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.

(Betabeat)   Guess what Bill Clinton's CES speech was about. Go ahead ...guess   (betabeat.com) divider line 40
    More: Obvious, Bill Clinton, Ces, Samsung  
•       •       •

5242 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2013 at 9:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-10 10:03:39 AM
5 votes:
They are *REALLY* pushing this hard. I think it's going to backfire on them, but my biggest fear is that it's going to backfire in a particularly nasty way. The following was written in 1976, and it's still true today:

On the other side is a group of people who do not tend to be especially articulate or literate, and whose world view is rarely expressed in print. Their model is that of the independent frontiersman who takes care of himself and his family with no interference from the state. They are "conservative" in the sense that they cling to America's unique pre-modern tradition-a non-feudal society with a sort of medieval liberty writ large for everyman. To these people, "sociological'" is an epithet. Life is tough and competitive. Manhood means responsibility and caring for your own.

This hard-core group is probably very small, not more than a few million people, but it is a dangerous group to cross. From the point of view of a right-wing threat to internal security, these are perhaps the people who should be disarmed first, but in practice they will be the last. As they say, to a man, "I'll bury my guns in the wall first." They ask, because they do not understand the other side, "Why do these people want to disarm us?" They consider themselves no threat to anyone; they are not criminals, not revolutionaries. But slowly, as they become politicized, they find an analysis that fits the phenomenon they experience: Someone fears their having guns, someone is afraid of their defending their families, property, and liberty. Nasty things may happen if these people begin to feel that they are cornered.

Great American Gun War

The Timothy McVeigh of tomorrow is being created right now, not by the NRA, but by some of the same people who created him back then, like Bill Clinton. Remember that pretty much his sole motivation was due to the advance of gun control back in the early 1990's, and to two separate incidents (Ruby Ridge and Waco) that had attempts at enforcing gun control at their very heart, and resistance against that enforcement.

That's not an endorsement of McVeigh's actions, btw, anymore than I would be endorsing the actions of the 9/11 hijackers by saying that the seeds of that action were planted by the US actively ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout in 1989. McVeigh got what he deserved: Execution.

Pushing for more gun control this hard and this fast on all fronts is going to cause the fringe elements, who had been pretty much quiescent and satisfied, and feeling vindicated after the Heller and McDonald decisions in the Supreme Court, to go into overdrive. Even the ones that aren't necessarily hardcore and wouldn't dream of committing a violent act unprovoked will "bury their guns in the wall" if a ban or some sort of registration comes in, and the will wait for the results of the inevitable legal challenges to wend through the court system.

The problem is that if there is some sort of spark, like a person who is generally law-abiding but who gets raided and possibly harmed or killed by the ATF because they think he has something prohibited or unregistered, then that might motivate an unhinged person who would have otherwise not been motivated to take action to strike back, and that's a *VERY* bad thing.

I think that Barack Obama is making a bad miscalculation here, and it's going to bite him (and us) in the ass. He is riding what he sees as a large wave of popular support for doing SOMETHING, and it sounds like he and others are throwing everything they possibly can against the wall to see if it will stick. The problem is that it's going to radicalize even some of the Fudds* because some of the proposals on the table will actually effect them.

The popular support to do something may be wide, but it's shallow, and will fade. That's why there is the insistence on the part of the administration to "strike while the iron is hot", and right after the election. Note that Barack Obama is safe now: Had he tried this right before the election, using the Aurora theater shooting, it's entirely possible that he would have lost rural Democrats, and that we'd be swearing in Mitt Romney in a little over a week. I've pointed out in numerous Fark threads over the past 2 years or so that the Obama administration wouldn't push for gun control until after the election. Sadly, I was proven to be right.

The support for gun rights, on the other hand, may not be quite as wide (though recent polls suggest the country is pretty evenly split), but it's *DEEP*. People who care about gun rights care about them even when guns aren't in the public eye, and they have long memories.

