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

(The Daily Caller)   MSNBC is reviewing how tape was edited to make it look like a Newtown father was heckled   (dailycaller.com) divider line 271
    More: Followup, MSNBC, Sandy Hook  
•       •       •

3019 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Jan 2013 at 1:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-30 01:03:10 PM
"Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify
 
2013-01-30 01:12:20 PM
Now watch as we substitute a generic discussion (and/or rant)  about gun control for a discussion of how MSNBC falsified the news. Let's see if anyone notices.
 
2013-01-30 01:37:29 PM
Excuse me if I don't trust MSNBC, the Daily Caller OR "Twitchy".
 
2013-01-30 01:39:42 PM

tomasso: Now watch as we substitute a generic discussion (and/or rant)  about gun control for a discussion of how MSNBC falsified the news. Let's see if anyone notices.


I give it another three posts.
 
2013-01-30 01:42:46 PM
The Daily Caller chiding MSNBC over journalistic integrity.
 
2013-01-30 01:43:39 PM
Twitchy.com has been all over the story of NBC's latest... I was about to say "latest ethical lapse," but that would imply they have any ethics to begin with.

What a terrific opening sentence! I'm sure that what's to follow will be a level-headed discussion of the matter.
 
2013-01-30 01:44:42 PM
If anyone noticed, there is no correlation between assault rifles and the number of dead school children. In fact, back before the discovery of penicillin, more school kids died in a day than here in 2013.
 
2013-01-30 01:44:52 PM
Fox News and 1000 right wing radio programs edit tape 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for years on end with the sole purpose of twisting the facts to make Democrats and liberals look bad.

MSNBC might have been caught doing it once.

Translation- both sides are bad so stop criticizing us for doing it.
 
2013-01-30 01:45:06 PM
Does anyone have a link to the original "edited" video? It appears MSNBC has already replaced it with the unedited version...

Editor's note: This story has been amended from the original version to clarify the context of the remarks; the original video has been replaced with a fuller version.
 
2013-01-30 01:45:13 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify


Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.
 
2013-01-30 01:46:30 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Twitchy.com has been all over the story of NBC's latest... I was about to say "latest ethical lapse," but that would imply they have any ethics to begin with.

What a terrific opening sentence! I'm sure that what's to follow will be a level-headed discussion of the matter.


The real funny thing is that they're implying that Twitchy and Daily Caller actually had ethics at all.
 
2013-01-30 01:46:44 PM
Maybe just go ahead and stay quiet if the only thing you can come up with is "SECOND MEDMENTS" at a hearing about dead kindergarteners.
 
2013-01-30 01:47:53 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Twitchy.com has been all over the story of NBC's latest... I was about to say "latest ethical lapse," but that would imply they have any ethics to begin with.

What a terrific opening sentence! I'm sure that what's to follow will be a level-headed discussion of the matter.


Even if it was 100% true, this sentence hurts his point as it gives people the impression that his personal bias will be frequent in the article.
 
2013-01-30 01:48:34 PM
Twitchy.com has been all over the story of NBC's latest... I was about to say "latest ethical lapse," but that would imply they have any ethics to begin with. Let's just call it the latest example of NBC lying so egregiously, even a few other liberal media outlets are calling them out on it. Twitchy deserves our thanks for catching the lie and presenting the truth.
img844.imageshack.usAll we can do to fight this is tell the truth. Push back. Every day.

Every damn day.
 
2013-01-30 01:49:12 PM
Does this mean Twitchy is taking valuable time away from its jihad against Jason Biggs?
 
2013-01-30 01:50:48 PM
Smart move, considering that Heslin wasn't, in fact, heckled. Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone.

So, if a comedian says "No guy can say ______." and a guy 'responds,' that's not heckling?
 
2013-01-30 01:51:12 PM
I love the "this outrageous offense against the honest, sacred, pious citizens of Newtown SHALL NOT STAND, sir, no, it SHALL NOT STAND.  We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the fields, etc." outrage of the blogger.  Yes, only you, patriotic citizen, stand between us and black helicopter tyranny.
 
2013-01-30 01:51:16 PM
I love the line at the end of the article......."All we can do to fight this is tell the truth. Push back. Every day. Every damn day."

Yeah, right.... conservatives fighting to tell the truth. Good one. A real knee slapper.

u so funnee tee hee mek me laff lots
 
2013-01-30 01:53:09 PM
Twitchy

michellemalkinisanidiot.com
intershame.com
uglyrepublicans.com
 
2013-01-30 01:53:21 PM

GanjSmokr: Does anyone have a link to the original "edited" video? It appears MSNBC has already replaced it with the unedited version...

Editor's note: This story has been amended from the original version to clarify the context of the remarks; the original video has been replaced with a fuller version.


That's impossible. TFA assures us:

So now MSNBC will "review" it, and in a few days they'll put out a press release saying they've taken measures to ensure it won't happen again, and that'll be it.

If they corrected the problem that quickly, they're obviously just trying to make Twitchy and Daily Caller look bad.
 
2013-01-30 01:53:24 PM

Kibbler: Yes, only you, patriotic citizen, stand between us and black helicopter tyranny.


That sentence also works without the word "helicopter".
 
2013-01-30 01:54:17 PM

thenooch: If anyone noticed, there is no correlation between assault rifles and the number of dead school children. In fact, back before the discovery of penicillin, more school kids died in a day than here in 2013.


Wow, I was right!
 
2013-01-30 01:54:23 PM

GoldSpider: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.


No "need." The original assault weapons ban was not deemed unconstitutional.
 
2013-01-30 01:54:30 PM
blogs.villagevoice.com
 
2013-01-30 01:54:44 PM

BunkoSquad: Does this mean Twitchy is taking valuable time away from its jihad against Jason Biggs?


Wait what? Need context to this lol
 
2013-01-30 01:55:42 PM
"Twitchy" is what happens when Michelle Malkin smokes meth and blogs.
 
2013-01-30 01:56:38 PM
It's Tucker f*cking Carlson, for Christ's sake. Who gives a flying f*ck?
 
2013-01-30 01:56:45 PM

homelessdude: I love the line at the end of the article......."All we can do to fight this is tell the truth. Push back. Every day. Every damn day."

Yeah, right.... conservatives fighting to tell the truth. Good one. A real knee slapper.

u so funnee tee hee mek me laff lots


YEA!!! STupid lyng conservatives... Wait...huh...what? The libfart medie outlet MSNBC was caught lying, yet you claim it's conservatives who lie....is this some mantra you must keep repeating when faced with the an opposing truth that challenges your preception?

/Reality. It's not for everyone.
 
2013-01-30 01:57:04 PM

GoldSpider: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.


It's not broad at all. it just refers to "arms," not "all arms."
Fully automatic weapons are banned, and that somehow isn't seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
 
2013-01-30 01:57:56 PM

GoldSpider: Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.


Or pass a law that takes it to the Supreme Court and possibly get new and different interpretation.

If you're lucky, they'll broaden it to include machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and F-16s!
 
2013-01-30 01:59:16 PM

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Wait what? Need context to this lol


Best link I could find that wasn't to an actual Twitchy page.

Cliff Notes: Jason Biggs emerges from nowhere and writes some mean and vulgar tweets about Republican women. Twitchy notes he has a show (really!) debuting on Nickelodeon, and makes it their mission to get him fired, posting a new article every time he says anything. I kid you not: for a while on the Twitchy homepage they had categories "POLITICS | NEWS | ENTERTAINMENT | JASON BIGGS" or something like that.
 
2013-01-30 02:00:00 PM

whitman00: Fox News and 1000 right wing radio programs edit tape 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for years on end with the sole purpose of twisting the facts to make Democrats and liberals look bad.

MSNBC might have been caught doing it once.

Translation- both sides are bad so stop criticizing us for doing it.


Actually, they've been caught numerous times lately. In addition to this, they've also:

1. Edited the Zimmerman 911 call to make him appear racist.
2. Edited video showing an armed black man at a Tea Party rally so you couldn't tell he was black, with the implication that the armed person was white and racist.
3. Said that Steve Perry was talking about President Obama when he mentioned a "big, black cloud that hangs over America", when in fact Perry was talking about the national debt.

Hell, NBC has a *LONG* history of making shiat up.
 
2013-01-30 02:00:14 PM
Twitchy.com has been all over the story of NBC's latest... I was about to say "latest ethical lapse," but that would imply they have any ethics to begin with.

Twitchy, you say? Sounds legit.
 
2013-01-30 02:00:16 PM
""He was my son, he was my buddy, he was my best friend"

Stopped reading right there.

got too farking dusty up in here
 
2013-01-30 02:00:23 PM
A buddy of mine from the Connecticut Post was in the room, transcribed the exchange and verified that it was indeed heckling in tone, content and intent. Twitchy.com? What that is, I don't even...
 
2013-01-30 02:00:55 PM

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Twitchy

[michellemalkinisanidiot.com image 500x529]
[intershame.com image 358x294]
[uglyrepublicans.com image 348x300]


Looks like my ex telling me how much she loved have sex with me.
 
2013-01-30 02:01:47 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: GoldSpider: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.

No "need." The original assault weapons ban was not deemed unconstitutional.


The original ban never showed up in front of SCOTUS. In fact, there was little organized legal opposition. The legal environment is much different today.
 
2013-01-30 02:02:48 PM

Wooly Bully: It's Tucker f*cking Carlson, for Christ's sake. Who gives a flying f*ck?


I never thought I'd say someone lost credibility after giving up a bow tie, but here we are.

Hell, he was a primetime MSNBC host from 2005-08 and kept being paid as a contributor for one more year. Didn't he follow Olbermann?

Even better, this is from 2 days ago:

Mediaite Interview: Tucker Carlson Slams Ed Schultz And CNN, Feels Bad For Keith Olbermann, Praises MSNBC

In fact, Carlson warned MSNBC against toning down their pro-Democratic editorial voice down in President Barack Obama's second term as some have suggested. Carlson lauded the network for being honest about its mission, and said that their success in recent years is testament to the goodwill honesty yields.
 
2013-01-30 02:03:26 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: No "need." The original assault weapons ban was not deemed unconstitutional.


Or effective, for that matter.

As far as I know, the original AWB was never challenged in court.
 
2013-01-30 02:03:31 PM

lexslamman: A buddy of mine from the Connecticut Post was in the room, transcribed the exchange and verified that it was indeed heckling in tone, content and intent. Twitchy.com? What that is, I don't even...


I heard the audio on the radio and you didn't have to be in the room to catch the tone. Maybe it's sadly ironic, but man I wanted whoever did that to die on the spot. To me, that he didn't, is proof that there is no god.
 
2013-01-30 02:04:19 PM

GoldSpider: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.


People like to forget the "well regulated" part.
 
2013-01-30 02:04:36 PM

Danger Mouse: The libfart medie outlet MSNBC was caught lying


What was the lie?
 
2013-01-30 02:05:06 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Smart move, considering that Heslin wasn't, in fact, heckled. Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone.

So, if a comedian says "No guy can say ______." and a guy 'responds,' that's not heckling?


I'm not saying it was the father's motivation, but if someone is asking a question of an audience who isn't willing to respond for whatever reason and then the question asker attempts to make the point that "no one can answer my question", I can understand people wanting that point not to be made. If MSNBC thought that the way things happened for real was still heckling, they wouldn't have edited the video. It was sleezy and if those of us who consider ourselves liberal want to believe that the media we listen to is better than the right-wing media, then we should expect better of them then shiat like this. Way to go to undermine your credibility MSNBC.
 
2013-01-30 02:05:12 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify


He did prompt for a response.  However, that was not a response to the question so still inappropriate but I would not call it heckling.
 
2013-01-30 02:05:16 PM

dittybopper: whitman00: Fox News and 1000 right wing radio programs edit tape 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for years on end with the sole purpose of twisting the facts to make Democrats and liberals look bad.

MSNBC might have been caught doing it once.

Translation- both sides are bad so stop criticizing us for doing it.

Actually, they've been caught numerous times lately. In addition to this, they've also:

1. Edited the Zimmerman 911 call to make him appear racist.
2. Edited video showing an armed black man at a Tea Party rally so you couldn't tell he was black, with the implication that the armed person was white and racist.
3. Said that Steve Perry was talking about President Obama when he mentioned a "big, black cloud that hangs over America", when in fact Perry was talking about the national debt.

Hell, NBC has a *LONG* history of making shiat up.


To be fair, the word "black" should always be considered a racist term.

lexslamman: A buddy of mine from the Connecticut Post was in the room, transcribed the exchange and verified that it was indeed heckling in tone, content and intent. Twitchy.com? What that is, I don't even...


Well that settles it. If your buddy said it, it must be true. Thread's over everyone!
 
2013-01-30 02:05:28 PM

GoldSpider: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.


Devil's advocate:

If the Bill of Rights simply enumerates rights that already exist because they were granted by 'God', how can one amend it?
 
2013-01-30 02:06:21 PM

rufus-t-firefly: It's not broad at all. it just refers to "arms," not "all arms."
Fully automatic weapons are banned, and that somehow isn't seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.


Lionel Mandrake: If you're lucky, they'll broaden it to include machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and F-16s!


The word "reasonable" in any matter of law makes my head want to explode. There is no objective, definitive definition of what makes a restriction "reasonable".

I'm not looking for private ownership of machine guns or F16s or nuclear bombs, just an end to the ceaseless interpretation of the 2nd that is preventing us from doing anything about gun violence.
 
