:48:23 PM  

chuckufarlie: But do not tell me that you need your rifle to defend your freedom. Take a look at the arsenal of even a second rate military and then compute how long you would last against it, armed with you rifle or automatic weapon.


Outstanding question ask the Iraqis, Afghanis, Viet Cong, ect....
 
2012-12-03 04:01:16 PM  

chuckufarlie: Bell-fan: whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads

I love this...

Here... let's take a moment to shift a paradigm for a moment.

"so grow up and accept that some regulation of your rights to free speech may happen. And if your newspaper/tvstation doesn't stop getting so nosy you can expect federal officials to start raiding their offices"

Look, the Constitution _isn't_ the bible... it's considerably more important given that it's the basis of our entire rule of law in the US. You have to either respect the foundation of the law or it has no basis.

In the same way that we treasure the 1st amendment we MUST give exactly the same weight to the 2nd amendment. Why? Because the premise for it is to provide us a means to enforce our rights when others seek to restrict them.

Furthermore the founders were revolutionaries... they saw that to keep or declare your liberty you must at times fight and shed blood to protect those rights. They also saw first had how europe had disarmed its populace and enforced a dictatorial regime over its people and sought to not have the same happen in the US.

There is nothing abou ...


google asymmetric warfare and come back to the conversation when you've read up on it.
 
2012-12-03 04:05:14 PM  

manimal2878: This is what GOAL had to say at the time: "Firearm Reform Bill Signed, Romney Takes Opportunity to Betray Gun Owners."

And this is what Romney thought he was signing to ban: "Romney described assault weapons as "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

Basically GOAL and the GOP are trying to rewrite history here to make it look like Romney did not EXTEND the AWB in Mass. But he did, and the NRA was participating in the rewrite of history because they are shills for the GOP.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/03/nra-rewrites-history-to-hide- r omney-support-for/190318


Now now, you know the rules. You're not allowed to use a Republican's words against him. But what Obama wrote in high school in someone's year book is HUGELY RELEVANT to the topics of the day. It's simple math.
 
2012-12-03 04:05:22 PM  

redmid17: way south: What I don't get is why people are either pretending to be illiterate or are against the idea of having the government follow its own rules.

/and why would a military or a state run militia need special rights to own weapons? You'd tend to assume that's a given.
/Which is probably why the 2nd amendment says "The people" and not "These people".

What do you mean these people?


I mean the mark of a good legislator is in their ability to be concise. Refer to the constitution itself when the founders wrote for the ability for congress "To provide and maintain a Navy".

If they wanted weapons to only exist in the hands of a state run militia, they'd have said "The states are to maintain militias". No reason needed, no debate would ensue.
Instead they gave the right to be armed to "The people", not a specific group of people.

We can spend an entire lifetime trying to make believe it was something more elegant, but this is short and ugly Machiavellian idealism. You are conscripted at birth into an army that serves a master of its choosing, and congress (chosen by popular vote) knows it will always be that master.

Some of people may not like that idea or the consequences it suggests, but the options are to either accept it or change it.
We can't pretend it doesn't exist.
 
2012-12-03 04:09:22 PM  
A bit hollywood, but the right idea Link
 
2012-12-03 04:11:01 PM  

way south: redmid17: way south: What I don't get is why people are either pretending to be illiterate or are against the idea of having the government follow its own rules.

/and why would a military or a state run militia need special rights to own weapons? You'd tend to assume that's a given.
/Which is probably why the 2nd amendment says "The people" and not "These people".

What do you mean these people?

I mean the mark of a good legislator is in their ability to be concise. Refer to the constitution itself when the founders wrote for the ability for congress "To provide and maintain a Navy".

If they wanted weapons to only exist in the hands of a state run militia, they'd have said "The states are to maintain militias". No reason needed, no debate would ensue.
Instead they gave the right to be armed to "The people", not a specific group of people.

We can spend an entire lifetime trying to make believe it was something more elegant, but this is short and ugly Machiavellian idealism. You are conscripted at birth into an army that serves a master of its choosing, and congress (chosen by popular vote) knows it will always be that master.

Some of people may not like that idea or the consequences it suggests, but the options are to either accept it or change it.
We can't pretend it doesn't exist.


Was supposed to be a joke. Guess I need to be more liberal with bold tags or quotes.
 
2012-12-03 04:14:43 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: But do not tell me that you need your rifle to defend your freedom. Take a look at the arsenal of even a second rate military and then compute how long you would last against it, armed with you rifle or automatic weapon.

Outstanding question ask the Iraqis, Afghanis, Viet Cong, ect....




Ask the Hungarians in 1956.
Ask the Ethiopians in the 1930s.
Ask the Poles in Warsaw in 1944.
Ask the Tibetans in 1956.

The US did not go into any of the countries that you listed with the intent to stay there forever.

And let's face facts, you boys do not want your guns so you can help defend this country from some foreign invader. The US military would politely tell you to go home and leave it to the professionals. Then, they would lock you up if you did not go home. You want your guns to defend your freedom against the US government. You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.
 
2012-12-03 04:17:30 PM  

redmid17: Was supposed to be a joke. Guess I need to be more liberal with bold tags or quotes.


You have to use illustrations sometimes...


What do you mean "these people"?

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-03 04:19:28 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: Bell-fan: whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads

I love this...

Here... let's take a moment to shift a paradigm for a moment.

"so grow up and accept that some regulation of your rights to free speech may happen. And if your newspaper/tvstation doesn't stop getting so nosy you can expect federal officials to start raiding their offices"

Look, the Constitution _isn't_ the bible... it's considerably more important given that it's the basis of our entire rule of law in the US. You have to either respect the foundation of the law or it has no basis.

In the same way that we treasure the 1st amendment we MUST give exactly the same weight to the 2nd amendment. Why? Because the premise for it is to provide us a means to enforce our rights when others seek to restrict them.