Having rung the warning tocsin, I'm going to finish with the last part from that paper I quoted earlier, because I think it's advice that Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and all the rest would do well to remember:

It would be useful, therefore, if some of the mindless passion, on both sides, could be drained out of the gun-control issue. Gun control is no solution to the crime problem, to the assassination problem, to the terrorist problem. Reasonable licensing laws, reasonably applied, might be marginally useful in preventing some individuals, on some occasions, from doing violent harm to others and to themselves. But so long as the issue is kept at white heat, with everyone having some ground to suspect everyone else's ultimate intentions, the rule of reasonableness has little chance to assert itself.

I'm fine with reasonable laws within the constraints of respecting the enumerated constitutional rights of all Americans. I think that, for the most part, we already have pretty reasonable gun laws. Guns are more restricted than any other common item you can buy, and I have a hard time imagining any law that would be of significance in preventing a tragedy like Sandy Hook that would still be constitutional. After all, Connecticut already *HAD* many of the proposals on the table: Assault weapons ban, waiting periods, licensing and registration. We know that any assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions are going to fail: We tried it at the national level for 10 years, and according to the government itself, it didn't work: "Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement". Re-writing it so it would work would will bring the Fudds into it, because then many purely sporting or self-defense guns would be affected.

*Fudds are generally older hunters and other sportsman who are OK with a number of gun restrictions, so long as they don't directly effect their hobby. Named after Elmer Fudd of Looney Tunes fame, the term is mildly pejorative. A more politic way to express it is to call them "Gun Culture 1.0" with the people who believe in a substantive Second Amendment right that encompasses more modern weaponry as "Gun Culture 2.0". There is a generation gap, with the younger gun owners more aligned with owning semi-automatics and the like, but there is a significant number of older gun owners who also would be in GC 2.0. Few young shooters would be GC 1.0.
2013-01-10 09:43:41 AM
2 votes:

UberDave: BronyMedic: SlothB77: 1 in 4 american adults do not believe the constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun.  That is mindboggling for me.

As I understand it, the area is also a legitimate debate zone for constitutional scholars - academic and in practice - due to the wording of the amendment as well.

You mean "Arms" doesn't just mean anything from a board with a nail in it to a 4mm howitzer?  Who would have thunk it?


There's also the entire first half of the text to consider.

Remember kiddies: It's not judicial activism when we do it.
2013-01-10 04:55:11 PM
1 votes:

red5ish: You rarely hear about someone who wants to intentionally kill a bunch of people choosing alcohol as their weapon.


True... was there a point to that?

Is it only intent that we are going to concern ourselves with or are we actually concerned about the deaths.

Hypothetically - if all gun deaths (every.single.one) were ruled to be accidental (nobody ever intentionally killed anyone with a gun - again, hypothetically), would that change how you feel about them?
2013-01-10 01:14:15 PM
1 votes:

red5ish: dittybopper: What, you mean like the .30-30 Winchester

No, I mean Teflon coated rounds that were designed specifically to pierce ballistic vests.


Educate yourself.

I don't personally have a problem with people owning firearms as long as they are handled responsibly and used for purposes like hunting, target shooting or home defense. I don't have any problem with concealed carry either, as long as the licensing is rigorous.

So, essentially, you don't have a problem with people owning guns as long as they don't murder other people. I think most gun owners would be in agreement with you on this point.
2013-01-10 12:53:05 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: GanjSmokr: So it comes down to what one person can do in one scenario as opposed to the total damage done by all people with a certain substance/object?

I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that people want to prevent mass shootings. 26 six-year-olds dead at once is a different thing than 3,000 dead in a year. Why is it such a bad thing to want to mitigate or even prevent mass shootings? Because 26 people die four times a year that's not enough deaths to care?