2013-01-30 02:06:32 PM

dittybopper: whitman00: Fox News and 1000 right wing radio programs edit tape 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for years on end with the sole purpose of twisting the facts to make Democrats and liberals look bad.

MSNBC might have been caught doing it once.

Translation- both sides are bad so stop criticizing us for doing it.

Actually, they've been caught numerous times lately. In addition to this, they've also:

1. Edited the Zimmerman 911 call to make him appear racist.
2. Edited video showing an armed black man at a Tea Party rally so you couldn't tell he was black, with the implication that the armed person was white and racist.
3. Said that Steve Perry was talking about President Obama when he mentioned a "big, black cloud that hangs over America", when in fact Perry was talking about the national debt.

Hell, NBC has a *LONG* history of making shiat up.


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-01-30 02:07:03 PM

rufus-t-firefly: [blogs.villagevoice.com image 250x318]


I always thought he did that pucker thing with his mouth to hide the stretch marks.
 
2013-01-30 02:07:06 PM
Cable news sucks. News at 11.
 
2013-01-30 02:08:28 PM
Answering a question is heckling?
 
2013-01-30 02:09:57 PM

Wayne 985: GoldSpider: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.

People like to forget the "well regulated" part.


The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.
 
2013-01-30 02:10:16 PM
So according to this idiot author, "looking into something" means GUILTY!
 
2013-01-30 02:10:32 PM

rufus-t-firefly: It's not broad at all. it just refers to "arms," not "all arms."
Fully automatic weapons are banned, and that somehow isn't seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.


This point needs to be hammered home every day. Even if flintlocks were the only guns available, the right the bear arms would still be recognized by any fair reading of the second amendment. The idea that the amendment protects private ownership of all weaponry is beyond idiotic.
 
2013-01-30 02:12:47 PM

Wayne 985: GoldSpider: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.

People like to forget the "well regulated" part.


Quit the opposite - the Supreme Court addressed it. Just not the way you wanted them to apparently.
 
2013-01-30 02:13:00 PM
GoldSpider:  Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.


But that's hard!
 
2013-01-30 02:13:00 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Fully automatic weapons are banned, and that somehow isn't seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.


No they're not. Although I do think that there should be a repeal of the Hughes amendment in the firearm owners protection act.
 
2013-01-30 02:13:08 PM
It'll be just like their completely opaque response to the deceptively edited George Zimmerman 911 call.

You mean the response where they acknowledge what happened, fired or otherwise disciplined all those responsible, and apologized? That opaque response?

If in fact another tape has been misleadingly edited (and I don't know yet that it was), then NBC really seems to have a problem in its corporate culture. It needs to seriously look into why this pattern has emerged, and deal with it.

But at a certain other network, which may or may not be fair and balanced, people don't get fired for distorting the news. They get promoted.
 
2013-01-30 02:13:09 PM

Ned Stark: The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.


'See this clause in the Constitution? *points* Yeah, that one. Ignore it. It's what the Founding Fathers intended.'
 
2013-01-30 02:13:14 PM

Wayne 985: People like to forget the "well regulated" part.


This goes back to a time where many people were suspicious of having a standing federal army. If for no other reason, the 2nd is due for an update.
 
2013-01-30 02:13:23 PM

GoldSpider: Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.


It's not too broad. Gun nuts made up interpretation of it is too broad.
 
2013-01-30 02:13:35 PM
"Nickleback rocks."

"There was no Holocaust."

Both of those are lies.

Just because both are lies, does not make those who utter them morally the same.
 
2013-01-30 02:15:20 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Ned Stark: The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.

'See this clause in the Constitution? *points* Yeah, that one. Ignore it. It's what the Founding Fathers intended.'


That's not it at all. Why are you lying?
 
2013-01-30 02:16:49 PM

YouWinAgainGravity: GoldSpider: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.

Devil's advocate:

If the Bill of Rights simply enumerates rights that already exist because they were granted by 'God', how can one amend it?


The innatenes of the bill of rights rights, or any innate rights for that matter, aether granted by God or merely implied by the existence of sapient beings, is up for debate. But even if the bill of rights was specifically handed down by God historical evidence would seem to indicate that he wont intervene all that much in the mortal world. 2/3rds of the states should be able to do it. Specially with modern lightning rods.
 
2013-01-30 02:17:19 PM

GoldSpider: Wayne 985: People like to forget the "well regulated" part.

This goes back to a time where many people were suspicious of having a standing federal army. If for no other reason, the 2nd is due for an update.


exactly. so it doesn't stand for what the gun nuts are pretending. It was so the US could have people around to protect the nation in times of war because we had no standing army.

So why were you suggesting that people who want gun regulation (which we have had in one form or another during the history of the US) should change the 2nd amendment when you admit it actually says what they says it says.
 
2013-01-30 02:18:23 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Ned Stark: The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.

'See this clause in the Constitution? *points* Yeah, that one. Ignore it. It's what the Founding Fathers intended.'


Speaking of ignoring, the Founders actually wrote a few things about civilian ownership of guns that might shed light on this.
 
2013-01-30 02:18:42 PM

Mrtraveler01: Lionel Mandrake: Twitchy.com has been all over the story of NBC's latest... I was about to say "latest ethical lapse," but that would imply they have any ethics to begin with.

What a terrific opening sentence! I'm sure that what's to follow will be a level-headed discussion of the matter.

The real funny thing is that they're implying that Twitchy and Daily Caller actually had ethics at all.


Blogs started by Malkin and Carlson when they read the writing on the wall and saw their Fox News/CNN meal tickets slipping.

/Just like Beck did starting The Blaze.
 
2013-01-30 02:19:15 PM

Frank N Stein: That's not it at all. Why are you lying?


You yourself claimed part of the amendment had no "legal weight," implying it could be discarded or ignored. Is English your third language?
 
2013-01-30 02:19:44 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Smart move, considering that Heslin wasn't, in fact, heckled. Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone.

So, if a comedian says "No guy can say ______." and a guy 'responds,' that's not heckling?


"Don't let anyone yell 'too late!'"
"Too late!"
"And punish those who do!"
 
2013-01-30 02:19:53 PM

Corvus: So why were you suggesting that people who want gun regulation (which we have had in one form or another during the history of the US) should change the 2nd amendment when you admit it actually says what they says it says.


Because it's a waste of effort to have liberal/conservative courts cyclically re-defining what are "reasonable" restrictions. Or are you content with the Heller decision?
 
2013-01-30 02:20:09 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Frank N Stein: That's not it at all. Why are you lying?

You yourself claimed part of the amendment had no "legal weight," implying it could be discarded or ignored. Is English your third language?


I did? When?
 
2013-01-30 02:20:18 PM

vygramul: TofuTheAlmighty: Ned Stark: The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.

'See this clause in the Constitution? *points* Yeah, that one. Ignore it. It's what the Founding Fathers intended.'

Speaking of ignoring, the Founders actually wrote a few things about civilian ownership of guns that might shed light on this.


If they don't know that by now after weeks and weeks of threads or are trying to claim the same stupid crap what are the odds they are a troll......
 
2013-01-30 02:20:41 PM

vygramul: TofuTheAlmighty: Ned Stark: The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.

'See this clause in the Constitution? *points* Yeah, that one. Ignore it. It's what the Founding Fathers intended.'

Speaking of ignoring, the Founders actually wrote a few things about civilian ownership of guns that might shed light on this.


Yes they did. But if it didn't pass then really it has no bearing on the matter. You can't cheery pick what a few people said and pretend that it is the law. What the law is is what passed.
 
2013-01-30 02:21:16 PM

mrshowrules: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

He did prompt for a response.  However, that was not a response to the question so still inappropriate but I would not call it heckling.


Reluctantly agree. The replys were unresponsive to the question but inasmuch as he invited them, they are not heckling per se. The media should have just publicized the facts as they happened. They didn't need to gild the lily. The fundemental douche-baggery is pretty self evident.
 
2013-01-30 02:22:04 PM

Corvus: vygramul: TofuTheAlmighty: Ned Stark: The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.

'See this clause in the Constitution? *points* Yeah, that one. Ignore it. It's what the Founding Fathers intended.'

Speaking of ignoring, the Founders actually wrote a few things about civilian ownership of guns that might shed light on this.

Yes they did. But if it didn't pass then really it has no bearing on the matter. You can't cheery pick what a few people said and pretend that it is the law. What the law is is what passed.


Translation: F*ck context.
 
2013-01-30 02:24:14 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify


So essentially they edited out a complete non-response. "Being in the Constitution" isn't a justification for keeping something in the Constitution (not that I feel that private firearm ownership should be done away with, just that I hate stupid responses in lieu of an actual argument).
 
2013-01-30 02:24:23 PM

Frank N Stein: I did? When?


My apologies. I didn't look at the handle (and I'm disinclined to keep straight the various morons who post).
 
2013-01-30 02:24:27 PM

GoldSpider: Corvus: So why were you suggesting that people who want gun regulation (which we have had in one form or another during the history of the US) should change the 2nd amendment when you admit it actually says what they says it says.

Because it's a waste of effort to have liberal/conservative courts cyclically re-defining what are "reasonable" restrictions. Or are you content with the Heller decision?


Well then stop voting for republicans who put political idealistic judges like Scalia and Thomas on the bench who are members and get paid by political groups!

Thomas's wife take large sums of money to influence from political groups to sway opinion for Christ sake. How is that not out and out bribery?
 
2013-01-30 02:24:33 PM

Frank N Stein: rufus-t-firefly: Fully automatic weapons are banned, and that somehow isn't seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

No they're not. Although I do think that there should be a repeal of the Hughes amendment in the firearm owners protection act.


They're banned except for those grandfathered in. And properly registered with the federal government by 1986.
And weirdly, lunatics who go on shooting rampages rarely if ever use fully automatic weapons. It's almost like the law makes it too hard for them to get. Like it effectively controls the availability of fully automatic weapons.
 
2013-01-30 02:24:40 PM

Danger Mouse: homelessdude: I love the line at the end of the article......."All we can do to fight this is tell the truth. Push back. Every day. Every damn day."

Yeah, right.... conservatives fighting to tell the truth. Good one. A real knee slapper.

u so funnee tee hee mek me laff lots

YEA!!! STupid lyng conservatives... Wait...huh...what? The libfart medie outlet MSNBC was caught lying, yet you claim it's conservatives who lie....is this some mantra you must keep repeating when faced with the an opposing truth that challenges your preception?

/Reality. It's not for everyone.



My "precetion" (sic) of the "libfart medie" (sic) is they are complicit in the lies and misinformation, but not nearly to the degree of the right.. But I do agree with your little admonishment, "Reality. It's not for everyone". Yes, that would be you.

And get over your "libfart medie" (sic) worries....there is plenty of conservative media to counter and it is backed up by all those billionaires who love to buy elections. You cons are jest fahn. Besides, why are you here? Shouldn't you be drafting the abortion legislation du jour or something for presentation at your next small government, personal responsibility rally?
 
2013-01-30 02:25:45 PM

Mike_1962: mrshowrules: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

He did prompt for a response.  However, that was not a response to the question so still inappropriate but I would not call it heckling.

Reluctantly agree. The replys were unresponsive to the question but inasmuch as he invited them, they are not heckling per se. The media should have just publicized the facts as they happened. They didn't need to gild the lily. The fundemental douche-baggery is pretty self evident.


I dunno. The guy asked a question, which sounded rhetorical. Out of respect for his mic-time and (I assume) respect for his loss, the audience declined to answer. The speaker used this silence as evidence and, at the same time, chided the audience for not being able to answer. This prompted the response which, again in respect to his mic-time, was as short and non-nuanced as possible.
 
2013-01-30 02:25:51 PM

bugontherug: Frank N Stein: rufus-t-firefly: Fully automatic weapons are banned, and that somehow isn't seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

No they're not. Although I do think that there should be a repeal of the Hughes amendment in the firearm owners protection act.

They're banned except for those grandfathered in. And properly registered with the federal government by 1986.
And weirdly, lunatics who go on shooting rampages rarely if ever use fully automatic weapons. It's almost like the law makes it too hard for them to get. Like it effectively controls the availability of fully automatic weapons.


This last part cannot possibly be true though. The gun crazies have assured me effective gun control is impossible.
 
2013-01-30 02:26:04 PM

GoldSpider: Wayne 985: People like to forget the "well regulated" part.

This goes back to a time where many people were suspicious of having a standing federal army. If for no other reason, the 2nd is due for an update.


Who's to say we still shouldn't be suspicious of standing armies?
 
2013-01-30 02:27:25 PM

Frank N Stein: Corvus: vygramul: TofuTheAlmighty: Ned Stark: The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.

'See this clause in the Constitution? *points* Yeah, that one. Ignore it. It's what the Founding Fathers intended.'

Speaking of ignoring, the Founders actually wrote a few things about civilian ownership of guns that might shed light on this.

Yes they did. But if it didn't pass then really it has no bearing on the matter. You can't cheery pick what a few people said and pretend that it is the law. What the law is is what passed.

Translation: F*ck context.


I never said that. But to go well 2 founding fathers thought this so therefor it is law is BS. Many had different opinions on things just like today.

Don't base law on reading the minds of dead people. Because just like a seance your going to "find" that the tell you everything you want to hear.