Furthermore the founders were revolutionaries... they saw that to keep or declare your liberty you must at times fight and shed blood to protect those rights. They also saw first had how europe had disarmed its populace and enforced a dictatorial regime over its people and sought to not have the same happen in the US.

There i ...


I do not need to look it up. It is just guerrilla warfare with a fancier name. Are you under the impression that something like the movie "red dawn" might just work? It won't.

Who are you planning on fighting against in this war?
 
2012-12-03 04:19:32 PM  

chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.


So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.
 
2012-12-03 04:25:37 PM  

redmid17: way south: redmid17: way south: What I don't get is why people are either pretending to be illiterate or are against the idea of having the government follow its own rules.

/and why would a military or a state run militia need special rights to own weapons? You'd tend to assume that's a given.
/Which is probably why the 2nd amendment says "The people" and not "These people".

What do you mean these people?

I mean the mark of a good legislator is in their ability to be concise. Refer to the constitution itself when the founders wrote for the ability for congress "To provide and maintain a Navy".

If they wanted weapons to only exist in the hands of a state run militia, they'd have said "The states are to maintain militias". No reason needed, no debate would ensue.
Instead they gave the right to be armed to "The people", not a specific group of people.

We can spend an entire lifetime trying to make believe it was something more elegant, but this is short and ugly Machiavellian idealism. You are conscripted at birth into an army that serves a master of its choosing, and congress (chosen by popular vote) knows it will always be that master.

Some of people may not like that idea or the consequences it suggests, but the options are to either accept it or change it.
We can't pretend it doesn't exist.

Was supposed to be a joke. Guess I need to be more liberal with bold tags or quotes.


My bad, it went entirely over my head.
 
2012-12-03 04:29:14 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.


What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.
 
2012-12-03 04:30:29 PM  

chuckufarlie: I do not need to look it up. It is just guerrilla warfare with a fancier name. Are you under the impression that something like the movie "red dawn" might just work? It won't.

Who are you planning on fighting against in this war?


I'm not planning on fighting anyone. It's just idiotic to say that guerilla warfare wouldn't work against the US army when it's the only strategy that's worked against them for the last 60 years...
 
2012-12-03 04:34:17 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.

What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.


You sound like you believe that every soldier will mindlessly kill their fellow citizens if given that order... some people have a better opinion of our armed forces than you and don't believe they would do that should such a scenario present itself.
 
2012-12-03 04:34:32 PM  
... yeah but they thought about it for a minute..
 
2012-12-03 04:38:06 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.

What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.


It may be premature to decide you've lost a war that hasn't been declared yet and has no factions besides "us" VS "those who serve in the US military but are somehow not also us".

/I suspect that drones won't protect their pilots families from being murdered by an angry mob.
/hopefully the fear of another civil war will always help cooler heads prevail in Washington.
 
2012-12-03 04:45:41 PM  

GanjSmokr: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.

What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.

You sound like you believe that every soldier will mindlessly kill their fellow citizens if given that order... some people have a better opinion of our armed forces than you and don't believe they would do that should such a scenario present itself.


not at all. I am under the impression that nobody is ever going to give that order. I believe that the idea that somebody is going to turn our military against us is just plain crazy, I cannot even imagine how somebody would try to pull that off.

Any war that involves the US military against US civilians is going to be started by the civilians. And not in retaliation because of some take over of the govt.

I also understand that if you are a member of a group that fires on either US troops or the FBI, they will most certainly fire back,
 
2012-12-03 04:47:46 PM  

way south: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.

What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.

It may be premature to decide you've lost a war that hasn't been declared yet and has no factions besides "us" VS "those who serve in the US military but are somehow not also us".

/I suspect that drones won't protect their pilots families from being murdered by an angry mob.
/hopefully the fear of another civil war will always help cooler heads prevail in Washington.


what is it that you are anticipating that is going to turn the majority of the population against the government?
 
2012-12-03 04:56:40 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: I do not need to look it up. It is just guerrilla warfare with a fancier name. Are you under the impression that something like the movie "red dawn" might just work? It won't.

Who are you planning on fighting against in this war?

I'm not planning on fighting anyone. It's just idiotic to say that guerilla warfare wouldn't work against the US army when it's the only strategy that's worked against them for the last 60 years...


No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

And that group may try to get foreign support, but it is not going to get it. The Navy will see to that.


If you think that this uprising would get popular support because the "wrong" person got elected, you'd better think about it again. There is nothing going on now that would cause people to support some sort of uprising. And there is nothing that is going to happen either. The system prevents it.
 
2012-12-03 05:03:38 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: I do not need to look it up. It is just guerrilla warfare with a fancier name. Are you under the impression that something like the movie "red dawn" might just work? It won't.

Who are you planning on fighting against in this war?

I'm not planning on fighting anyone. It's just idiotic to say that guerilla warfare wouldn't work against the US army when it's the only strategy that's worked against them for the last 60 years...

No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

And that group may try to get foreign support, but it is not going to get it. The Navy will see to that.


If you think that this uprising would get popular support because the "wrong" person got elected, you'd better think about it again. There is nothing going on now that would cause people to support some sort of uprising. And there is nothing that is going to happen either. The system prevents it.


"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tsu
 
2012-12-03 05:04:41 PM  

s2s2s2: Princess Ryans Knickers: Which part of 'well-regulated' do you not understand?

Which part of "the people" do you not understand?


Exactly. So if "the people" decide to limit your guns your response is what, now?
 
2012-12-03 05:06:07 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: s2s2s2: Princess Ryans Knickers: Which part of 'well-regulated' do you not understand?

Which part of "the people" do you not understand?

Exactly. So if "the people" decide to limit your guns your response is what, now?


"Every immoral law must be disobeyed."
 
2012-12-03 05:07:34 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: I do not need to look it up. It is just guerrilla warfare with a fancier name. Are you under the impression that something like the movie "red dawn" might just work? It won't.