I don't understand why it's so hard to see the hypocrisy of someone wanting to ban a tool for killing while at the same time not wanting to ban a recreational drug that causes many more deaths than said tool.
2013-01-10 12:49:40 PM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: MFK: But I gotta say, that the constant massacres followed by the gun "enthusiasts" in comments sections and fark threads have totally knocked me off the fence and onto the control side. Way to go guys. By effectively saying "no, you just have to deal with the mass killings because i really like my AR-15" and refusing to concede even an inch by screaming "CONSTITUSHUN!!" anytime someone tries to say "hey, maybe we shouldn't let non-military people buy military style hardware" you undermine your own position and make it easier for the rest of the citizenry to say "you know what Randy? fark your gun."

We have to deal with far far more deaths because people really like their booze. Approximately 80,000 people die in alcohol related deaths. If you're going to argue that we should get rid of regular semi automatic rifles, then you should also be arguing for a reinstatement of prohibition. Why is the cost in lives for the more deadly alcohol considered a fair trade for freedom, but the far lower cost in deaths for the ability to own firearms is unacceptable? Get real, you're just a shill pretending you "see the light" when in fact you couldn't be farther from it. Facts don't support your position.

Alcohol causes the impairment, not the damage. Thats why its illegal to drink and do things that would be dangerous to do impaired.


It's illegal to pickup a firearm and start gunning people down.
2013-01-10 12:46:38 PM
1 votes:

MFK: BraveNewCheneyWorld: MFK: But I gotta say, that the constant massacres followed by the gun "enthusiasts" in comments sections and fark threads have totally knocked me off the fence and onto the control side. Way to go guys. By effectively saying "no, you just have to deal with the mass killings because i really like my AR-15" and refusing to concede even an inch by screaming "CONSTITUSHUN!!" anytime someone tries to say "hey, maybe we shouldn't let non-military people buy military style hardware" you undermine your own position and make it easier for the rest of the citizenry to say "you know what Randy? fark your gun."

We have to deal with far far more deaths because people really like their booze. Approximately 80,000 people die in alcohol related deaths. If you're going to argue that we should get rid of regular semi automatic rifles, then you should also be arguing for a reinstatement of prohibition. Why is the cost in lives for the more deadly alcohol considered a fair trade for freedom, but the far lower cost in deaths for the ability to own firearms is unacceptable? Get real, you're just a shill pretending you "see the light" when in fact you couldn't be farther from it. Facts don't support your position.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. By making these false equivalences, you're doing a disservice to your position People *die* from all sorts of things and it would be silly to try and legislate all causes of death away. But I can't take a twelve pack of beer into a movie theater and *kill* a bunch of people with it by simply moving my finger. Why can't you even acknowledge this basic point. It's not so much the "gun" as it is its capacity for mass murder.


So it comes down to what one person can do in one scenario as opposed to the total damage done by all people with a certain substance/object? Even though guns kill a fraction of the people that alcohol kills, it's OK to keep alcohol legal to consume because you can't kill "a bunch" of people with it at once?

Gotcha.
2013-01-10 12:42:43 PM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: Alcohol causes the impairment, not the damage. Thats why its illegal to drink and do things that would be dangerous to do impaired.


Blame the people, not the drink? Why does that sound so familiar?

Vlad_the_Inaner: Note that the gripe is the national legislature verses the state legislatures, and that "having our arms in our own possession" is not having a personal gun closet in a personal residence, but an armory under local government control instead of only federal control. To these guys, "we", "our" and "us" is the local Virgina government, not isolated individuals. Each state was basically considered a localized consensus of 'the people' (you know, the guys mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution)


So naturally when the first amendment refers to "the people" they don't mean that each and every person has freedom of speech, only their state does, correct?

MFK: This is exactly what I'm talking about. By making these false equivalences, you're doing a disservice to your position People *die* from all sorts of things and it would be silly to try and legislate all causes of death away. But I can't take a twelve pack of beer into a movie theater and *kill* a bunch of people with it by simply moving my finger. Why can't you even acknowledge this basic point. It's not so much the "gun" as it is its capacity for mass murder.