I can cherry pick pretty much any position buy find a founding father or two saying something I can interpret a certain way. It's bs.
 
2013-01-30 02:28:21 PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Then the U.S. guvment created the military and the second amendment no longer exists.
 
2013-01-30 02:28:21 PM

Corvus: GoldSpider: Wayne 985: People like to forget the "well regulated" part.

This goes back to a time where many people were suspicious of having a standing federal army. If for no other reason, the 2nd is due for an update.

exactly. so it doesn't stand for what the gun nuts are pretending. It was so the US could have people around to protect the nation in times of war because we had no standing army.

So why were you suggesting that people who want gun regulation (which we have had in one form or another during the history of the US) should change the 2nd amendment when you admit it actually says what they says it says.


The NRA is certainly wrong about their assertions about the bearing of arms part, as there were plenty of restrictions on the casual wandering about with firearms both before and after the Bill of Rights.

As far as ownership goes, however, it's clear the Founders only intended to tie Congress' hands - and completely.  The intent was to keep the feds from being able to keep people from forming militias.   Chicago incorporated those rights to the states based on the 14th amendment.  I have to admit there's some consistency to their ruling on that, but I doubt the Founders would have agreed with it.

Nevertheless, I'm far more sympathetic to their interpretation than the militias-only interpretation, which relies on a very narrow examination and demands the reader ignore evidence that might clarify the intent.
 
2013-01-30 02:29:00 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Ned Stark: The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.

'See this clause in the Constitution? *points* Yeah, that one. Ignore it. It's what the Founding Fathers intended.'


An explanatory of a legally binding section which is no itself legally binding is hardly out of place in the document. There are others.
Clearly they saw some pptential room between ignoring something and enforcing it as law.

Not that their feelings on the subject should matter anyway. Strict constructionism is kinda dumb. What does matter is current case law. Get amending, start praying a justice to death, or find a better way to come at the issue than ham-fisted bans of stuff you don't like.
 
2013-01-30 02:29:42 PM

bugontherug: Frank N Stein: rufus-t-firefly: Fully automatic weapons are banned, and that somehow isn't seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

No they're not. Although I do think that there should be a repeal of the Hughes amendment in the firearm owners protection act.

They're banned except for those grandfathered in. And properly registered with the federal government by 1986.
And weirdly, lunatics who go on shooting rampages rarely if ever use fully automatic weapons. It's almost like the law makes it too hard for them to get. Like it effectively controls the availability of fully automatic weapons.


The weapons are banned with the exception of those made before 1986, but I can still buy a fully automatic rifle if I wanted to. Just to be clear. And I should also point out that the use of fully automatic weapons used in crime has never been a problem, outside prohibition era. This is Lisa's tiger-repellant rock type shiat.
 
2013-01-30 02:30:45 PM
How many times has given testimony become a participation event?

Did they swear in the whole room before he started?
 
2013-01-30 02:30:50 PM

Corvus: Well then stop voting for republicans who put political idealistic judges like Scalia and Thomas on the bench who are members and get paid by political groups!


Don't blame me, I've never voted for a republican presidential candidate (believe it or not). Amend the constitution and clarify the meaning of the 2nd, and you take the courts (and the lobbying you mentioned) largely out of the equation.

kriegsgeist: Who's to say we still shouldn't be suspicious of standing armies?


Agreed.
 
2013-01-30 02:31:37 PM

Ned Stark: The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.


[quizzical_dog.jpg]

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yeah. you're right: That whole first clause about a well regulated Militia is a legal nullity.

/Now I feel silly.
 
2013-01-30 02:31:39 PM

vernonFL: Excuse me if I don't trust MSNBC, the Daily Caller OR "Twitchy".


That. That right there. Seconded.
 
2013-01-30 02:32:58 PM

bugontherug: Frank N Stein: rufus-t-firefly: Fully automatic weapons are banned, and that somehow isn't seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

No they're not. Although I do think that there should be a repeal of the Hughes amendment in the firearm owners protection act.

They're banned except for those grandfathered in. And properly registered with the federal government by 1986.
And weirdly, lunatics who go on shooting rampages rarely if ever use fully automatic weapons. It's almost like the law makes it too hard for them to get. Like it effectively controls the availability of fully automatic weapons.


Anyone catch the items from Dick Wrays collection up for auction?

Link


img.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-30 02:33:03 PM

vygramul: As far as ownership goes, however, it's clear the Founders only intended to tie Congress' hands - and completely. The intent was to keep the feds from being able to keep people from forming militias. Chicago incorporated those rights to the states based on the 14th amendment. I have to admit there's some consistency to their ruling on that, but I doubt the Founders would have agreed with it.


I agree. My interpretation of the 2nd amendment from everything I have read about it would be the federal government wouldn't be able to restrict weapons from what states would then define as militias.

Which in many ways would make gun laws even more open. (because I don't base my interpretation of the constitution on what I WANT it to be).
 
2013-01-30 02:33:30 PM

GoldSpider: rufus-t-firefly: It's not broad at all. it just refers to "arms," not "all arms."
Fully automatic weapons are banned, and that somehow isn't seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Lionel Mandrake: If you're lucky, they'll broaden it to include machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and F-16s!

The word "reasonable" in any matter of law makes my head want to explode. There is no objective, definitive definition of what makes a restriction "reasonable".

I'm not looking for private ownership of machine guns or F16s or nuclear bombs, just an end to the ceaseless interpretation of the 2nd that is preventing us from doing anything about gun violence.


Um, actually, reasonable is a legal term with well defined criteria in many if not most legal systems. Essentially it tends to be a contextual definition but broadly speaking if an argument answers substansive concerns without overstepping the boundaries of what constitutes a balanced view of a situation it may be deemed reasonable in that it can be logically supported. Please note that a reasonable argument is not necessarily deemed correct, simply not ridiculous.
 
2013-01-30 02:34:12 PM

GoldSpider: Don't blame me, I've never voted for a republican presidential candidate (believe it or not). Amend the constitution and clarify the meaning of the 2nd, and you take the courts (and the lobbying you mentioned) largely out of the equation.


What language do you think would ever have a chance of passing the hurdle of being an amendment?
 
2013-01-30 02:34:31 PM

Corvus: I agree. My interpretation of the 2nd amendment from everything I have read about it would be the federal government wouldn't be able to restrict weapons from what states would then define as militias.


This could be a lot easier to settle if state National Guard units weren't treated like a de-facto arm of the military.
 
2013-01-30 02:34:39 PM
Did they take a heckle from a totally different part of the day and edit the audio/video to make it sound like it happened while the father was talking? Or did they just strip the heckle of context?

In other words, was this a full Breitbart or only a partial Breitbart?
 
2013-01-30 02:34:41 PM

Frank N Stein: Just to be clear. And I should also point out that the use of fully automatic weapons used in crime has never been a problem, outside prohibition era. This is Lisa's tiger-repellant rock type shiat.


And during what time period did they start becoming heavily regulated?

Because if the answer is "The Prohibition Era", that argument you just made may not be the one you *want* to make.
 
2013-01-30 02:36:06 PM

Corvus: What language do you think would ever have a chance of passing the hurdle of being an amendment?


They managed to get alcohol banned for 13 years; anything is possible.
 
2013-01-30 02:38:34 PM

GoldSpider: Corvus: I agree. My interpretation of the 2nd amendment from everything I have read about it would be the federal government wouldn't be able to restrict weapons from what states would then define as militias.

This could be a lot easier to settle if state National Guard units weren't treated like a de-facto arm of the military.


You know there are official state militias that are NOT part of national guard that are not part of the US military. (God I am so tired of explaining this in ever gun thread)

State defense force
 
2013-01-30 02:38:45 PM

GoldSpider: Wayne 985: People like to forget the "well regulated" part.

This goes back to a time where many people were suspicious of having a standing federal army. If for no other reason, the 2nd is due for an update.


Apropos of nothing at all, I'm curious about your login name. Is it, by any chance a reference to Edgar Allen Poe's story 'The Gold Bug'?
 
2013-01-30 02:40:23 PM

Felgraf: I've also been told that heavy regulation is totally ineffective and won't stop nuts from getting guns. Which is weird, then, that we haven't been seeing a whole lot of automatic weapon attacks, isn't it?


Because most people have been priced out of the market for an automatic weapon. Why spend 10s of thousands of dollars for an automatic gun to commit a crime with?
 
2013-01-30 02:41:27 PM

Frank N Stein: The weapons are banned with the exception of those made before 1986, but I can still buy a fully automatic rifle if I wanted to. Just to be clear.


And because of limited supply, a waiting period consisting of enough time for the FBI to conduct an extensive background check, and a $200 tax, they're much harder to get than other guns. The government's control of their availability keeps them out of the hands of lunatics and petty criminals.

And I should also point out that the use of fully automatic weapons used in crime has never been a problem, outside prohibition era. This is Lisa's tiger-repellant rock type shiat.

You're right. They were popular with organized crime before they were banned. I guess that's just a weird coincidence though.

And drug cartels still use fully automatic weapons which they acquire outside of the United States--because they can't get them inside the United States. You should have cited this for the ineffectiveness of gun control, instead of revealing that you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course, even though sophisticated international organized crime rings can still get fully automatic weapons doesn't mean a whole lot of deaths have been prevented by keeping them out of the hands of lunatics and petty criminals.
 
2013-01-30 02:41:49 PM

Corvus: vygramul: TofuTheAlmighty: Ned Stark: The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.

'See this clause in the Constitution? *points* Yeah, that one. Ignore it. It's what the Founding Fathers intended.'

Speaking of ignoring, the Founders actually wrote a few things about civilian ownership of guns that might shed light on this.

Yes they did. But if it didn't pass then really it has no bearing on the matter. You can't cheery pick what a few people said and pretend that it is the law. What the law is is what passed.


You can't call it cherry-picking if you can't provide a single example of a contemporary of the Founders contradicting a broad-ownership interpretation of the Constitution.  Frankly, I would love a counter-example.  Cherry-pick away, friend, and provide me your cherry-picked quotes.

If not, then do me the courtesy of not accusing me of a fallacy I have not committed.

As far as arguing things that were passed vs things that were said, let us not pretend that we can limit this conversation that way.  The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter, and they said it isn't militia.  That's not satisfying nor should it be.  But because we can argue with the law, we can therefore argue with how it's interpreted.  To say we can't ask the people what they meant by the words they said is really rather silly, especially when the language can be reasonably interpreted either way.

For example, a statement like, "A well-regulated diet being necessary for a healthy body, the right of the people to grow and eat celery shall not be infringed,"  would seem absurd to interpret as you're not allowed to grow or eat celery if you're not on a diet, or if you're fat, or if you are unfortunate enough to be infected with HIV and cannot have a healthy body.

It is perfectly reasonable to interpret the second amendment, passed in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the Constitution, as saying that the federal government cannot effectively ban militias by banning individual ownership of firearms.  That's different from saying that one MUST be in a militia.
 
2013-01-30 02:42:08 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Maybe just go ahead and stay quiet if the only thing you can come up with is "SECOND MEDMENTS" at a hearing about dead kindergarteners.


Maybe don't ask for other people's opinions if you don't want to hear them.
 
2013-01-30 02:42:37 PM

bugontherug: Of course, even though sophisticated international organized crime rings can still get fully automatic weapons doesn't mean a whole lot of deaths haven't been prevented by keeping them out of the hands of lunatics and petty criminals.

 
2013-01-30 02:43:02 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Ned Stark: The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.

[quizzical_dog.jpg]

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yeah. you're right: That whole first clause about a well regulated Militia is a legal nullity.

/Now I feel silly.


The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.>

Yep. It does in fact do nothing but explain. There are other things in the constitution about militias that do more than that. So what?
 
2013-01-30 02:43:45 PM

Frank N Stein: Felgraf: I've also been told that heavy regulation is totally ineffective and won't stop nuts from getting guns. Which is weird, then, that we haven't been seeing a whole lot of automatic weapon attacks, isn't it?

Because most people have been priced out of the market for an automatic weapon. Why spend 10s of thousands of dollars for an automatic gun to commit a crime with?


So you are saying, then, that the law made it economically unfeasible for criminals and crazies to get their hands on such a weapon, correct?
 
2013-01-30 02:44:10 PM

GoldSpider: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.


I'm reasonably sure formal testimony before a legislative committee is NOT in "call and response" format.  And therefore interrupting the person testifying IS heckling them, especially when they are asking what could be seen to an intelligent person as a rhetorical question


and by the by, the plain text of the 2nd says merely "arms" NOT "firearms" so your right to keep a gun is not textually protected by it, merely protected under the current judicial interpretation.
 
2013-01-30 02:44:20 PM

Frank N Stein: Corvus: vygramul: TofuTheAlmighty: Ned Stark: The well regulated part which is in a clause that hasn't got any legal weight to it? I don't think anyone forgets it per-se.

'See this clause in the Constitution? *points* Yeah, that one. Ignore it. It's what the Founding Fathers intended.'

Speaking of ignoring, the Founders actually wrote a few things about civilian ownership of guns that might shed light on this.

Yes they did. But if it didn't pass then really it has no bearing on the matter. You can't cheery pick what a few people said and pretend that it is the law. What the law is is what passed.

Translation: F*ck context.


Context matters and certainly disqualifies some popular quotes.  Another farker loved posting false quotes and quotes out of context supporting gun rights.  And I called him out for them.  But in the end, the truth remains that in-context quotes supporting something closer to the NRA's interpretation are not terribly difficult to find, while in-context quotes supporting the opposite are nigh impossible to find.
 