Who are you planning on fighting against in this war?

I'm not planning on fighting anyone. It's just idiotic to say that guerilla warfare wouldn't work against the US army when it's the only strategy that's worked against them for the last 60 years...

No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

And that group may try to get foreign support, but it is not going to get it. The Navy will see to that.


If you think that this uprising would get popular support because the "wrong" person got elected, you'd better think about it again. There is nothing going on now that would cause people to support some sort of uprising. And there is nothing that is going to happen either. The system prevents it.

"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tsu


Sun Tsu never had to send poorly armed civilians against tanks and aircraft.

That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying.
 
2012-12-03 05:08:22 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Princess Ryans Knickers: s2s2s2: Princess Ryans Knickers: Which part of 'well-regulated' do you not understand?

Which part of "the people" do you not understand?

Exactly. So if "the people" decide to limit your guns your response is what, now?

"Every immoral law must be disobeyed."


who decides that it is immoral? There is the rub.
 
2012-12-03 05:11:46 PM  

chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying


Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win
 
2012-12-03 05:11:51 PM  

chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.


You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.
 
2012-12-03 05:17:38 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

 
2012-12-03 05:18:20 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.


And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?
 
2012-12-03 05:20:18 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.


Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?
 
2012-12-03 05:21:33 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.

And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?


Well turning on the civilian populace would be one way. You're asking a question you already know the possible answers to.
 
2012-12-03 05:34:30 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?


No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.
 
2012-12-03 05:36:00 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.


Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.
 
2012-12-03 05:36:41 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.

And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?

Well turning on the civilian populace would be one way. You're asking a question you already know the possible answers to.


NO, I do not know the answer - What is going to happen that would make govt. turn on the civilian populace? You are being extremely vague with your responses.
 
2012-12-03 05:42:00 PM  

And one wonders why the gun crowd gets angry when the Freudian aspects of gun-nuttery are mentioned...
....
If you noticed the over sized magazine right away, you are way too into guns.


We've got big balls
We've got big balls
We've got big balls
Dirty big balls
He's got big balls
She's got big balls
(But we've got the biggest balls of them all)
 
2012-12-03 05:42:04 PM  
The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.
 
2012-12-03 05:45:50 PM  

Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.


The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".
 
2012-12-03 05:46:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.

And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?

Well turning on the civilian populace would be one way. You're asking a question you already know the possible answers to.

NO, I do not know the answer - What is going to happen that would make govt. turn on the civilian populace? You are being extremely vague with your responses.


Because there is no hard and fast concrete answer. Anyone that says they have one is lying.
 
2012-12-03 05:48:59 PM  

Arkanaut: Yes, the Framers of the Constitution valued it so much in 1787 that they waited until 1791 to pass it.


What he said.
 
2012-12-03 05:51:23 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".


then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?
 
2012-12-03 05:52:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?


Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.
 
2012-12-03 05:52:27 PM  

chuckufarlie: way south: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.

What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.

It may be premature to decide you've lost a war that hasn't been declared yet and has no factions besides "us" VS "those who serve in the US military but are somehow not also us".

/I suspect that drones won't protect their pilots families from being murdered by an angry mob.
/hopefully the fear of another civil war will always help cooler heads prevail in Washington.

what is it that you are anticipating that is going to turn the majority of the population against the government?


I'm not anticipating anything beyond the usual social disasters that happen in other nations.
The last civil war in the US was about states rights, money, slavery, assorted ideological differences, and money. An economic collapse could cause a massive political, economic, or social divide. One party seizing too much power may act in despotic ways and try to wipe out the competition. Small spats over dwindling resources could evolve into regional fights between states.
Who knows what the next century will bring.

...and it doesn't take a majority to cause a mess. Just a few hundred thousand who are determined to do something.

/You're saying that infantry with small arms can't stop a modern force.
/History shows that You can do a lot with a few million armed people.
 
2012-12-03 05:53:26 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.

And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?

Well turning on the civilian populace would be one way. You're asking a question you already know the possible answers to.

NO, I do not know the answer - What is going to happen that would make govt. turn on the civilian populace? You are being extremely vague with your responses.

Because there is no hard and fast concrete answer. Anyone that says they have one is lying.


So, you believe that you need to be armed to the teeth because somebody, somewhere and somehow is going to do something to cause the govt. to turn on the civilian populace. What size tin hat are you wearing?
 
2012-12-03 05:55:04 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.


Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?
 
2012-12-03 05:55:29 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.

And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?

Well turning on the civilian populace would be one way. You're asking a question you already know the possible answers to.

NO, I do not know the answer - What is going to happen that would make govt. turn on the civilian populace? You are being extremely vague with your responses.

Because there is no hard and fast concrete answer. Anyone that says they have one is lying.

So, you believe that you need to be armed to the teeth because somebody, somewhere and somehow is going to do something to cause the govt. to turn on the civilian populace. What size tin hat are you wearing?


Actually I didn't say anything of the sort. I do not need to be armed to the teeth at all, but I think people have the right to be.
 
2012-12-03 05:55:59 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.

And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?

Well turning on the civilian populace would be one way. You're asking a question you already know the possible answers to.

NO, I do not know the answer - What is going to happen that would make govt. turn on the civilian populace? You are being extremely vague with your responses.

Because there is no hard and fast concrete answer. Anyone that says they have one is lying.

So, you believe that you need to be armed to the teeth because somebody, somewhere and somehow is going to do something to cause the govt. to turn on the civilian populace. What size tin hat are you wearing?


You seem to act like we all buy into the most extreme elements and think the "war" is coming tomorrow. I want to ensure these rights for future generations that may be faced with a situation that we cannot fathom today. Once your right to own weapons is removed, you'll never get it back.
 
2012-12-03 05:56:07 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?


Reading comprehension is hard.
 
2012-12-03 05:56:11 PM  

way south: chuckufarlie: way south: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.

What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.