So it matters more to you "how" people die, rather than how many actually die? It's not a false equivalence at all, alcohol is purely unnecessary, and gun grabbers claim that guns are completely unnecessary as well. Alcohol kills far more people than guns do, and you most likely want to keep alcohol legal. That feeling of discomfort you're experiencing is called cognitive dissonance.
2013-01-10 12:37:11 PM
1 votes:

coeyagi: Thanks Madame Clio. Please shows the exact synaptical evidence of your clairvoyance and mind readings that were proven true. Why is the slaying of 20 children that hard to believe that it broke the camel's back? Was it because Wayne LaPierre told you in Feb 2012 that Obama was coming for your guns? Maybe the seed was planted and now you WANT it to be true?


Nope.

I've been saying that the Obama administration wouldn't press for any major gun control until after the election for a while now.

From Thread 6767612, back on November 28, 2011


dittybopper
2011-11-28 03:21:25 PM
rcuhljr: You Cant Explain That:
You are full of sheeit. Obama wants to take your guns away. The NRA itself said so.

While I know you're joking(About Obama, not about what the NRA is saying), a general reminder to take information with a grain of salt anytime it comes from someone who's income stream is based on your fear. (I'm looking at you 'Guess what might be killing your child! tonight at 11' journalism.)

Here is a good summary of just *WHY* Obama is pretty much silent on the issue. Short version: He doesn't want to get his ass kicked in the 2012 election.


I'm hardly clairvoyant. I just pay attention. You'd have to be stupid or willfully blind on the subject to ignore the reality that once he won his second term, he doesn't have to worry about being reelected and can press for gun control without fear of losing votes. The Sandy Hook shooting gave him the perfect opportunity to do so.
2013-01-10 12:30:04 PM
1 votes:

clane: [twg2a.files.wordpress.com image 400x400]


It's almost as if gun control was brought in to rein in crime!

/farking shocking, I know
MFK
2013-01-10 12:24:55 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: MFK: But I gotta say, that the constant massacres followed by the gun "enthusiasts" in comments sections and fark threads have totally knocked me off the fence and onto the control side. Way to go guys. By effectively saying "no, you just have to deal with the mass killings because i really like my AR-15" and refusing to concede even an inch by screaming "CONSTITUSHUN!!" anytime someone tries to say "hey, maybe we shouldn't let non-military people buy military style hardware" you undermine your own position and make it easier for the rest of the citizenry to say "you know what Randy? fark your gun."

We have to deal with far far more deaths because people really like their booze. Approximately 80,000 people die in alcohol related deaths. If you're going to argue that we should get rid of regular semi automatic rifles, then you should also be arguing for a reinstatement of prohibition. Why is the cost in lives for the more deadly alcohol considered a fair trade for freedom, but the far lower cost in deaths for the ability to own firearms is unacceptable? Get real, you're just a shill pretending you "see the light" when in fact you couldn't be farther from it. Facts don't support your position.


This is exactly what I'm talking about. By making these false equivalences, you're doing a disservice to your position People *die* from all sorts of things and it would be silly to try and legislate all causes of death away. But I can't take a twelve pack of beer into a movie theater and *kill* a bunch of people with it by simply moving my finger. Why can't you even acknowledge this basic point. It's not so much the "gun" as it is its capacity for mass murder.
2013-01-10 12:14:15 PM
1 votes:

MFK: But I gotta say, that the constant massacres followed by the gun "enthusiasts" in comments sections and fark threads have totally knocked me off the fence and onto the control side. Way to go guys. By effectively saying "no, you just have to deal with the mass killings because i really like my AR-15" and refusing to concede even an inch by screaming "CONSTITUSHUN!!" anytime someone tries to say "hey, maybe we shouldn't let non-military people buy military style hardware" you undermine your own position and make it easier for the rest of the citizenry to say "you know what Randy? fark your gun."