2013-01-30 02:45:31 PM

vygramul: But because we can argue with the law, we can therefore argue with how it's interpreted. To say we can't ask the people what they meant by the words they said is really rather silly, especially when the language can be reasonably interpreted either way.


Sorry can you point out where I said any of this?

Sure we can argue what the interpretation is. I never said you can't. But you can't pretend what a couple people believed is the same as what the law that got passed of a DIFFERENT language. If you are not making that fallacy then why do you seem to be biatching about it?

The congress voted on the LANGUAGE that got passed not what someone said one time someplace else.
 
2013-01-30 02:45:40 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: /Now I feel silly.


Given how thoroughly debunked your argument is and how you're still willing to post it, you should.
 
2013-01-30 02:45:44 PM

GanjSmokr: They aren't "banned". You can still legally purchase them with the proper checks and enough money.


All fully automatic weapons except those made and properly registered with the federal government before 1986 are banned. Because of this, they're much more expensive, and much harder to get than other firearms. Which is why lunatics and petty criminals don't use them.
 
2013-01-30 02:47:04 PM

Mike_1962: Apropos of nothing at all, I'm curious about your login name. Is it, by any chance a reference to Edgar Allen Poe's story 'The Gold Bug'?


Nah, no interesting back-story; just something I came up with about 17 years ago when I was new to the 'Net.

Corvus: You know there are official state militias that are NOT part of national guard that are not part of the US military. (God I am so tired of explaining this in ever gun thread)

State defense force


Those don't look particularly well-organized.

If I understand correctly, prior to 1933, the National Guard had been the descendant of what the FF's envisioned as the "well-regulated militia". It's a shame they were appropriated by the federal military in such a manner.
 
2013-01-30 02:49:06 PM

Magorn: and by the by, the plain text of the 2nd says merely "arms" NOT "firearms" so your right to keep a gun is not textually protected by it, merely protected under the current judicial interpretation.


That's a more pedantic interpretation of "arms" than even the most strident of gun control advocates claim.
 
2013-01-30 02:49:40 PM

mrshowrules: He did prompt for a response. However, that was not a response to the question so still inappropriate but I would not call it heckling.


I've been arguing that on Facebook all day. I saw the video and even if it is "edited" (I have no idea) I grasped that he appeared to be pushing for a response and while the one he received wasn't a well-thought out dissertation, it wasn't heckling.  That is a charged word with specific meanings - that they were attempting to mock or embarrass the man. I don't think that was the case - it certainly doesn't appear that way in the video. Both sides of the debate have a lot of strong feelings and when people feel strongly, they don't always use common sense or their best censorship tools when it comes to expressing themselves.  I think that's what happened here.

It certainly doesn't look great for the second amendment rights/gun rights crowd, but it is intellectually and morally dishonest to say anyone was heckling the man who was speaking, and I find that frustrating.
 
2013-01-30 02:50:02 PM

vygramul: It is perfectly reasonable to interpret the second amendment, passed in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the Constitution, as saying that the federal government cannot effectively ban militias by banning individual ownership of firearms. That's different from saying that one MUST be in a militia.


So your idea is the 2nd amendment is so that people like Jared Lougner, Oswald, John Wilkes Booth can gun down politicians that they feel aren't doing things right?

If that is the case, shouldn't these people go free since gunning down politicians is part of the 2nd amendment?
 
2013-01-30 02:51:47 PM

GoldSpider: Mike_1962: Apropos of nothing at all, I'm curious about your login name. Is it, by any chance a reference to Edgar Allen Poe's story 'The Gold Bug'?

Nah, no interesting back-story; just something I came up with about 17 years ago when I was new to the 'Net.

Corvus: You know there are official state militias that are NOT part of national guard that are not part of the US military. (God I am so tired of explaining this in ever gun thread)

State defense force

Those don't look particularly well-organized.


Umm yes they are. What are you talking about? They are state run militias that have been defined in state and federal law.

Seems to me the thing you pretended didn't exist does so you're trying to find an out.
 
2013-01-30 02:53:22 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Second Amendment shall not be infringed."


that's not a reason you NEED one.  that's a reason you CAN have one.
 
2013-01-30 02:53:48 PM

GoldSpider: If I understand correctly, prior to 1933, the National Guard had been the descendant of what the FF's envisioned as the "well-regulated militia". It's a shame they were appropriated by the federal military in such a manner.


Actually Bush was the one that put them officially under the federal government. Until then the mayor had to give his say. Ironically Bush did some of the biggest chipping away of the 2nd amendment by federalizing the National Guard and no one complained or noticed.
 
2013-01-30 02:54:16 PM

Corvus: vygramul: But because we can argue with the law, we can therefore argue with how it's interpreted. To say we can't ask the people what they meant by the words they said is really rather silly, especially when the language can be reasonably interpreted either way.

Sorry can you point out where I said any of this?

Sure we can argue what the interpretation is. I never said you can't. But you can't pretend what a couple people believed is the same as what the law that got passed of a DIFFERENT language. If you are not making that fallacy then why do you seem to be biatching about it?


What fallacy would that be? That's not cherry-picking, which is what you accused me of.

The congress voted on the LANGUAGE that got passed not what someone said one time someplace else.

The congress voted on the language as they understood it at the time. There is a style of speaking and writing that existed then that has changed over time. That's why one has to be sure what they meant, which can be divined by writing samples and opinions stated about this.

Otherwise, if one applies a "words in the law only" interpretation to the Constitution, have fun with "freedom of the press".

Finally, even if that clause means what you say it means, you can't say that's proof that there does not exist a right of individual gun ownership.

/Are you suggesting you agree with Fred Thompson's observation that the word "privacy" doesn't exist in the constitution and is therefore a legal fiction?
 
2013-01-30 02:54:32 PM

Frank N Stein: Mike_1962: mrshowrules: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

He did prompt for a response.  However, that was not a response to the question so still inappropriate but I would not call it heckling.

Reluctantly agree. The replys were unresponsive to the question but inasmuch as he invited them, they are not heckling per se. The media should have just publicized the facts as they happened. They didn't need to gild the lily. The fundemental douche-baggery is pretty self evident.

I dunno. The guy asked a question, which sounded rhetorical. Out of respect for his mic-time and (I assume) respect for his loss, the audience declined to answer. The speaker used this silence as evidence and, at the same time, chided the audience for not being able to answer. This prompted the response which, again in respect to his mic-time, was as short and non-nuanced as possible.


I see your point and pretty much agree with it in a way. I guess that I have a personal bias in favour of the guy whose kid was shot. He's talking from the heart and trying (right or wrong) to make his point. He overplayed it, but I very much doubt that he saw it that way at the time. So, was the response to his challenge heckling? No. Was the response fair? Well, I honestly can't say. In another forum, probably. In the context, well, I guess my gut tells me it was the opposite of classy and principled.
 
2013-01-30 02:54:43 PM

bugontherug: GanjSmokr: They aren't "banned". You can still legally purchase them with the proper checks and enough money.

All fully automatic weapons except those made and properly registered with the federal government before 1986 are banned. Because of this, they're much more expensive, and much harder to get than other firearms. Which is why lunatics and petty criminals don't use them.


It seems you and I have a different definition of "banned"... If I have the $$ and go through the proper background checks, I can go buy an automatic weapon. Period. I'm not talking about the age of the gun, I'm talking about my ability to go purchase an automatic weapon if I choose to.

Automatic weapons are not "banned" no matter how much you want to say they are.
 
2013-01-30 02:55:39 PM

Corvus: Umm yes they are. What are you talking about?


Not even half of the states have a defense force.
 
2013-01-30 02:56:23 PM

Corvus: GoldSpider: If I understand correctly, prior to 1933, the National Guard had been the descendant of what the FF's envisioned as the "well-regulated militia". It's a shame they were appropriated by the federal military in such a manner.

Actually Bush was the one that put them officially under the federal government. Until then the mayor had to give his say. Ironically Bush did some of the biggest chipping away of the 2nd amendment by federalizing the National Guard and no one complained or noticed.


cdn.therichest.org
I wish!
 
2013-01-30 02:56:24 PM

Wooly Bully: It's Tucker f*cking Carlson, for Christ's sake. Who gives a flying f*ck?


Seriously, if we just ignore him he'll go away. And judging by his professional career arc, we're already 95% there.
 
2013-01-30 02:56:32 PM

Wooly Bully: It's Tucker f*cking Carlson, for Christ's sake. Who gives a flying f*ck?


www.personal.psu.edu
I thought I put you down, Tucker. Go even further away now.
 
2013-01-30 02:57:24 PM

Corvus: Actually Bush was the one that put them officially under the federal government.


Not true.

The National Guard Status Act, 1933 made the National Guard a component of the Army.

The National Guard Status Act of 1933 created a new reserve component of the Army called the National Guard of the United States. Henceforward, every Guard member would have two statuses, though he or she could only serve in one status at any given time. A Guard member could either serve under state authority as part of the National Guard of the several States, Territories and the District of Columbia, or under federal authority in the National Guard of the United States when ordered into active federal service by the President whenever Congress declared a national emergency.
 
2013-01-30 02:58:23 PM

Corvus: vygramul: It is perfectly reasonable to interpret the second amendment, passed in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the Constitution, as saying that the federal government cannot effectively ban militias by banning individual ownership of firearms. That's different from saying that one MUST be in a militia.

So your idea is the 2nd amendment is so that people like Jared Lougner, Oswald, John Wilkes Booth can gun down politicians that they feel aren't doing things right?

If that is the case, shouldn't these people go free since gunning down politicians is part of the 2nd amendment?


Of course not. In fact, the Supreme Court in the 19th century actually addressed this issue (I'll have to look up which again) specifically, stating that the second amendment doesn't repeal the treason clause while nevertheless empowering the militia with an anti-tyranny mission. (And, of course, re-iterated that it was intended to keep Congress' hands tied.)
 
2013-01-30 02:58:32 PM

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: /Now I feel silly.

Given how thoroughly debunked your argument is and how you're still willing to post it, you should.


"Debunked" must be vygramul Spanish for "supported by the actual text of the Constitution".
Good to know, bolo.
 
2013-01-30 03:00:14 PM

vygramul: Corvus: vygramul: But because we can argue with the law, we can therefore argue with how it's interpreted. To say we can't ask the people what they meant by the words they said is really rather silly, especially when the language can be reasonably interpreted either way.

Sorry can you point out where I said any of this?

Sure we can argue what the interpretation is. I never said you can't. But you can't pretend what a couple people believed is the same as what the law that got passed of a DIFFERENT language. If you are not making that fallacy then why do you seem to be biatching about it?

What fallacy would that be? That's not cherry-picking, which is what you accused me of.

The congress voted on the LANGUAGE that got passed not what someone said one time someplace else.

The congress voted on the language as they understood it at the time. There is a style of speaking and writing that existed then that has changed over time. That's why one has to be sure what they meant, which can be divined by writing samples and opinions stated about this.

Otherwise, if one applies a "words in the law only" interpretation to the Constitution, have fun with "freedom of the press".

Finally, even if that clause means what you say it means, you can't say that's proof that there does not exist a right of individual gun ownership.

/Are you suggesting you agree with Fred Thompson's observation that the word "privacy" doesn't exist in the constitution and is therefore a legal fiction?


HOLY shiat HOW MANY TIME DO I NEED TO REPEAT THIS TO YOU: I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD IGNORE ALL CONTEXT.

Since you seem to be incapable of actually dealing with the points I am actually making I think I should give up.

Me saying "We can't cherry pick what a founding father said and use that to create the interpretation of a laws" is not the same as someone saying "We can't use any context at all anywhere".

Obviously you can't rebut my actual points so you are making shiat up I never said and pretending that is my argument.
 
2013-01-30 03:00:16 PM

Frank N Stein: bugontherug: Frank N Stein: rufus-t-firefly: Fully automatic weapons are banned, and that somehow isn't seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

No they're not. Although I do think that there should be a repeal of the Hughes amendment in the firearm owners protection act.

They're banned except for those grandfathered in. And properly registered with the federal government by 1986.
And weirdly, lunatics who go on shooting rampages rarely if ever use fully automatic weapons. It's almost like the law makes it too hard for them to get. Like it effectively controls the availability of fully automatic weapons.

The weapons are banned with the exception of those made before 1986, but I can still buy a fully automatic rifle if I wanted to. Just to be clear. And I should also point out that the use of fully automatic weapons used in crime has never been a problem, outside prohibition era. This is Lisa's tiger-repellant rock type shiat.


Without actually disagreeing I would amend your statement from 'outside prohibition' to since prohibition...when the restriction took effect.
 
2013-01-30 03:01:02 PM

Mike_1962: I see your point and pretty much agree with it in a way. I guess that I have a personal bias in favour of the guy whose kid was shot. He's talking from the heart and trying (right or wrong) to make his point. He overplayed it, but I very much doubt that he saw it that way at the time. So, was the response to his challenge heckling? No. Was the response fair? Well, I honestly can't say. In another forum, probably. In the context, well, I guess my gut tells me it was the opposite of classy and principled.