It may be premature to decide you've lost a war that hasn't been declared yet and has no factions besides "us" VS "those who serve in the US military but are somehow not also us".

/I suspect that drones won't protect their pilots families from being murdered by an angry mob.
/hopefully the fear of another civil war will always help cooler heads prevail in Washington.

what is it that you are anticipating that is going to turn the majority of the population against the government?

I'm not anticipating anything beyond the usual social disasters that happen in other nations.
The last civil war in the US was about states rights, money, slavery, assorted ideological differences, and money. An economic collapse could cause a massive political, economic, or social divide. One party seizing too much power may act in despotic ways and try to wipe out the competition. Small spats over dwindling resources could evolve into regional fights between states.
Who knows what the next century will bring.

...and it doesn't take a majority to cause a mess. Just a few hundred thousand who are determined to do something.

/You're saying that infantry with small arms can't stop a modern force.
/History shows that You can do a lot with a few million armed people.


I am going to cut this off right now. You are obviously delusional.
 
2012-12-03 05:57:12 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?


You didn't read my post, I believe that the 2nd amendment is there to ensure the people have a means to defend themselves against a threat, be that threat foreign or domestic.
 
2012-12-03 05:57:33 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.


I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?
 
2012-12-03 05:58:54 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?


You obviously, because that was someone else, not me. He also said he needed automatic weapons and AP rounds because he believed in the former, which was a reference to the "people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" not hunting.
 
2012-12-03 05:59:13 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?


You're responding to the wrong person bro
 
2012-12-03 06:00:06 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

You didn't read my post, I believe that the 2nd amendment is there to ensure the people have a means to defend themselves against a threat, be that threat foreign or domestic.


So, that means that you are going to need anti-aircraft rockets, anti-tank rockets and artillery. You are going to have a hard time getting the right to buy that sort of stuff.

Unless you want to obtain it illegally. OR do you not see a foreign threat as an army?
 
2012-12-03 06:01:50 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?

You obviously, because that was someone else, not me. He also said he needed automatic weapons and AP rounds because he believed in the former, which was a reference to the "people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" not hunting.


Then you are back to needing weapons much larger than anything that you can obtain legally. Why is it that your ilk can never understand that?
 
2012-12-03 06:02:30 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?

You're responding to the wrong person bro


one nut job is just the same as any other.
 
2012-12-03 06:03:27 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

You didn't read my post, I believe that the 2nd amendment is there to ensure the people have a means to defend themselves against a threat, be that threat foreign or domestic.

So, that means that you are going to need anti-aircraft rockets, anti-tank rockets and artillery. You are going to have a hard time getting the right to buy that sort of stuff.

Unless you want to obtain it illegally. OR do you not see a foreign threat as an army?


Well, small arms and ordnance are regulated differently BUT ordnance can be obtained legally (you might want to sit down for this). Things like 40mm grenades for a M203 can be purchased but are listed as "destructive devices" and are covered by the National Firearms Act. So, as long as you're willing to register them and pay a $200 each tax stamp on top of the cost of the rounds... buy as many as you want.
 
2012-12-03 06:07:28 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?

You obviously, because that was someone else, not me. He also said he needed automatic weapons and AP rounds because he believed in the former, which was a reference to the "people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" not hunting.

Then you are back to needing weapons much larger than anything that you can obtain legally. Why is it that your ilk can never understand that?


Well no you can obtain a *lot* of the stuff you're talking about legally. You just have to jump through a bunch of hoops and pay some cash to do so. If the US was in open rebellion, I imagine that the whole "legally obtain" thing is going to go out of the window.
 
2012-12-03 06:12:43 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?

You're responding to the wrong person bro

one nut job is just the same as any other.


You might want to refrain from personal attacks. Just saying.
 
2012-12-03 06:14:23 PM  
Is chuckufarlie unaware that most common rifle caliber ammunition will penetrate low-level ballistic armour such as police vests?
 
2012-12-03 06:17:07 PM  

Dimensio: Is chuckufarlie unaware that most common rifle caliber ammunition will penetrate low-level ballistic armour such as police vests?


I was going to mention things like that or the 7.52x25 Tokarov (like the CZ-52 pistol) penetrating up to lvl III vests but he seems a little over his head already so I let it slide.
 
2012-12-03 06:17:55 PM  

chuckufarlie: I am going to cut this off right now. You are obviously delusional.


You asked for hypothetical situations, I gave you some.

Stay classy.
 
2012-12-03 06:20:26 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.


I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.
 
2012-12-03 06:21:52 PM  

way south: chuckufarlie: I am going to cut this off right now. You are obviously delusional.

You asked for hypothetical situations, I gave you some.

Stay classy.


on that long list of things that you do not understand, add hypothetical situations.

Don't you have a militia meeting to go to?
 
2012-12-03 06:22:39 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.

I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.


Wasn't a general but thanks for the promotion lol. I stand by what I said and you're confusing the "rules of war" with the "rules of engagement". Also, you shouldn't start name calling when you don't know what you're talking about. It makes you look childish.
 
2012-12-03 06:23:09 PM  

Dimensio: Is chuckufarlie unaware that most common rifle caliber ammunition will penetrate low-level ballistic armour such as police vests?


Did anybody tell you that I was not talking about low-level ballistic armour? DUH!
 
2012-12-03 06:25:53 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.

I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.

Wasn't a general but thanks for the promotion lol. I stand by what I said and you're confusing the "rules of war" with the "rules of engagement". Also, you shouldn't start name calling when you don't know what you're talking about. It makes you look childish.


the closest that you ever came to the military was when you were playing Call to Duty. I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. BTW, I did not call you a name, I pointed out that you are farking stupid.

But to be serious, that applies to all of you militia types, dooms day preppers and future zombie hunters. Just a bunch of people with your heads implanted so far up your asses that nothing sensible survives.
 
2012-12-03 06:26:23 PM  

dittybopper: Pincy: Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons.