We have to deal with far far more deaths because people really like their booze. Approximately 80,000 people die in alcohol related deaths. If you're going to argue that we should get rid of regular semi automatic rifles, then you should also be arguing for a reinstatement of prohibition. Why is the cost in lives for the more deadly alcohol considered a fair trade for freedom, but the far lower cost in deaths for the ability to own firearms is unacceptable? Get real, you're just a shill pretending you "see the light" when in fact you couldn't be farther from it. Facts don't support your position.
2013-01-10 12:12:33 PM
1 votes:

MFK: I've always been a supporter of responsible firearms ownership. need a rifle or shotgun for hunting? Absolutely OK. You feel like you need a handgun for home defense? Totally cool.

But I gotta say, that the constant massacres followed by the gun "enthusiasts" in comments sections and fark threads have totally knocked me off the fence and onto the control side. Way to go guys. By effectively saying "no, you just have to deal with the mass killings because i really like my AR-15" and refusing to concede even an inch by screaming "CONSTITUSHUN!!" anytime someone tries to say "hey, maybe we shouldn't let non-military people buy military style hardware" you undermine your own position and make it easier for the rest of the citizenry to say "you know what Randy? fark your gun."


6000+ people die to handguns.

In the same year, 300 odd people died to rifles, almost certainly a small number of which were "assault rifles." Gun murders have been decreasing for two decades.

But yeah, "assault rifles" are the problem.
2013-01-10 11:57:42 AM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: pxsteel: Go ahead and ban semi-auto's or begin a confiscation, you will start a war

With 30K gun related deaths a year, some would say we're already in one.


War on drugs and war on self considering more than half are suicides.

Would you tell a woman what to do with her vagina? Why would you tell someone their pain isn;t great enough or their cancer isn't terminal enough to kill themselves.

Is it the loss of tax revenue? I know you guys like squeezing people for as much as you can.....
2013-01-10 11:53:24 AM
1 votes:

Vlad_the_Inaner: As to collective rights, if you go to sources like the Virginia Ratification debates, you see that the founders aren't talking about the militia as 'guy who can own guns', but as an arm of goverment (general sense, not 'arm of THE government)


I can stick right within the 2nd amendment and refer to my elementary school math classes and realize that a militia is a subset of "the people", and it is the people who's rights shall not be infringed, not a militia's(never mind the fact that militia's were composed of regular people in a time of need). There is no logical way you can believe they didn't mean for the people (us) to own guns without infringement.
2013-01-10 11:33:14 AM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: HotWingConspiracy: I guess more stringent measures will be required.

Nope, we've been repeatedly told nothing can be done to reduce gun violence! Through government policy and public awareness we've managed to substantially reduce drunk driving deaths and cigarette addiction over the past few decades but when it comes to guns America is uniquely powerless to attempt to take even small steps to reduce gun violence. How dare you even think such a thing. Good day.


Except for the simple fact that gun violence has been going down every year. Doing basically nothing produced the result you are asking for.
2013-01-10 11:23:28 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: So you're saying that if Newtown had occurred just prior to the election gun control wouldn't have been an issue. Riiiiiiiiight.


It would have been an issue, but the administration would have been much more circumspect about pressing for more gun control for fear of losing the rural democrats. Actually, it would have been a political nightmare for the administration had it happened the month before the election instead of the month after. He'd have had pressure from his base to do what he's doing now, but doing so would have surely cost him at least some votes, and so he would have had to walk an impossibly fine line.

Is it really all that hard to understand?
2013-01-10 10:58:20 AM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: dittybopper: dehehn: That said, I think anyone who thinks they're going to end up fighting an oppressive regime probably would like access to full-auto weapons, rocket launchers and howitzers.

One of the tenets of guerrilla warfare is "Make the enemy your quartermaster".

The enemy, of course, being American troops and first responders.