I agree with you. I doubt anyone in that room is used to being present at testimony like that, first of all. So he did somewhat present it as if he was posing a question to the room - which anyone could do if not versed in giving that sort of testimony. Likewise, the people in the room are probably not accustomed to the "you don't speak up no matter what - even if it really feels like he's going to keep asking until you do, or make it seem like everyone in the room agreed with him 100%". They were silenced by the judged and complied. They weren't there to cause trouble and mock this man... they were there because they also have strong beliefs on the issue, as does he.

It seems like inexperience played the biggest hand in what happened and I still say there was no ill-willed, intentional spiteful heckling going on at that hearing.  At worst, he was interrupted, which does not automatically meet the definition of heckled.
 
2013-01-30 03:02:21 PM

Corvus: vygramul: It is perfectly reasonable to interpret the second amendment, passed in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the Constitution, as saying that the federal government cannot effectively ban militias by banning individual ownership of firearms. That's different from saying that one MUST be in a militia.

So your idea is the 2nd amendment is so that people like Jared Lougner, Oswald, John Wilkes Booth can gun down politicians that they feel aren't doing things right?

If that is the case, shouldn't these people go free since gunning down politicians is part of the 2nd amendment?


Huuuurrrrrpppbbbttttt

Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.
 
2013-01-30 03:03:20 PM

Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.


OK then who gets to decide what is justified?
 
2013-01-30 03:03:43 PM

Corvus: vygramul: It is perfectly reasonable to interpret the second amendment, passed in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the Constitution, as saying that the federal government cannot effectively ban militias by banning individual ownership of firearms. That's different from saying that one MUST be in a militia.

So your idea is the 2nd amendment is so that people like Jared Lougner, Oswald, John Wilkes Booth can gun down politicians that they feel aren't doing things right?

If that is the case, shouldn't these people go free since gunning down politicians is part of the 2nd amendment?


So your idea is that when your wife sas talks you you should whip her within her life.... I may not agree with you but hey that is your opinion.
 
2013-01-30 03:03:54 PM

Ned Stark: To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.


You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists.
 
2013-01-30 03:03:54 PM

GanjSmokr: bugontherug: GanjSmokr: They aren't "banned". You can still legally purchase them with the proper checks and enough money.

All fully automatic weapons except those made and properly registered with the federal government before 1986 are banned. Because of this, they're much more expensive, and much harder to get than other firearms. Which is why lunatics and petty criminals don't use them.

It seems you and I have a different definition of "banned"... If I have the $$ and go through the proper background checks, I can go buy an automatic weapon. Period. I'm not talking about the age of the gun, I'm talking about my ability to go purchase an automatic weapon if I choose to.

Automatic weapons are not "banned" no matter how much you want to say they are.


It seems one of us understands plain English and one of us doesn't. They're banned--officially or legally prohibited Link--unless they were made and registered before 1986.

To be clear, in the banned category, we have:
fully automatic weapons made after 1986
fully automatic weapons made before 1986, but not registered with the federal government.

In the not banned category, we have:
fully automatic weapons made before 1986, and properly registered with the federal government.
 
2013-01-30 03:04:56 PM

Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.


Tell us the times in US history where people used guns to fight back against tyrannical oppression that was justified?

I would love to learn.
 
2013-01-30 03:07:42 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: /Now I feel silly.

Given how thoroughly debunked your argument is and how you're still willing to post it, you should.

"Debunked" must be vygramul Spanish for "supported by the actual text of the Constitution".
Good to know, bolo.


No, it's plain English meaning that you seem to be unclear on the concept of an amendment CHANGES the Constitution, and that an enumerated right trumps an enumerated power.

/Does anyone know what he's on about with his Spanish references?  He does this from time to time as if it's supposed to be meaningful.
 
2013-01-30 03:08:32 PM

Corvus: Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.

OK then who gets to decide what is justified?


Pretty much everyone makes the call one way or another another every act of violence they hear about.
 
2013-01-30 03:10:00 PM

Corvus: Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.

OK then who gets to decide what is justified?


The winner.
 
2013-01-30 03:10:04 PM
Guns don't scare people, deranged 2Aers scare people.
 
2013-01-30 03:10:43 PM

Saiga410: Corvus: Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.

OK then who gets to decide what is justified?

The winner.


Beat me to it.
 
2013-01-30 03:11:03 PM

Corvus: Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.

Tell us the times in US history where people used guns to fight back against tyrannical oppression that was justified?

I would love to learn.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

Fighting against enslavement of people is justified opposition to tyranny I'd say.
 
2013-01-30 03:11:32 PM

thenooch: If anyone noticed, there is no correlation between assault rifles and the number of dead school children. In fact, back before the discovery of penicillin, more school kids died in a day than here in 2013.


So you're saying we need more bacteria?
 
2013-01-30 03:11:53 PM

Corvus: Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.

Tell us the times in US history where people used guns to fight back against tyrannical oppression that was justified?

I would love to learn.


The black panthers arming themselves against police brutality.
 
2013-01-30 03:12:03 PM

bugontherug: GanjSmokr: bugontherug: GanjSmokr: They aren't "banned". You can still legally purchase them with the proper checks and enough money.

All fully automatic weapons except those made and properly registered with the federal government before 1986 are banned. Because of this, they're much more expensive, and much harder to get than other firearms. Which is why lunatics and petty criminals don't use them.

It seems you and I have a different definition of "banned"... If I have the $$ and go through the proper background checks, I can go buy an automatic weapon. Period. I'm not talking about the age of the gun, I'm talking about my ability to go purchase an automatic weapon if I choose to.

Automatic weapons are not "banned" no matter how much you want to say they are.

It seems one of us understands plain English and one of us doesn't. They're banned--officially or legally prohibited Link--unless they were made and registered before 1986.

To be clear, in the banned category, we have:
fully automatic weapons made after 1986
fully automatic weapons made before 1986, but not registered with the federal government.

In the not banned category, we have:
fully automatic weapons
made before 1986, and properly registered with the federal government.


I bolded the words that matter here for you.  I can go buy a fully automatic weapon. If they were "banned" I would not be able to buy one. Again, I don't give a fark how old it is, if it's pre or post 1986.

I'll put it in all caps for you, maybe your feeble waterhead will consume it better that way...
I CAN LEGALLY BUY AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON IF I CHOOSE TO. IF THEY WERE "BANNED" I COULD NOT LEGALLY BUY ONE.

/and to reiterate, I don't care about the age of the gun.
 
2013-01-30 03:12:15 PM

Mike_1962: Without actually disagreeing I would amend your statement from 'outside prohibition' to since prohibition...when the restriction took effect.


Also relevant is that the reason they weren't popular with criminals before prohibition is that they didn't exist, or weren't widely available. To be clear, then, if we accept his facts as true (and they're not entirely true), he's made a terrific case for the effectiveness of gun control.
 
2013-01-30 03:13:47 PM

Corvus: HOLY shiat HOW MANY TIME DO I NEED TO REPEAT THIS TO YOU: I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD IGNORE ALL CONTEXT.

Since you seem to be incapable of actually dealing with the points I am actually making I think I should give up.

Me saying "We can't cherry pick what a founding father said and use that to create the interpretation of a laws" is not the same as someone saying "We can't use any context at all anywhere".

Obviously you can't rebut my actual points so you are making shiat up I never said and pretending that is my argument.


You need to look up cherry-picking, because you seem to be confused as to what it is. I'm saying we have to look at everything. You're saying we have to limit ourselves. That's not cherry-picking on MY part.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. Your arguments are not clear to me. Let's try to break this down like I'm a six year-old, and take it one point at a time.
 
2013-01-30 03:14:39 PM

Moosecakes: thenooch: If anyone noticed, there is no correlation between assault rifles and the number of dead school children. In fact, back before the discovery of penicillin, more school kids died in a day than here in 2013.

So you're saying we need more bacteria?


Joking aside though, there's no correlation between landmines and dead Americans. In fact, drunk driving killed more Americans in 2013, so making landmines illegal will do nothing because only criminals will have landmines.
 
2013-01-30 03:16:04 PM

Gyrfalcon: thenooch: If anyone noticed, there is no correlation between assault rifles and the number of dead school children. In fact, back before the discovery of penicillin, more school kids died in a day than here in 2013.

Wow, I was right!



I gave you a "smart" vote.
 
2013-01-30 03:16:31 PM

GanjSmokr: I CAN LEGALLY BUY AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON IF I CHOOSE TO. IF THEY WERE "BANNED" I COULD NOT LEGALLY BUY ONE.


I can see that moderately complicated sentences frustrate you. I'll try to keep things simpler from here on for your sake.
 
2013-01-30 03:16:39 PM

GoldSpider: Magorn: and by the by, the plain text of the 2nd says merely "arms" NOT "firearms" so your right to keep a gun is not textually protected by it, merely protected under the current judicial interpretation.

That's a more pedantic interpretation of "arms" than even the most strident of gun control advocates claim.


Perhaps, but in the final analysis, pedantry, semantics and etymology are the only real grounds on which to interpret the wording. In all honesty, I believe that your founding fathers would fully expect you people to think for yourselves.
 
2013-01-30 03:18:14 PM

Corvus: vygramul: It is perfectly reasonable to interpret the second amendment, passed in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the Constitution, as saying that the federal government cannot effectively ban militias by banning individual ownership of firearms. That's different from saying that one MUST be in a militia.

So your idea is the 2nd amendment is so that people like Jared Lougner, Oswald, John Wilkes Booth can gun down politicians that they feel aren't doing things right?

If that is the case, shouldn't these people go free since gunning down politicians is part of the 2nd amendment?


Here it is: EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

It will be argued that the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, as above given, are restraints upon the war-making power; but we deny this. All these amendments are in pari materi a, and if either is a restraint upon the President in carrying on war, in favor of the citizen, it is difficult to see why all of them are not. Yet will it be argued that the fifth article would be violated in 'depriving if life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,' armed rebels marching to attack the capital? Or that the fourth would be violated by searching and seizing the papers and houses of persons in open insurrection and war against the government? It cannot properly be so argued, any more than it could be that it was intended by the second article (declaring that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed') to hinder the President from disarming insurrectionists, rebels, and traitors in arms while he was carrying on war against them.
 
2013-01-30 03:19:16 PM

Mike_1962: Perhaps, but in the final analysis, pedantry, semantics and etymology are the only real grounds on which to interpret the wording. In all honesty, I believe that your founding fathers would fully expect you people to think for yourselves.


You evidently believe that the founding fathers' definition of "arms" excluded "firearms", and suggest a critical thinking deficiency on OUR part? That's remarkable.
 
2013-01-30 03:20:36 PM
This guy was heckled. There is no answer to his question other than silence or agreement that is forgivable in this circumstance.

He's out in a public hearing, asking why his six year old son was murdered with a weapon specially designed to take human life; why there is any justification for this weapon to be in the hands of a mad man, and you're going to basically shout "because we feel like it and fark your dead child right in the ear" at him? Yeah, that's heckling.

I like the longer video because it shows exactly how well received the heckling was, exactly how shameless and awful these black rifle dickheads are, and helps move us a little bit further towards taking these guns away from the general populace. .

Had lanza used a Marlin 94 and This guy got up and asked why should anybody have any guns at all, we might be inclined to see this as gross, Aspergers' class blind, antisocial behavior instead of vicious, deliberate mockery of a suffering fellow citizen. In conclusion, I think those hecklers need a serious kick in the ass, and when they get our guns taken away, they need to realize it's extremists like themselves that help turn the country against them. With the wild pig problem only growing, that's not good news for responsible gun owners.
 
2013-01-30 03:21:10 PM

Mike_1962: GoldSpider: Magorn: and by the by, the plain text of the 2nd says merely "arms" NOT "firearms" so your right to keep a gun is not textually protected by it, merely protected under the current judicial interpretation.

That's a more pedantic interpretation of "arms" than even the most strident of gun control advocates claim.

Perhaps, but in the final analysis, pedantry, semantics and etymology are the only real grounds on which to interpret the wording. In all honesty, I believe that your founding fathers would fully expect you people to think for yourselves.


I would think in all interpretations firearms are a subset of arms. If all arms are protected then all firearms are.
 
2013-01-30 03:22:53 PM

GoldSpider: Magorn: and by the by, the plain text of the 2nd says merely "arms" NOT "firearms" so your right to keep a gun is not textually protected by it, merely protected under the current judicial interpretation.

That's a more pedantic interpretation of "arms" than even the most strident of gun control advocates claim.


OH I know, and I advance it not for serious intent but to play devil's advocate, and to remind the most ardent of the 2nd Amendment absolutists that the ground under their feet is not quite as rock-solid as they suppose.  I think the evidence is clear that the founding fathers intended the amendment to include guns, but recall that if you adopted a Scalian approach to Constitutional interpretation, the intent of the amendment's authors is irrelevant, instead we must inquire only as to the plain meaning of the words used in the text at the time the amendment was adopted, and I could find texts from that era that refer only to swords and knives as "arms" (such as statements that a gentleman must always be "armed" by which they mean wearing a sword, not a pistol).

he point being there is always give and take to these things so absolutism is silly
 
2013-01-30 03:24:03 PM

bugontherug: GanjSmokr: I CAN LEGALLY BUY AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON IF I CHOOSE TO. IF THEY WERE "BANNED" I COULD NOT LEGALLY BUY ONE.

I can see that moderately complicated sentences frustrate you. I'll try to keep things simpler from here on for your sake.


Maybe you should use words that you actually know the meaning of as well. From your link for the definition of "ban":

ban
/ban/
Verb
Officially or legally prohibit: "he was banned from driving for a year".