I'm a Liberal and I don't piss my pants at the thought of people owning guns.

Good.

But I also think it is perfectly reasonable to put restrictions on gun ownership

Aye, there's the rub. What would you consider reasonable? We already have some reasonable laws, and some unreasonable ones.

and to mock people who think they need to own a gun in case they have to overthrow the government someday.

What, like that has never happened before? Don't you read history at *ALL*?

See, one of the *NICE* things about widespread private ownership of guns is that it makes totalitarianism that much harder to implement.

You don't have to be able to win, you just have to make it expensive enough that they won't try.


The point is that liberals want the government to be able to win. Someone out there enjoys a better life than they do, and they want to make them pay for it with not just everything they own, but their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

/Voting is the best revenge, right libs?
//For people worried that "They're gonna put all you back in chains", you're awfully pro-government power
 
2012-12-03 06:27:27 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.

I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.

Wasn't a general but thanks for the promotion lol. I stand by what I said and you're confusing the "rules of war" with the "rules of engagement". Also, you shouldn't start name calling when you don't know what you're talking about. It makes you look childish.

the closest that you ever came to the military was when you were playing Call to Duty. I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. BTW, I did not call you a name, I pointed out that you are farking stupid.

But to be serious, that applies to all of you militia types, dooms day preppers and future zombie hunters. Just a bunch of people with your heads implanted so far up your asses that nothing sensible survives.


So by playing call of duty, one joins ROTC? shiat I've been enlisted a lot longer than I thought. Maybe the DoD will cover my student loans now.
 
2012-12-03 06:27:48 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.

I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.

Wasn't a general but thanks for the promotion lol. I stand by what I said and you're confusing the "rules of war" with the "rules of engagement". Also, you shouldn't start name calling when you don't know what you're talking about. It makes you look childish.

the closest that you ever came to the military was when you were playing Call to Duty. I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. BTW, I did not call you a name, I pointed out that you are farking stupid.

But to be serious, that applies to all of you militia types, dooms day preppers and future zombie hunters. Just a bunch of people with your heads implanted so far up your asses that nothing sensible survives.


Give me a sec, Iol and I'll post a pic of my commission certificate. I think I have it in a box in the closet... why will I post the pic...because I'm bored xD
 
2012-12-03 06:28:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: way south: chuckufarlie: I am going to cut this off right now. You are obviously delusional.

You asked for hypothetical situations, I gave you some.

Stay classy.

on that long list of things that you do not understand, add hypothetical situations.

Don't you have a militia meeting to go to?


Naw.
I'd rather stay here and see what random insult you throw next at the people trying to debate you.

/Also catching up on news from wars that shouldn't be happening.
/You know, because one side has tanks and the other doesn't.
 
2012-12-03 06:31:01 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?

You obviously, because that was someone else, not me. He also said he needed automatic weapons and AP rounds because he believed in the former, which was a reference to the "people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" not hunting.

Then you are back to needing weapons much larger than anything that you can obtain legally. Why is it that your ilk can never understand that?

Well no you can obtain a *lot* of the stuff you're talking about legally. You just have to jump through a bunch of hoops and pay some cash to do so. If the US was in open rebellion, I imagine that the whole "legally obtain" thing is going to go out of the window.


I am sure that there is some sort of militia meeting that you need to get to.

Up to a point, morons like you are entertaining. You and your buddies have moved past that. It is sad to see a bunch of emasculated monkeys who believe that they can restore their manhood with some mythical stand against the government. Maybe if you boys would just stop marrying your sisters, things might improve.

But anybody SOOOOOO stupid that he believes that there is armed conflict between the people of this country and the government is beyond help or hope. It is not going to happen, cooter, get over it.

And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.
 
2012-12-03 06:32:35 PM  

chuckufarlie: I am sure that there is some sort of militia meeting that you need to get to.

Up to a point, morons like you are entertaining. You and your buddies have moved past that. It is sad to see a bunch of emasculated monkeys who believe that they can restore their manhood with some mythical stand against the government. Maybe if you boys would just stop marrying your sisters, things might improve.

But anybody SOOOOOO stupid that he believes that there is armed conflict between the people of this country and the government is beyond help or hope. It is not going to happen, cooter, get over it.

And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.


Did I ever say I'd fight against the government? Did I ever say I was part of a militia? You're rambling and rambling on about shiat you clearly don't understand. It's quite amusing.
 
2012-12-03 06:34:12 PM  

beta_plus: dittybopper: Pincy: Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons.

I'm a Liberal and I don't piss my pants at the thought of people owning guns.

Good.

But I also think it is perfectly reasonable to put restrictions on gun ownership

Aye, there's the rub. What would you consider reasonable? We already have some reasonable laws, and some unreasonable ones.

and to mock people who think they need to own a gun in case they have to overthrow the government someday.

What, like that has never happened before? Don't you read history at *ALL*?

See, one of the *NICE* things about widespread private ownership of guns is that it makes totalitarianism that much harder to implement.

You don't have to be able to win, you just have to make it expensive enough that they won't try.

The point is that liberals want the government to be able to win. Someone out there enjoys a better life than they do, and they want to make them pay for it with not just everything they own, but their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

/Voting is the best revenge, right libs?
//For people worried that "They're gonna put all you back in chains", you're awfully pro-government power


by and large, liberals have a much better life than the average conservative. We do not look at Honey Boo Boo and wish that we had that life. I have seen the way that gun toting conservatives live and I want nothing to do with it. And those gun toting conservatives are happy as long as they have a gun, a bottle of beer and a sister to make love to.

The status quo is good.
 
2012-12-03 06:40:26 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.

I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.

Wasn't a general but thanks for the promotion lol. I stand by what I said and you're confusing the "rules of war" with the "rules of engagement". Also, you shouldn't start name calling when you don't know what you're talking about. It makes you look childish.

the closest that you ever came to the military was when you were playing Call to Duty. I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. BTW, I did not call you a name, I pointed out that you are farking stupid.