If those troops and first responders are part of an oppressive regime and doing their bidding, then yes, absolutely, and they'd deserve every bit of the name 'enemy'. And I say that as a person who has served in the Army, like my father did before me and my grandfather before him, and my two younger brothers after me*, and in fact many of my friends and extended family.

Do you disagree with that? That soldiers and police actively working for an oppressive regime deserve the sobriquet of "enemy"? Or is it OK, so long as there is an American Flag on their shoulder? Is that your position, because that seems to be what you are implying, and that's the sort of false patriotism to a symbol instead of to the ideals of our nation that is likely to cause an oppressive regime to take hold in the first place.

*Technically, one was in the Marine Corps, but that's still the military, unlike the Air Force.

Just because
2013-01-10 10:50:06 AM
1 votes:
Half of all deaths have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired, Clinton offers.

WTF is that even supposed to mean?

Let's look at the FACTS. Hardly anyone dies from so-called "assault rifles" that were restricted by the AWB. We're talking sub 5 percent, likely lower, of gun murders here. I even like Bill Clinton, but that is some hysterically bullshiat grandstanding.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Link

i.imgur.com
2013-01-10 10:49:53 AM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: red5ish: dittybopper: Yes, this attack is more heinous than most, because the victims are school kids, but any old massacre would have done just fine, so long as it was *AFTER* his reelection.


You have a very cavalier way of expressing yourself. The fact that you could list five previous mass shootings that occurred during this administration only underlines the seriousness of the problem. And when individuals can make blithe statements like "any old massacre would have done just fine" there is a serious problem.

Belief that prohibiting handgrips on semi-automatic rifles is a "solution" to massacres demonstrates either irrationality or stupidity.

I guess more stringent measures will be required.


Better managing of who obtains firearms, rather than entirely prohibiting classes of firearms, is a more reasonable solution to preventing violent crime; however, such measures are rarely considered by "gun control" advocates because they would still allow qualified civilians to possess firearms, which many such advocates believe to be abhorrent.
2013-01-10 10:49:33 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: This is what conspiracy nuts actually believe.


I don't think there is any "conspiracy" involved. Just intelligent political calculation on the part of Barack Obama. The man isn't stupid. He knew gun control was a losing issue for him, so he largely ignored it until after his reelection, despite ample opportunity for him to press for more.

Unfortunately, some mentally deranged man handed him an opportunity take action on things he said he wanted to do (see that link to his campaign website change.gov) a bare month after the election.

That's not conspiracy, that's just political calculation, no different from any other politician.
2013-01-10 10:45:43 AM
1 votes:

red5ish: dittybopper: Yes, this attack is more heinous than most, because the victims are school kids, but any old massacre would have done just fine, so long as it was *AFTER* his reelection.


You have a very cavalier way of expressing yourself. The fact that you could list five previous mass shootings that occurred during this administration only underlines the seriousness of the problem. And when individuals can make blithe statements like "any old massacre would have done just fine" there is a serious problem.


Belief that prohibiting handgrips on semi-automatic rifles is a "solution" to massacres demonstrates either irrationality or stupidity.
2013-01-10 10:41:51 AM
1 votes:

mksmith: So 1 in 4 American adults know how to read the whole of the Second Amendment more grammatically than the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. With selective reading, you can prove any damn thing you want.


More like, 1 in 4 will twist it to their own meaning no matter what it says, even when simple rules of English make it say the complete opposite of what they claim. Kind of like how Bush had a 24% strongly approve rating at his lowest point, and how Batshiat Crazy Alan Keyes got 27% of the vote against Obama. A quarter of people are just plain stupid and probably nuts.
2013-01-10 10:39:17 AM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: HotWingConspiracy: You missed the part where it would be in response to a kindergarten massacre.

If Obama waits to take action that means he's only concerned with the politics of it. The moment Obama does take action it proves he's only concerned with the politics of it. Heads I win, tails you lose.