Let's try this....

Q: Can I legally buy an automatic weapon with the proper background check and money?

A: Yes.

Q: If automatic weapons were "legally prohibited" (banned) would I be able to legally buy one?

A: No.

Once again, I don't care about the age.

Final check here.... I'll ask you ONE question and you answer - yes or no answers only, please.

Would I be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?
 
2013-01-30 03:25:52 PM

Magorn: OH I know, and I advance it not for serious intent but to play devil's advocate,


Fair enough, I withdraw my previous comment :)
 
2013-01-30 03:26:03 PM
I think the 2nd amendment was put in place so that groups like state militias could defend themselves NOT so that individuals could do political assassinations.

It seems to me the pro-gun side is arguing that the later is a 2nd amendment right.
 
2013-01-30 03:28:22 PM

Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.

OK then who gets to decide what is justified?

Pretty much everyone makes the call one way or another another every act of violence they hear about.


Like I said above:

I think the 2nd amendment was put in place so that groups like state militias could defend themselves NOT so that individuals could do political assassinations.
 
2013-01-30 03:28:55 PM

Corvus: I think the 2nd amendment was put in place so that groups like state militias could defend themselves NOT so that individuals could do political assassinations.

It seems to me the pro-gun side is arguing that the later is a 2nd amendment right.


Now now, I think suggesting using a sock full of coins for your wife beating is going a little bit far.
 
2013-01-30 03:30:18 PM

Corvus: Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.

Tell us the times in US history where people used guns to fight back against tyrannical oppression that was justified?

I would love to learn.


EOh,don't do that. They'll trot out the Athens thing again which was essentially a county dispute in Georgia where a family and cohorts effectively took over and were driven out by returning veterans. While instructive in its way, the veterans raided the local arsenal to arm themselves. They also made little effort to engage rule of law. Though the outcome was generally favourable, the actions were not those of noble rebels but of vigilantes.
 
2013-01-30 03:38:49 PM

GanjSmokr: Would I be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?


I've never taken any position but that fully automatic weapons are banned except for those made and registered before 1986. You may not legally purchase a fully automatic weapon made after 1986. You may not legally purchase an automatic weapon made but not registered before 1986.

This isn't a complicated idea. And it's an ordinary English usage. From another gun rights proponent in this very thread:

Frank N Stein: The weapons are banned with the exception of those made before 1986,


You guys have lost this thread. Badly. So far, the gun crazies in this thread have:

1) articulated historical facts which indicate the efficacy of gun control,

2) claimed without irony that fully automatic weapons aren't used by modern organized crime, and

3) gotten in a twist over an obvious, plain English use of the word "banned."

I'd suggest you go home to avoid further damage to your cause, but frankly, I'm enjoying this.
 
2013-01-30 03:45:27 PM

GoldSpider: Mike_1962: Perhaps, but in the final analysis, pedantry, semantics and etymology are the only real grounds on which to interpret the wording. In all honesty, I believe that your founding fathers would fully expect you people to think for yourselves.

You evidently believe that the founding fathers' definition of "arms" excluded "firearms", and suggest a critical thinking deficiency on OUR part? That's remarkable.


Actually, no, not at all. My only point is this is all about interpretation of a 230 (more or less) document put together by a bunch of well educated, well intentioned men who were in no way possessed of the wisdom of the ages, presience or anything else of that ilk. They, through compromise and reasonable debate authored one of the seminal documents underlying the foundation of modern democratic thought. The point remains. All you have are their words on paper. They are not sacred, and were never intended to be. In order to interpret them you NEED pedantry (to keep overly subjective interpretations at bay), semantics (in order to reason what the actual meaning and content of the words include), and etymology (to provide a context to the meaning of the words in the time frame they were used.)
 
2013-01-30 03:49:08 PM

whitman00: Fox News and 1000 right wing radio programs edit tape 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for years on end with the sole purpose of twisting the facts to make Democrats and liberals look bad.

MSNBC might have been caught doing it once.

Translation- both sides are bad so stop criticizing us for doing it.


MSNBC is owned and run by NBC. who just happen to have run the GM truck gas tank documentary. you know, the one where they deliberately blew the truck tank up for effect. they have a long established history of judicious "editing".

which isn't to say that fox, breitbart and the entire right don't either. since both are guilty let's make sure they both get called for it when it happens.
 
2013-01-30 03:51:36 PM

Curious: MSNBC is owned and run by NBC. who just happen to have run the GM truck gas tank documentary. you know, the one where they deliberately blew the truck tank up for effect. they have a long established history of judicious "editing".

which isn't to say that fox, breitbart and the entire right don't either. since both are guilty let's make sure they both get called for it when it happens.


There is a consequential difference. People who distort the news at NBC get fired or otherwise disciplined. Not so much for those who distort the news at Fox.
 
2013-01-30 03:51:44 PM

Mike_1962: GoldSpider: Mike_1962: Perhaps, but in the final analysis, pedantry, semantics and etymology are the only real grounds on which to interpret the wording. In all honesty, I believe that your founding fathers would fully expect you people to think for yourselves.

You evidently believe that the founding fathers' definition of "arms" excluded "firearms", and suggest a critical thinking deficiency on OUR part? That's remarkable.

Actually, no, not at all. My only point is this is all about interpretation of a 230 (more or less) document put together by a bunch of well educated, well intentioned men who were in no way possessed of the wisdom of the ages, presience or anything else of that ilk. They, through compromise and reasonable debate authored one of the seminal documents underlying the foundation of modern democratic thought. The point remains. All you have are their words on paper. They are not sacred, and were never intended to be. In order to interpret them you NEED pedantry (to keep overly subjective interpretations at bay), semantics (in order to reason what the actual meaning and content of the words include), and etymology (to provide a context to the meaning of the words in the time frame they were used.)


Ack, should have been 230 year old doc. Sorry.
 
2013-01-30 03:53:28 PM

bugontherug: GanjSmokr: Would I be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?

I've never taken any position but that fully automatic weapons are banned except for those made and registered before 1986. You may not legally purchase a fully automatic weapon made after 1986. You may not legally purchase an automatic weapon made but not registered before 1986.


That wasn't a yes or no answer... try again. The question is "Would I be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?"

Once more, for you - I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE AGE OF THE GUN. If you have to keep qualifying your definition of "ban" then we're going to be finished here. I can either buy an "automatic weapon" or I can't. They are either "banned" or they aren't. It's not a "well, they are sorta' kinda' banned but you can still legally get some of them" thing. It's either banned or not.

YES or NO - Would I be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?

/again, don't come back with "blah blah 1986 blah blah" - I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE AGE OF THE GUN.
 
2013-01-30 03:57:27 PM

Corvus: Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.

OK then who gets to decide what is justified?

Pretty much everyone makes the call one way or another another every act of violence they hear about.

Like I said above:

I think the 2nd amendment was put in place so that groups like state militias could defend themselves NOT so that individuals could do political assassinations.


A reasonable interpretation of the text, but one I believe is both made obsolete by our changing society and a bad policy decision when it WAS in context.
 
2013-01-30 04:01:04 PM

GanjSmokr: bugontherug: GanjSmokr: Would I be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?

I've never taken any position but that fully automatic weapons are banned except for those made and registered before 1986. You may not legally purchase a fully automatic weapon made after 1986. You may not legally purchase an automatic weapon made but not registered before 1986.

That wasn't a yes or no answer... try again. The question is "Would I be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?"

Once more, for you - I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE AGE OF THE GUN. If you have to keep qualifying your definition of "ban" then we're going to be finished here. I can either buy an "automatic weapon" or I can't. They are either "banned" or they aren't. It's not a "well, they are sorta' kinda' banned but you can still legally get some of them" thing. It's either banned or not.

YES or NO - Would I be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?

/again, don't come back with "blah blah 1986 blah blah" - I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE AGE OF THE GUN.


And if your selling them to police and LEOs, you get to have all the fun toys as samples. So it's not a ban
 
2013-01-30 04:06:57 PM

Ned Stark: Corvus: Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.

Tell us the times in US history where people used guns to fight back against tyrannical oppression that was justified?

I would love to learn.

The black panthers arming themselves against police brutality.


Battle of Athens......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
 
2013-01-30 04:07:34 PM

GanjSmokr: YES or NO - Would I be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?


All fully automatic firearms are banned in the United States.1

1
Except those made and registered before 1986.
 
2013-01-30 04:08:45 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Maybe just go ahead and stay quiet if the only thing you can come up with is "SECOND MEDMENTS" at a hearing about dead kindergarteners.


You liar!

( most of them were first graders)

/totally different.
 
2013-01-30 04:10:11 PM

Corvus:
I think the 2nd amendment was put in place so that groups like state militias could defend themselves NOT so that individuals could do political assassinations.


It does seem absurd on it's face if you think about it that the Founders would establish a federal government though the constitution, full of checks and balances that limited the power of all three branches, which at it's heart was dedicated to the peaceful, democratic change of power through elections but then turn around and say "if you think it's too tyranical blow it up." The government itself was established as an answer to tyranny.

What's more it's clear from even a casual reading of history that the Bill of Rights was drafted in order to bring some of the more anti-federalist states into the fledgling government. We revere the rights granted through those amendments but that doesn't excuse that in many cases the original intent was coming from some very ugly areas of our national history.

Specifically- the change in the draft language of the 2nd from "...being the best security of a free country" to "...being the best security of a free state" or the defeat of language reading "for the common defence" in deference to anti-federalist sentiment made it clear that those states did not want their state militias subsumed into a new national militia, the idea of which ironically was one of the driving factors to the drafting of the constitution in the first place.

Why was it important that these anti-federalist states keep their own militas? Therein lies the real origin of the 2nd Amendment. The answer is not pretty and it's far from noble.
 
2013-01-30 04:12:26 PM
And as the argument continues, thousands of people will die this year from gunshots. And next year, and the year after. And we won't do anything to stop it.
 
2013-01-30 04:12:37 PM
Ugh. I'm torn because on the one hand, almost every single gun nut I've heard speak out since this tragedy almost exclusively derps out paranoid conspiracies about the government to explain that they need their weapons arsenals in the event that they decide they've had it with this country and would like to commit murder and treason, possibly very soon.

On the other hand, the Democrats are really starting to piss me off too. I don't like that they've started referring to all the kids as "babies" for dramatic effect. I guess the term "heckling" is subjective, but people don't like it when politicians and media try to make them feel guilty all the time.
 
2013-01-30 04:13:15 PM

bugontherug: GanjSmokr: YES or NO - Would I be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?

All fully automatic firearms are banned in the United States.1

1Except those made and registered before 1986.


No

fully automatic firearms are banned in the United States.1

1
Except those made after 1986.



Heh, that sounds just as stupid as your attempt. I'm going to just stick with saying "automatic weapons aren't banned", because they aren't.

We're done here. Have fun being willfully obtuse, kiddo!
 
2013-01-30 04:14:29 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify


OH FFS I'm so sick of this "shall not be infringed" argument.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean I can go yell fire in a crowded theater. All Amendments are subject to reasonable restrictions and the second amendment is no different.
 
2013-01-30 04:22:36 PM
It does seem absurd on it's face if you think about it that the Founders would establish a federal government though the constitution, full of checks and balances that limited the power of all three branches, which at it's heart was dedicated to the peaceful, democratic change of power through elections but then turn around and say "if you think it's too tyranical blow it up." The government itself was established as an answer to tyranny.

Incorrect maybe, but hardly absurd. I absolutely would include such language were I contributing to the fonding document of a nation's governing body. Perhapse because I didn't smoke a quarter pound of Meth this morning and start believing in end of history everyone lived happily ever after and no puppy ever again beshat the carpet pabulum about the infallibility of democracy.
 
2013-01-30 04:24:36 PM

CruiserTwelve: And as the argument continues, thousands of people will die this year from gunshots. And next year, and the year after. And we won't do anything to stop it.


Except for the bit where its stopping. Down 50% in two decades.
 
2013-01-30 04:30:13 PM

CorporatePerson: I don't like that they've started referring to all the kids as "babies" for dramatic effect.


The average age of Congress is around sixty and I honestly don't think anyone over thirty referring to any first-graders as "babies" is doing so for "dramatic effect."
 
2013-01-30 04:34:33 PM

Warlordtrooper: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

OH FFS I'm so sick of this "shall not be infringed" argument.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean I can go yell fire in a crowded theater. All Amendments are subject to reasonable restrictions and the second amendment is no different.


Can you point to the law that penalizes the utterance of FIRE in a crowded theater.
 
2013-01-30 04:40:28 PM

Ned Stark: Except for the bit where its stopping. Down 50% in two decades.


I'm sure the 12,000 or so people that will be murdered with guns this year will be comforted by that.
 
2013-01-30 04:41:16 PM

Saiga410: Warlordtrooper: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

OH FFS I'm so sick of this "shall not be infringed" argument.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean I can go yell fire in a crowded theater. All Amendments are subject to reasonable restrictions and the second amendment is no different.

Can you point to the law that penalizes the utterance of FIRE in a crowded theater.


Shenck v. United States, 1919, later amended and narrowed.

Wikipedia
 
2013-01-30 04:50:17 PM

dittybopper: 3. Said that Steve Perry was talking about President Obama when he mentioned a "big, black cloud that hangs over America", when in fact Perry was talking about the national debt.