But to be serious, that applies to all of you militia types, dooms day preppers and future zombie hunters. Just a bunch of people with your heads implanted so far up your asses that nothing sensible survives.


My grad cert is at home but I have my old cert from OBC that serves the same purpose. Anything else you'd like to question Mr. I don't know WTF I'm talking about i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-03 06:50:28 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.

I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.

Wasn't a general but thanks for the promotion lol. I stand by what I said and you're confusing the "rules of war" with the "rules of engagement". Also, you shouldn't start name calling when you don't know what you're talking about. It makes you look childish.

the closest that you ever came to the military was when you were playing Call to Duty. I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. BTW, I did not call you a name, I pointed out that you are farking stupid.

But to be serious, that applies to all of you militia types, dooms day preppers and future zombie hunters. Just a bunch of people with your heads implanted so far up your asses that nothing sensible survives.

My grad cert is at home but I have my old cert from OBC that serves the same purpose. Anything ...


one more question for you. How stupid do you have to be to believe that people are going to accept something like that as real? I have a certificate somewhere that shows that I am the rightful emperor of Mars,but I cannot find it right now. Maybe I can create a new one with Photoshop.
 
2012-12-03 06:52:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: one more question for you. How stupid do you have to be to believe that people are going to accept something like that as real? I have a certificate somewhere that shows that I am the rightful emperor of Mars,but I cannot find it right now. Maybe I can create a new one with Photoshop.



Lol, whatever man. Still searching for Obama's birth certificate?
 
2012-12-03 06:52:07 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Princess Ryans Knickers: s2s2s2: Princess Ryans Knickers: Which part of 'well-regulated' do you not understand?

Which part of "the people" do you not understand?

Exactly. So if "the people" decide to limit your guns your response is what, now?

"Every immoral law must be disobeyed."


So you don't like the Constitution. Gotcha.
 
2012-12-03 06:53:27 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: I am sure that there is some sort of militia meeting that you need to get to.

Up to a point, morons like you are entertaining. You and your buddies have moved past that. It is sad to see a bunch of emasculated monkeys who believe that they can restore their manhood with some mythical stand against the government. Maybe if you boys would just stop marrying your sisters, things might improve.

But anybody SOOOOOO stupid that he believes that there is armed conflict between the people of this country and the government is beyond help or hope. It is not going to happen, cooter, get over it.

And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.

Did I ever say I'd fight against the government? Did I ever say I was part of a militia? You're rambling and rambling on about shiat you clearly don't understand. It's quite amusing.


you fit the profile. Don't try to deny it at this point. Not that I give a care one way or the other but at least you could be honest about it. I do not understand your type, you are too cowardly to even admit what you are.
 
2012-12-03 06:55:47 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: one more question for you. How stupid do you have to be to believe that people are going to accept something like that as real? I have a certificate somewhere that shows that I am the rightful emperor of Mars,but I cannot find it right now. Maybe I can create a new one with Photoshop.


Lol, whatever man. Still searching for Obama's birth certificate?


Now you are really confused. You are the one who fits the profile of a birther, not me. You are apparently stupider than I gave you credit for. Tell me. is it difficult to breathe if you close your mouth?
 
2012-12-03 07:01:34 PM  

chuckufarlie: Bell-fan: whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads

I love this...

Here... let's take a moment to shift a paradigm for a moment.

"so grow up and accept that some regulation of your rights to free speech may happen. And if your newspaper/tvstation doesn't stop getting so nosy you can expect federal officials to start raiding their offices"

Look, the Constitution _isn't_ the bible... it's considerably more important given that it's the basis of our entire rule of law in the US. You have to either respect the foundation of the law or it has no basis.

In the same way that we treasure the 1st amendment we MUST give exactly the same weight to the 2nd amendment. Why? Because the premise for it is to provide us a means to enforce our rights when others seek to restrict them.

Furthermore the founders were revolutionaries... they saw that to keep or declare your liberty you must at times fight and shed blood to protect those rights. They also saw first had how europe had disarmed its populace and enforced a dictatorial regime over its people and sought to not have the same happen in the US.

There is nothing abou ...


You're a fool. I'm sorry to have to say it as bluntly as that... but it's the truth. Look. My background. Cryptolinguist and intelligence analyst for NSA while in the USAF. Now, let me give you the "by the numbers" of how it works.

Handguns and civilian weapons are not that great against a modern military, but they aren't meant to be. The idea is that if the entire civillian population is armed, then when you move troops in, ever single civilian can shoot and or kill one or more enemy combatant. Maybe you arent' familiar with the concept of attrition but there are VASTLY more civillians than military. And the civilians that aren't killed, well they get to gather up the military grade weapons that the enemy had. Or raid military ammo and supply dumps, burn supplies, destroy crops (thus denying the enemy food) burn up fuel (at which point those tanks become useless as do planes and helicopters.

In short, you don't face the military in a head on large assault ground force like you're implying... you guerrilla them to death, steal their stuff, and before you know it you have your own fully armed military force. And Gee, that's how every revolution works. The peasants rise up, grab the tools of the oppressor and turn them on them. The idea is that you start WITH weapons first off... and that makes the turn around time for overthrow much quicker.
 
2012-12-03 07:01:37 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: I am sure that there is some sort of militia meeting that you need to get to.

Up to a point, morons like you are entertaining. You and your buddies have moved past that. It is sad to see a bunch of emasculated monkeys who believe that they can restore their manhood with some mythical stand against the government. Maybe if you boys would just stop marrying your sisters, things might improve.

But anybody SOOOOOO stupid that he believes that there is armed conflict between the people of this country and the government is beyond help or hope. It is not going to happen, cooter, get over it.

And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.