Is he or is he not a politician? Are you arguing that politicians don't consider the political consequences of their potential actions?

I mean, I think I laid out a pretty reasonable and rational explanation for the observed events: Barack Obama took very little action on gun control during his first term, despite numerous opportunities to do so. Then, after his reelection, he latches on to the first incident (and it was a bad one, no doubt) in order to press the gun control agenda that he first laid out back in 2008. That's the "Urban Policy" page from change.gov, and it explicitly says "Obama and Biden ... support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.", among other things.

Don't act like this is some sudden conversion like Saul on the road to Damascus. It isn't. It's acting on a long term policy at a politically expedient time. What did his former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel say? Oh, yeah: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

This is that policy in action, and that's why they think they have to act fast, in order to push things through before another election starts to loom in the future.
2013-01-10 10:37:36 AM
1 votes:

mksmith: SlothB77: Eric Holder, (then as US Attorney), speaking at the Women's National Democratic Club in 1995: "What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable. It's not hip to carry a gun anymore. Uh, in the way in which we've changed our attitudes about cigarettes, we need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

and a companion article:

Rasmussen Reports website has published a poll January 9th 2013, and it finds that 74% of American adults "Continue to believe the US Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun."

Mission accomplished.

1 in 4 american adults do not believe the constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun.  That is mindboggling for me.

So 1 in 4 American adults know how to read the whole of the Second Amendment more grammatically than the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. With selective reading, you can prove any damn thing you want.


You are correct: selective reading has enabled some intellectually dishonest individuals to claim that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits firearm ownership by civilians who are not members of a militia.
2013-01-10 10:32:19 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: This is what conspiracy nuts actually believe.


Understanding that driving voters away before an election is a bad idea, now makes one a "conspiracy nut"?
2013-01-10 10:10:01 AM
1 votes:
Democrats have a surprise for gun owners?
Gee, I wonder what it is...

dl.dropbox.com

/Darn. I was hoping for jobs, health care reform, environmental protections and improved foreign relations.
/I guess we'll have to settle for criminal and naive infringements on our constitutional rights.
/No one saw that coming.
2013-01-10 10:05:21 AM
1 votes:

TofuTheAlmighty: Mr_Fabulous: I should be able to buy an ICBM equipped with nuclear warheads at my Wal-Mart if I choose to do so. After all, I need to protect myself from the government.

That's how I read the 2nd amendment, anyway. YMMV.

Strawman aside, I really would like a 2nd amendment absolutist explain why civilian ownership of RPGs and surface-to-air missiles is permissible or verboten. A bunch of (most?) gun enthusiasts are perfectly fine with the near ban on fully-auto firearms but froth at the mouth when semi-autos are eyed for greater regulation. Where's the threshold?


Between full auto and semi-auto. Yes, it is kind of arbitrary. My personal line is that citizens and police have the same rights.  I don't have a rifle but as long as the police have semi-auto rifles, I'm not giving up my right to own one.
2013-01-10 09:59:59 AM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: SlothB77: 1 in 4 american adults do not believe the constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun.  That is mindboggling for me.

As I understand it, the area is also a legitimate debate zone for constitutional scholars - academic and in practice - due to the wording of the amendment as well.


It's only debatable if you're unable to understand a statement like..

A well regulated refrigerator, being necessary to feed your family, the right of the people to keep and bear food shall not be infringed.

Some people will take that statement as giving the government control over what you put in your refrigerator, others will look at the common usage of the word regulated during the time in which this was written, and realize that regulated didn't mean "controlled" as it does today, but instead it would mean a well supplied refrigerator able to feed your family at any time, and that the actual right had little to do with the refrigerator itself, but the food, and everyone's right to have it.