Yes but be fair, they also edited out his other quote which was "Someday love will find you, Break those chains that bind you, One night will remind you, How we touched, And went our separate ways" which is CLEARLY about freeing the slaves, raping them and then sending them back to Africa.
 
2013-01-30 04:52:45 PM

CruiserTwelve: And as the argument continues, thousands of people will die this year from gunshots. And next year, and the year after. And we won't do anything to stop it.


anything? aren't you LEO? we may not do things you think we should but you know damned well we do have laws. go enforce them.
 
2013-01-30 04:53:16 PM

KhamanV: Shenck v. United States, 1919, later amended and narrowed.


The response that you are going to get is that it's perfectly legal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater so long as you reasonably believe the theater to be on fire, and that it is illegal to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater.  Because on Fark it's better to be a pedant and technically correct than to ever advance the conversation in any way.
 
2013-01-30 05:02:39 PM

GanjSmokr: Does anyone have a link to the original "edited" video? It appears MSNBC has already replaced it with the unedited version...

Editor's note: This story has been amended from the original version to clarify the context of the remarks; the original video has been replaced with a fuller version.


Wowee...people are just awful.  Awful.

/Response was inappropriate, and bordered on shouting the poor fella down.
//You lose your kid like that, you get to have any damn opinion on this issue that you want, and only a classless asshat would shout you down for it, either side of the assault rifle ban that you happen to fall on.  He should have respectful silence anytime and anywhere he speaks on this topic, at a minimum.
 
2013-01-30 05:03:22 PM

Curious: anything? aren't you LEO? we may not do things you think we should but you know damned well we do have laws. go enforce them.


Existing laws have been proven ineffective. I can't arrest people for a muder they haven't yet committed. Meanwhile, we'll continue to argue over whether the father of a 6 year old gun murder victim was heckled during his testimony instead of trying to do something to prevent future 6 year old victims of gun violence.
 
2013-01-30 05:06:03 PM

Tuesdae: GanjSmokr: Does anyone have a link to the original "edited" video? It appears MSNBC has already replaced it with the unedited version...

Editor's note: This story has been amended from the original version to clarify the context of the remarks; the original video has been replaced with a fuller version.

Wowee...people are just awful.  Awful.

/Response was inappropriate, and bordered on shouting the poor fella down.
//You lose your kid like that, you get to have any damn opinion on this issue that you want, and only a classless asshat would shout you down for it, either side of the assault rifle ban that you happen to fall on.  He should have respectful silence anytime and anywhere he speaks on this topic, at a minimum.


True that.
 
2013-01-30 05:07:26 PM
How many angles can dance on the head of a hollow-point round, I wonder.
 
2013-01-30 05:08:03 PM
DAMMIT.

Angels.

Angels.
 
2013-01-30 05:10:48 PM

CruiserTwelve: Ned Stark: Except for the bit where its stopping. Down 50% in two decades.

I'm sure the 12,000 or so people that will be murdered with guns this year will be comforted by that.


I watched a loved one die of lung cancer and I've got pretty strong feelings about smoking that falling rates really do very little to comfort, but I understand that my emotional reaction to a particular topic is hardly a basis for policy.
 
2013-01-30 05:11:19 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: CorporatePerson: I don't like that they've started referring to all the kids as "babies" for dramatic effect.

The average age of Congress is around sixty and I honestly don't think anyone over thirty referring to any first-graders as "babies" is doing so for "dramatic effect."


I listened to Rachel Maddow's show the other night and she played a montage of people calling for gun control and every single one of them referred to the Newtown kids as babies. I think I even heard Biden say something like "These poor children. These babies, rather. Were viciously murdered."

I could be wrong, but the fact that all of a sudden everyone was using the same term signals to me that they had some sort of strategy session and decided that calling them "babies" adds emotional impact. It's just like when Fox, Limbaugh, and everyone in my derp Twitter feed has a new talking point and they all trot it out on the same day. That means the party probably had a big strategy session with Frank Luntz and he's informed them that a particular phrase is polling well so they should all incorporate it into their talking points.
 
2013-01-30 05:13:46 PM

Kibbler: How many angles can dance on the head of a hollow-point round, I wonder.


why are you being obtuse? I like it better when you act acute.
 
2013-01-30 05:25:44 PM

GoldSpider: Corvus: I agree. My interpretation of the 2nd amendment from everything I have read about it would be the federal government wouldn't be able to restrict weapons from what states would then define as militias.

This could be a lot easier to settle if state National Guard units weren't treated like a de-facto arm of the military.


Exactly.
 
2013-01-30 05:25:46 PM

BSABSVR: KhamanV: Shenck v. United States, 1919, later amended and narrowed.

The response that you are going to get is that it's perfectly legal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater so long as you reasonably believe the theater to be on fire, and that it is illegal to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater.  Because on Fark it's better to be a pedant and technically correct than to ever advance the conversation in any way.


Well actually, I would say you cannot use the free speech arguement to disavow yourself from harm caused. We penalize the harm and not the speech. Similarly you cannot shoot someone outside of a vary narrow set of events.
 
2013-01-30 05:26:32 PM

Ned Stark: I watched a loved one die of lung cancer and I've got pretty strong feelings about smoking that falling rates really do very little to comfort, but I understand that my emotional reaction to a particular topic is hardly a basis for policy.


If guns only killed the people that use them, I could understand your point. But guns kill other people.
 
2013-01-30 05:39:33 PM

CorporatePerson: I listened to Rachel Maddow's show the other night and she played a montage of people calling for gun control and every single one of them referred to the Newtown kids as babies. I think I even heard Biden say something like "These poor children. These babies, rather. Were viciously murdered."


Cite for either Maddow or Biden, please.

And about the only people who don't commonly refer to first-graders as "babies" are first-graders.
 
2013-01-30 05:40:21 PM

Kibbler: DAMMIT.

Angels.

Angels.


Kibbler: How many angles can dance on the head of a hollow-point round, I wonder.


Acute observations although I think many are too obtuse to get it.

/sorry couldn't help m'self
 
2013-01-30 05:49:29 PM

CruiserTwelve: Ned Stark: I watched a loved one die of lung cancer and I've got pretty strong feelings about smoking that falling rates really do very little to comfort, but I understand that my emotional reaction to a particular topic is hardly a basis for policy.

If guns only killed the people that use them, I could understand your point. But guns kill other people.


So does tobacco, or is the concept of "second-hand smoke" unfamiliar to you?
 
2013-01-30 05:50:12 PM

Kibbler: How many angles can dance on the head of a hollow-point round, I wonder.

 
2013-01-30 05:51:27 PM

skullkrusher: Kibbler: How many angles can dance on the head of a hollow-point round, I wonder.

why are you being obtuse? I like it better when you act acute.


Zombie Butler: Acute observations although I think many are too obtuse to get it.

/sorry couldn't help m'self


Hey, when he's right, he's right!

/90°
 
2013-01-30 05:59:00 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Cite for either Maddow or Biden, please.

And about the only people who don't commonly refer to first-graders as "babies" are first-graders.


Couldn't find the Rachel Maddow clip, maybe I was mistakenly thinking it was this NPR story. Obama Administration Takes Gun Control Fight Outside Washington This is a story about how the Democrats are using OFA to try to rally public support. I know OFA constantly retools their emails based on what people respond to, so it would make sense if they noticed saying "babies" instead of "children" resonates with parents and others who could be potentially mobilized to put pressure on Congress to pass a gun bill, and thus worked it into their messaging.

You and I disagree, but when I hear that somebody killed a baby, I assume that means they killed a 1-2 year old. 6 years old is very young, but it's not a baby.
 
2013-01-30 06:04:06 PM

CruiserTwelve: Curious: anything? aren't you LEO? we may not do things you think we should but you know damned well we do have laws. go enforce them.

Existing laws have been proven ineffective. I can't arrest people for a muder they haven't yet committed. Meanwhile, we'll continue to argue over whether the father of a 6 year old gun murder victim was heckled during his testimony instead of trying to do something to prevent future 6 year old victims of gun violence.


odd how that inner city black father of a 6 y/o isn't invited to testify.

and that father of the black gang banger shot in the bad drug deal, you'll never hear from him.

this guy has no more to say than either of my hypothetical black fathers. trotting him out for the pity party just makes for crappy laws. can't pass a law on it's merits then don't pass it.

on the topic of existing laws i don't like NYC stop and frisk laws but then you read (regularly) "today police did X in a known drug neighborhood" i tend to think some laws aren't being enforced.
 
2013-01-30 06:09:44 PM

COMALite J: So does tobacco, or is the concept of "second-hand smoke" unfamiliar to you?


That's why we banned smoking in almost all public places. We actually passed sensible laws to prevent smokers from harming others before the fact.
 
2013-01-30 06:11:22 PM
Curious: can't pass a law on it's merits then don't pass it.

Preventing six year olds from becoming murder victims isn't meritable?
 
2013-01-30 06:12:38 PM

CruiserTwelve: Curious: can't pass a law on it's merits then don't pass it.

Preventing six year olds from becoming murder victims isn't meritable?


its unameritan
 
2013-01-30 06:19:07 PM

CorporatePerson: You and I disagree, but when I hear that somebody killed a baby, I assume that means they killed a 1-2 year old. 6 years old is very young, but it's not a baby.


From your link:

"What happened up in Newtown - beautiful little babies, 6 and 7 years old, riddled, riddled with bullet holes. Twenty of them dead. I've met with most of their parents. It is a national tragedy," he said.

Hardly an attempt at deception.
You want to say, "Both sides are bad.", fine.

But if you want to use specific examples you might start with, you know, examples.
 
2013-01-30 06:29:12 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Hardly an attempt at deception.
You want to say, "Both sides are bad.", fine.


I don't like playing the "Both sides are bad card." I just calls em like I sees em. If the Democrats are "my team" I'm allowed to tell them when I don't like what they're doing, and I think they turn people off when they lay on the guilt too heavily.

The talking point stuck out to me because I was listening to it in headphones. Whenever I'm walking somewhere or doing chores around the house, I either load a bunch of stories into the NPR news app or listen to podcasts on Stitcher (where I listen to Rachel Maddow almost every day). I just remember listening to a bunch of stories and thinking "Man these people are saying 'babies' alot and they weren't last week."
 
2013-01-30 07:06:54 PM

GanjSmokr: Does anyone have a link to the original "edited" video? It appears MSNBC has already replaced it with the unedited version...


I saw the video yesterday on MSNBC.  It lasted about five minutes.  The incident in question occurred at the very end.  The only "editing" was that they strung several clips together, but the individual clips were 1-2 minutes long so there was no loss of context.  In short, this controversy isn't.
 
2013-01-30 07:09:57 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify


And that's not an answer to his question, is it? Unless the audience is claiming "needs to have" means every American is under a constitutional obligation to own an "assault-style weapon." Is that the audience's position? And are you supporting it?
 
2013-01-30 07:16:42 PM
what's msnbc?
 
2013-01-30 07:21:55 PM

mksmith: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

And that's not an answer to his question, is it? Unless the audience is claiming "needs to have" means every American is under a constitutional obligation to own an "assault-style weapon." Is that the audience's position? And are you supporting it?


Pretty sure the audience's only position was "SLIPPY SLOPEY!!!" and no, I don't support it.
 
2013-01-30 07:22:56 PM
 
2013-01-30 07:34:47 PM

vygramul: No, it's plain English meaning that you seem to be unclear on the concept of an amendment CHANGES the Constitution, and that an enumerated right trumps an enumerated power.

/Does anyone know what he's on about with his Spanish references?  He does this from time to time as if it's supposed to be meaningful.


Oh great Constitutional scholar (and bolo), please enlighten us: Exactly how does Amendment II in any way, shape, or form contradict the powers of the Congress enumerated in Article I Section 8?
 
2013-01-30 07:37:52 PM

COMALite J: skullkrusher: Kibbler: How many angles can dance on the head of a hollow-point round, I wonder.

why are you being obtuse? I like it better when you act acute.

Zombie Butler: Acute observations although I think many are too obtuse to get it.

/sorry couldn't help m'self

Hey, when he's right, he's right!


oh curses I just now noticed that Skullrusher and I had parallel thoughts. If I wasn't so Dense i would have read the line and wouldn't have made the same puns. That I didn't read it is plane to see.  Ah well, perhaps next time.
 
2013-01-30 07:44:47 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: No, it's plain English meaning that you seem to be unclear on the concept of an amendment CHANGES the Constitution, and that an enumerated right trumps an enumerated power.

/Does anyone know what he's on about with his Spanish references?  He does this from time to time as if it's supposed to be meaningful.

Oh great Constitutional scholar (and bolo), please enlighten us: Exactly how does Amendment II in any way, shape, or form contradict the powers of the Congress enumerated in Article I Section 8?


It creates the limits of how Congress may regulate the militia.  It may arm it.  It may not DISARM it either directly or by disarming the people.

So far, every Supreme Court has agreed with me.  None have agreed with you, even the dissents don't agree with you.

/Bolo as in giant killing robot, or as in a type of necktie?
 
2013-01-30 08:13:56 PM

CruiserTwelve: Curious: can't pass a law on it's merits then don't pass it.

Preventing six year olds from becoming murder victims isn't meritable?


sure it is. so why have some whinny father at your hearing going on about how he lost his "best friend".

how pathetic is that.
 
2013-01-30 08:27:54 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.