Did I ever say I'd fight against the government? Did I ever say I was part of a militia? You're rambling and rambling on about shiat you clearly don't understand. It's quite amusing.

you fit the profile. Don't try to deny it at this point. Not that I give a care one way or the other but at least you could be honest about it. I do not understand your type, you are too cowardly to even admit what you are.


Fit the profile of a militia member? I mean I own guns and I'm a middle class white guy. I don't belong to a militia. I don't hold combat readiness drills in the woods on the weekend. I'm not stockpiling rations and ammo for the "inevitable" seizure of my guns by Obama and his cohorts. I hunt, but honestly I'm not very good at it -- don't have a ton of time to dedicate to the prep work. I live in the middle of the 3rd biggest city in the country and use public transit almost exclusively. If I fit the profile of a potential militia member, then I imagine roughly 75% of US gun owners do as well.

That's a pretty big militia.
 
2012-12-03 07:03:16 PM  

chuckufarlie: And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.


...and that's why Afghanistan has been won and is now a peaceful nation.
 
2012-12-03 07:09:01 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: But do not tell me that you need your rifle to defend your freedom. Take a look at the arsenal of even a second rate military and then compute how long you would last against it, armed with you rifle or automatic weapon.

Outstanding question ask the Iraqis, Afghanis, Viet Cong, ect....


And ask Admiral Yamamoto why he didn't want to invade the U.S.
 
2012-12-03 07:10:34 PM  

give me doughnuts: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: But do not tell me that you need your rifle to defend your freedom. Take a look at the arsenal of even a second rate military and then compute how long you would last against it, armed with you rifle or automatic weapon.

Outstanding question ask the Iraqis, Afghanis, Viet Cong, ect....

And ask Admiral Yamamoto why he didn't want to invade the U.S.


I like the "sniper behind every blade of grass" quote but apparently he didn't really say it :-/
 
2012-12-03 07:16:23 PM  

Fail in Human Form: give me doughnuts: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: But do not tell me that you need your rifle to defend your freedom. Take a look at the arsenal of even a second rate military and then compute how long you would last against it, armed with you rifle or automatic weapon.

Outstanding question ask the Iraqis, Afghanis, Viet Cong, ect....

And ask Admiral Yamamoto why he didn't want to invade the U.S.

I like the "sniper behind every blade of grass" quote but apparently he didn't really say it :-/


Bummer.
 
2012-12-03 07:23:13 PM  

chuckufarlie: Who are you planning on fighting against in this war?

I'm not planning on fighting anyone. It's just idiotic to say that guerilla warfare wouldn't work against the US army when it's the only strategy that's worked against them for the last 60 years...

No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

And that group may try to get foreign support, but it is not going to get it. The Navy will see to that.


If you think that this uprising would get popular support because the "wrong" person got elected, you'd better think about it again. There is nothing going on now that would cause people to support some sort of uprising. And there is nothing that is going to happen either. The system prevents it.


Yes, I'm sure that THAT was precisely the same sentiment that English Loyalists in 1776 thought would be the case too.

You see, there's this thing called History... you should look into it some time and maybe read about it... I hear you can learn all sorts of things by studying it and seeing how it repeats itself.

*throws up hands*

seriously man. You have perhaps the most overly simplistic world view I've ever seen.

If the US gov't went and enacted some law that ended up causing the US population to rise up against it we could end up with a genuine civil war on our hands... it has happened before ya know.

Let's just say that happened...asymmetrical warfare would ensue. Only in this case the US troops would be bereft of some key things. First and foremost amongst them the nearly unlimited logistical support from home. Rebels would attack supply lines right at their source... Food, clothing, ammo. All those would suddenly be in very finite supply as rebels destroy, sabotage, or steal the means of production of support of federal troops.
Never mind how many troops would flat outright refuse to fire on Americans in revolt or desert and join the rebels bringing with them arms, experience, and intelligence on what the federal gov't was planning.
 
2012-12-03 07:28:50 PM  

dittybopper: I suppose I could find more with better google-fu, but using simple queries I found at least 3 farkers who claim to belong to both the NRA and the ACLU. You sarcastically contended that there were none.


I'm another. Had it listed in my profile for years.
 
2012-12-03 07:29:15 PM  

vygramul: chuckufarlie: And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.

...and that's why Afghanistan has been won and is now a peaceful nation.


Ding ding ding... and there we have one (of the many) huge gaping holes in Chuckufarlie's argument.
 
2012-12-03 07:31:08 PM  

give me doughnuts: Fail in Human Form: give me doughnuts: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: But do not tell me that you need your rifle to defend your freedom. Take a look at the arsenal of even a second rate military and then compute how long you would last against it, armed with you rifle or automatic weapon.

Outstanding question ask the Iraqis, Afghanis, Viet Cong, ect....

And ask Admiral Yamamoto why he didn't want to invade the U.S.

I like the "sniper behind every blade of grass" quote but apparently he didn't really say it :-/

Bummer.


It would have been doubly ironic if he had tho.
Near the end when Japan was facing a land invasion, they were trying to arm every remaining soldier and peasant with anything that could shoot. Even makeshift single shot weapons.

dl.dropbox.com

The less fortunate would have to make do with swords or even spears.
They planned to fight a very long and bitter war.

/The US expected so many casualties, it ordered enough purple hearts to last them through the gulf wars. 
/It was a big motivation to use the Atomic bomb and force a swift end.
 
2012-12-03 07:37:37 PM  

Bell-fan: chuckufarlie: Who are you planning on fighting against in this war?

I'm not planning on fighting anyone. It's just idiotic to say that guerilla warfare wouldn't work against the US army when it's the only strategy that's worked against them for the last 60 years...

No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

And that group may try to get foreign support, but it is not going to get it. The Navy will see to that.


If you think that this uprising would get popular support because the "wrong" person got elected, you'd better think about it again. There is nothing going on now that would cause people to support some sort of uprising. And there is nothing that is going to happen either. The system prevents it.

Yes, I'm sure that THAT was precisely the same sentiment that English Loyalists in 1776 thought would be the case too.