The historical meaning of "well regulated"
Besides, the notion of a collective right is ludicrous in and of itself. Since when would anyone be afraid that the government would restrict itself to the point of impotence? That's exactly the opposite reason of why the revolution started.
2013-01-10 09:59:23 AM
1 votes:

clane: [twg2a.files.wordpress.com image 400x400]


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/"> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
2013-01-10 09:52:49 AM
1 votes:
twg2a.files.wordpress.com
2013-01-10 09:52:31 AM
1 votes:

MFAWG: UberDave: BronyMedic: SlothB77: 1 in 4 american adults do not believe the constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun.  That is mindboggling for me.

As I understand it, the area is also a legitimate debate zone for constitutional scholars - academic and in practice - due to the wording of the amendment as well.

You mean "Arms" doesn't just mean anything from a board with a nail in it to a 4mm howitzer?  Who would have thunk it?

There's also the entire first half of the text to consider.

Remember kiddies: It's not judicial activism when we do it.


That's the difference between reading it in plain English, and reading it as a legal statement. In plain English it implies the militia bit is the whole reason. Legally, however, the militia bit is not a qualifier, and the part about the right of the people to keep and bear arms stands on it's own. Most of this stuff makes sense if you bother to start reading what the SCOTUS justices actually say in their rulings. They explain it pretty well.
2013-01-10 09:52:25 AM
1 votes:
In one word

Teledildonics
2013-01-10 09:49:00 AM
1 votes:
Tappin dat ass?

Oh, and letting mentally ill people legally own all the human killing devices they can stuff in their basement is nuts. I have a feeling that most people that stock pile guns or even own more than a few are mentally ill. A collector, is one thing, hording is another. It's becoming obvious that a large number of the people buying these mass murder devices are simply the crazy lady with 80 cats.
2013-01-10 09:47:40 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: Eric Holder, (then as US Attorney), speaking at the Women's National Democratic Club in 1995: "What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable. It's not hip to carry a gun anymore. Uh, in the way in which we've changed our attitudes about cigarettes, we need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

and a companion article:

Rasmussen Reports website has published a poll January 9th 2013, and it finds that 74% of American adults "Continue to believe the US Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun."

Mission accomplished.

1 in 4 american adults do not believe the constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun.  That is mindboggling for me.


Since the average citizen is not in a well-regulated militia as per the constitution, I can see why 1 in 4 doubt the claim you make. I mean, 1 in 4 people can't be on the Supreme Court and be under the thumb of a well-regulated well-lobbied industry forcing SCOTUS to ignore the fact that the average American is not in a well-regulated militia, can they?
2013-01-10 09:45:17 AM
1 votes:
Chicago's strict gun control and how that has been a great working model?
2013-01-10 09:44:39 AM
1 votes:
Semi-autos are rarely used in crime. We all pretty much agree that semi-autos with large clips are really only good for nuts pretending to defend us from tyrants. So why don't you tell us why you really want to take them?
2013-01-10 09:37:14 AM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: SlothB77: 1 in 4 american adults do not believe the constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun.  That is mindboggling for me.

As I understand it, the area is also a legitimate debate zone for constitutional scholars - academic and in practice - due to the wording of the amendment as well.


You mean "Arms" doesn't just mean anything from a board with a nail in it to a 4mm howitzer?  Who would have thunk it?
2013-01-10 09:31:23 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: 1 in 4 american adults do not believe the constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun.  That is mindboggling for me.


As I understand it, the area is also a legitimate debate zone for constitutional scholars - academic and in practice - due to the wording of the amendment as well.
2013-01-10 09:19:16 AM
1 votes:
Eric Holder, (then as US Attorney), speaking at the Women's National Democratic Club in 1995: "What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable. It's not hip to carry a gun anymore. Uh, in the way in which we've changed our attitudes about cigarettes, we need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

and a companion article:

Rasmussen Reports website has published a poll January 9th 2013, and it finds that 74% of American adults "Continue to believe the US Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun."

Mission accomplished.

1 in 4 american adults do not believe the constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun.  That is mindboggling for me.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report