You see, there's this thing called History... you should look into it some time and maybe read about it... I hear you can learn all sorts of things by studying it and seeing how it repeats itself.

*throws up hands*

seriously man. You have perhaps the most overly simplistic world view I've ever seen.

If the US gov't ...


What went on in 1776 was a situation that could not possibly happen again. That was a case of being governed from England with no say in what happened.

People in the USA have a say in what happens. We have elections. We have courts.

Tell me, Einstein, WHY would the government enact a law that would cause the majority of the people to rise up against it? How is the US Congress going to pass a law that would so enrage the people that it would cause a war to break out? Why would they want to do that? We are the ones that put them into office, what is going to cause them to turn on us like that?

You say that I have a simplistic world view? What you have is a world view that is not grounded in reality.

Let me put this into focus for you. You are afraid that the Congress is going to pass a law that conservatives do not agree with, say gun control. You do not see a majority of the people rising up against the government, you see a minority of the people getting upset over a law that the majority approves of and starting a war to resolve it.

You believe that if the government passes a law that you personally do not agree with, you have the right to start a war to have things your way.

Does that sound about right?
 
2012-12-03 07:43:21 PM  

Bell-fan: vygramul: chuckufarlie: And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.

...and that's why Afghanistan has been won and is now a peaceful nation.

Ding ding ding... and there we have one (of the many) huge gaping holes in Chuckufarlie's argument.


As I pointed out before, the people of the USA have very little interest in what is going on in Afghanistan. We are not in Afghanistan to permanently occupy it. We are fighting a small group that runs when confronted by superior force. They are not winning the war. They are just causing a lot of harm.

The people in the USA gradually lose interest in these foreign interventions that result in the troops being pulled out. You start a war against the US govt. from within the borders of the USA and the people are going to tell the military to go at you with all forces available. You are not going to have enough popular support because most of the people are actually satisfied with the situation as it is. There is going to be no point down the road when the govt. decides to pull the troops out of the conflict because it is going to be happening here.

What is going on in Afghanistan now is not what is going to happen here if some group decides to start a war.
 
2012-12-03 07:48:12 PM  

Bell-fan: chuckufarlie: Bell-fan: whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads

I love this...

Here... let's take a moment to shift a paradigm for a moment.

"so grow up and accept that some regulation of your rights to free speech may happen. And if your newspaper/tvstation doesn't stop getting so nosy you can expect federal officials to start raiding their offices"

Look, the Constitution _isn't_ the bible... it's considerably more important given that it's the basis of our entire rule of law in the US. You have to either respect the foundation of the law or it has no basis.

In the same way that we treasure the 1st amendment we MUST give exactly the same weight to the 2nd amendment. Why? Because the premise for it is to provide us a means to enforce our rights when others seek to restrict them.

Furthermore the founders were revolutionaries... they saw that to keep or declare your liberty you must at times fight and shed blood to protect those rights. They also saw first had how europe had disarmed its populace and enforced a dictatorial regime over its people and sought to not have the same happen in the US.

There i ...


You can tell me that you have any kind of credentials that you want, you cannot prove it and I don'[t care what you say.

Do you think that a military force is going to move around so you and your buddies can take pots shots at them with handguns? All they have to do is have a drone fly around over your compound and then fire a missile at you when a large enough group gets together.

If this military force is serious, they will not care about civilian casualties and will just start bombing and shelling towns and cities.


But let me repeat - RED DAWN is a movie. It would not work in the real world.

Not that I believe that you inhabit the real world.
 
2012-12-03 07:50:35 PM  

give me doughnuts: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: But do not tell me that you need your rifle to defend your freedom. Take a look at the arsenal of even a second rate military and then compute how long you would last against it, armed with you rifle or automatic weapon.

Outstanding question ask the Iraqis, Afghanis, Viet Cong, ect....

And ask Admiral Yamamoto why he didn't want to invade the U.S.


It is not that he did not want to invade the USA. He did not want to go to war against the USA.

IF you had actually read any history books, you would understand that nobody in charge in Japan had any idea about invading the USA. That was never their plan.
 
2012-12-03 07:51:32 PM  

vygramul: chuckufarlie: And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.

...and that's why Afghanistan has been won and is now a peaceful nation.


you miss the point. Why am I nor surprised??
 
2012-12-03 08:26:16 PM  

chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.

...and that's why Afghanistan has been won and is now a peaceful nation.

you miss the point. Why am I nor surprised??


I don't think he's the one that has missed the point of this thread. So I'll leave you with a quote "To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence".
 
2012-12-03 08:34:42 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.

...and that's why Afghanistan has been won and is now a peaceful nation.

you miss the point. Why am I nor surprised??

I don't think he's the one that has missed the point of this thread. So I'll leave you with a quote "To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence".


and I will leave YOU with this: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
 
2012-12-03 08:35:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.

...and that's why Afghanistan has been won and is now a peaceful nation.

you miss the point. Why am I nor surprised??


How have you evaded a farkie label for all this time? Wait, I know why.. because you have never been in danger of creating post formed on sound, rational thinking.
 
2012-12-03 08:42:11 PM  

give me doughnuts: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: But do not tell me that you need your rifle to defend your freedom. Take a look at the arsenal of even a second rate military and then compute how long you would last against it, armed with you rifle or automatic weapon.

Outstanding question ask the Iraqis, Afghanis, Viet Cong, ect....

And ask Admiral Yamamoto why he didn't want to invade the U.S.


Jesus Christ. The admiral never said the quote you are refering to. Look it up.
 
2012-12-03 08:43:37 PM  

chuckufarlie: Bell-fan: chuckufarlie: Bell-fan: whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads

I love this...

Here... let's take a moment to shift a paradigm for a moment.

"so grow up and accept that some regulation of your rights to free speech may happen. And if your newspaper/tvstation doesn't stop getting so nosy you can expect federal offic