Tell us the times in US history where people used guns to fight back against tyrannical oppression that was justified?

I would love to learn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

Fighting against enslavement of people is justified opposition to tyranny I'd say.


The Japanese, Italian and German Americans that were unfairly imprisoned without due process by Roosevelt would have been justified in shooting at his crippled ass.
 
2013-01-30 08:46:35 PM
Dear Mr. Treacher:

Your blog sucks, and you should feel bad.

Sincerely,

Everyone on Earth
 
2013-01-30 09:24:36 PM

Wayne 985: GoldSpider: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Audience members merely answered a challenge that Heslin posed from the microphone."

For some reason DC neglects to mention Heslin's "challenge" which was:

"I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an, one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.....Not one person can answer that question."

And the audience's "answer" which was:

"Second Amendment shall not be infringed."

/just to clarify

Our constitutional rights are not bounded by one's perceived "need" of them.

Think the 2nd is too broad? Amend it.

People like to forget the "well regulated" part.


The same people who know what the term well regulated actually meant in historic context?  Hint, an Army Regular was an average army soldier.  Well regulated meant well equipped, ie standard equipped soldier.
 
2013-01-30 09:34:00 PM

MyRandomName: The same people who know what the term well regulated actually meant in historic context? Hint, an Army Regular was an average army soldier. Well regulated meant well equipped, ie standard equipped soldier.


NOT A FETISH.

And you're wrong.
 
2013-01-30 10:35:33 PM

Curious: sure it is. so why have some whinny father at your hearing going on about how he lost his "best friend".

how pathetic is that.


You think it's pathetic that a father lost his six year old child?
 
2013-01-30 10:52:37 PM

CruiserTwelve: Curious: sure it is. so why have some whinny father at your hearing going on about how he lost his "best friend".

how pathetic is that.

You think it's pathetic that a father lost his six year old child?


I said that wrong. You think it's pathetic that a father is upset over losing his six year old child?
 
2013-01-30 10:53:58 PM

Zombie Butler: COMALite J: skullkrusher: Kibbler: How many angles can dance on the head of a hollow-point round, I wonder.

why are you being obtuse? I like it better when you act acute.

Zombie Butler: Acute observations although I think many are too obtuse to get it.

/sorry couldn't help m'self

Hey, when he's right, he's right!

oh curses I just now noticed that Skullrusher and I had parallel thoughts. If I wasn't so Dense i would have read the line and wouldn't have made the same puns. That I didn't read it is plane to see.  Ah well, perhaps next time.


when I read your posts sometimes I wonder if you'd be better off hanging a sign from your door saying "Hi, pot in use".
 
2013-01-30 10:55:28 PM

CruiserTwelve: CruiserTwelve: Curious: sure it is. so why have some whinny father at your hearing going on about how he lost his "best friend".

how pathetic is that.

You think it's pathetic that a father lost his six year old child?

I said that wrong. You think it's pathetic that a father is upset over losing his six year old child?


I'm still waiting for a youtube clip of this dad whinnying
 
2013-01-30 10:56:17 PM

Nemo's Brother: skullkrusher: Corvus: Ned Stark: Behold the awesome power of nuance. To believe that the state should not be an all powerful titan able to do with its citizens what it wilt with no hope of recourse does not imply that you also believe every recourse to violence in the history of the world is justified.

Tell us the times in US history where people used guns to fight back against tyrannical oppression that was justified?

I would love to learn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

Fighting against enslavement of people is justified opposition to tyranny I'd say.

The Japanese, Italian and German Americans that were unfairly imprisoned without due process by Roosevelt would have been justified in shooting at his crippled ass.


or those who tried to intern them at least, certainly
 
2013-01-30 11:14:42 PM
I noticed MSNBC showed the entire tape, to allow people to see it in context. I did find it disturbing when they only showed the original couple of seconds. After watching the entire thing, I'd like to have a word with Mr. Brave Second Amendment guy. Outside. f*cking gun-fondling wimp.
 
2013-01-30 11:37:47 PM

CruiserTwelve: Curious: sure it is. so why have some whinny father at your hearing going on about how he lost his "best friend".

how pathetic is that.

You think it's pathetic that a father lost his six year old child?


are you just being deliberately obtuse or does a grown man calling his 6 y/o his best friend not strike you as pathetic?

yeah i know it's the current terminology but for god's sake it's pathetic that a parent would consider his/her child their "best friend". in a healthy parent child relationship "best friend" is not a defining term.
 
2013-01-30 11:59:17 PM

GanjSmokr: Does anyone have a link to the original "edited" video? It appears MSNBC has already replaced it with the unedited version...


(I don't know if this got in upthread, but I didn't see it. Apologies if a double)

Full Version (youtube)

The lead up by Heslin stars around 13:00 and the heckling happens just before the 14:00 mark and doesn't go on long, but certainly long enough.
 
2013-01-31 12:00:14 AM

Curious: CruiserTwelve: Curious: sure it is. so why have some whinny father at your hearing going on about how he lost his "best friend".

how pathetic is that.

You think it's pathetic that a father lost his six year old child?

are you just being deliberately obtuse or does a grown man calling his 6 y/o his best friend not strike you as pathetic?

yeah i know it's the current terminology but for god's sake it's pathetic that a parent would consider his/her child their "best friend". in a healthy parent child relationship "best friend" is not a defining term.


So which is it: no kids or bad dad?
 
2013-01-31 12:17:36 AM
If you ask people a direct question...twice... And they answer, that's not heckling.He was actually shifting around in his chair to address the people in attendance. The chairman shoudl have reminded him to address the committee and not the audience.Using the argument that law abiding citizens should be denied their rights because of the actions of criminals is logically baseless.
 
2013-01-31 12:27:46 AM

thenooch: If anyone noticed, there is no correlation between assault rifles and the number of dead school children. In fact, back before the discovery of penicillin, more school kids died in a day than here in 2013.


According to the FBI, roughly 323 people were killed by ALL kinds of rifles in 2011. IN a country of 311 million, that is just shy of 1 in a million. More than twice as many(728) were beaten, kicked or pushed to their death, and more than 5 times as many(1694) were killed by knives.

But obviously assault rifles are the problem here, not murder.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in- th e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
 
2013-01-31 12:32:58 AM

skylabdown: If you ask people a direct question...twice... And they answer, that's not heckling.He was actually shifting around in his chair to address the people in attendance. The chairman shoudl have reminded him to address the committee and not the audience.Using the argument that law abiding citizens should be denied their rights because of the actions of criminals is logically baseless.


You have to absolutely feel for the guy. He is going through the most unimaginable tragedy and is advocating for something he believes will prevent other people from having to go through the same thing. However, you're right. This is not what heckling looks like.
 
2013-01-31 12:33:46 AM

WhackingDay: lexslamman: A buddy of mine from the Connecticut Post was in the room, transcribed the exchange and verified that it was indeed heckling in tone, content and intent. Twitchy.com? What that is, I don't even...

I heard the audio on the radio and you didn't have to be in the room to catch the tone. Maybe it's sadly ironic, but man I wanted whoever did that to die on the spot. To me, that he didn't, is proof that there is no god.


Was it "heckling in tone", or were these people speaking up for something they believed in? Heckling usually includes trying to interrupt someone talking, not answering a question that is asked. The tone of the conversation can be confrontational, but that doesn't make it "heckling".

Is this the new word to get used whenever someone wants a handy word? For awhile t was 'microburst', more recently, it's been "reboot" for everything from remakes to sequels, it's an annoying trend, that's fpr sure.
 
2013-01-31 12:33:49 AM

skullkrusher: So which is it: no kids or bad dad?


a little from column one a little from column two. and i grew up pre dr spock and his no spanking BS.

your child is NOT your best friend. there is no way that is going to happen until he/she is in middle age if then. you don't have to be an ogre or extreme disciplinarian but treating a child who you have a duty to rear as a "best friend" is recipe for a poor outcome. your best friends have an equal voice in what and how you live. want to delegate that to a 6 y/o?
 
2013-01-31 12:34:35 AM

MyRandomName: The same people who know what the term well regulated actually meant in historic context?  Hint, an Army Regular was an average army soldier.  Well regulated meant well equipped, ie standard equipped soldier.


Oh, look! It's that bullshiat again.

1. Regulated has meant "control by rules" in English since Middle English was spoken: It dates back to Chaucer.
2. A well regulated Militia, Founder style. And here are the laws that prescribed that "well regulated Militia".
 
2013-01-31 12:35:10 AM

CruiserTwelve: Ned Stark: I watched a loved one die of lung cancer and I've got pretty strong feelings about smoking that falling rates really do very little to comfort, but I understand that my emotional reaction to a particular topic is hardly a basis for policy.

If guns only killed the people that use them, I could understand your point. But guns kill other people.


So what you're saying is that you agree that the anti-gun people shouldn't use suicides in their numbers...
 
2013-01-31 12:41:07 AM

Curious: CruiserTwelve: Curious: sure it is. so why have some whinny father at your hearing going on about how he lost his "best friend".

how pathetic is that.

You think it's pathetic that a father lost his six year old child?

are you just being deliberately obtuse or does a grown man calling his 6 y/o his best friend not strike you as pathetic?

yeah i know it's the current terminology but for god's sake it's pathetic that a parent would consider his/her child their "best friend". in a healthy parent child relationship "best friend" is not a defining term.


Wow, some of you people really do dig in on some ridiculously stupid shiat...

Who CARES what he called his kid? It's not "pathetic". I doubt he shared beers with the kid on the weekend or invited im to the Wednesday night poker game. Instead, he lived to see his son, and loved to do nothing more than be with him. I'm the same with my 4 year old daughter, it's the one thing I've done right in 43 years, so I might call her my "best friend" at some point, doesn't make it pathetic.

It DOES make you kind of pathetic, since that seems to be the only thing you've got here. Find a winning cause, dude...
 
2013-01-31 12:51:32 AM

Curious: skullkrusher: So which is it: no kids or bad dad?

a little from column one a little from column two. and i grew up pre dr spock and his no spanking BS.

your child is NOT your best friend. there is no way that is going to happen until he/she is in middle age if then. you don't have to be an ogre or extreme disciplinarian but treating a child who you have a duty to rear as a "best friend" is recipe for a poor outcome. your best friends have an equal voice in what and how you live. want to delegate that to a 6 y/o?


to most a "best friend" is the person you most want to spend your free time with and that person for whom you care the most for of anyone in your life. He loved his son as a son, he loved his son as a companion because spending time with even your young son is awesome in a way that having beers and talking about life with a buddy from grade school cannot compare.

Yeah, he's normal and you're a farking dick.
 
2013-01-31 01:10:52 AM

Mrtraveler01: Lionel Mandrake: Twitchy.com has been all over the story of NBC's latest... I was about to say "latest ethical lapse," but that would imply they have any ethics to begin with.

What a terrific opening sentence! I'm sure that what's to follow will be a level-headed discussion of the matter.

The real funny thing is that they're implying that Twitchy and Daily Caller actually had ethics at all.


Yeah BowTie Boy has a lot of room to talk
 
2013-01-31 01:18:32 AM

GoldSpider: Wayne 985: People like to forget the "well regulated" part.

This goes back to a time where many people were suspicious of having a standing federal army. If for no other reason, the 2nd is due for an update.


They should let Strunk and White take a look at it.
 
2013-01-31 01:21:21 AM
"Assault weapons" are the new Muslims.
 
2013-01-31 01:31:08 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: MyRandomName: The same people who know what the term well regulated actually meant in historic context?  Hint, an Army Regular was an average army soldier.  Well regulated meant well equipped, ie standard equipped soldier.

Oh, look! It's that bullshiat again.

1. Regulated has meant "control by rules" in English since Middle English was spoken: It dates back to Chaucer.
2. A well regulated Militia, Founder style. And here are the laws that prescribed that "well regulated Militia".


Yes, rules regarding being properly equipped and drilled for service.

If the 2A meant what you wanted it to mean, then our national guard would have muskets and shotguns because of "gun regulations," then if deployed they'd be fighting with completely substandard equipment and in reality would not be well regulated.

Owned. Next.
 
2013-01-31 01:44:31 AM

USP .45: demaL-demaL-yeH: MyRandomName: The same people who know what the term well regulated actually meant in historic context?  Hint, an Army Regular was an average army soldier.  Well regulated meant well equipped, ie standard equipped soldier.

Oh, look! It's that bullshiat again.

1. Regulated has meant "control by rules" in English since Middle English was spoken: It dates back to Chaucer.
2. A well regulated Militia, Founder style. And here are the laws that prescribed that "well regulated Militia".

Yes, rules regarding being properly equipped and drilled for service.

If the 2A meant what you wanted it to mean, then our national guard would have muskets and shotguns because of "gun regulations," then if deployed they'd be fighting with completely substandard equipment and in reality would not be well regulated.

Owned. Next.


He thinks the second amendment was ratified in order to protect militias from being disarmed by Hessians.

I'm serious.  He said that.
 
2013-01-31 06:48:32 AM

skullkrusher: Yeah, he's normal and you're a farking dick.


that part doesn't further your argument.
 
2013-01-31 06:53:00 AM

Mikey1969: Who CARES what he called his kid? It's not "pathetic". I doubt he shared beers with the kid on the weekend or invited im to the Wednesday night poker game. Instead, he lived to see his son, and loved to do nothing more than be with him. I'm the same with my 4 year old daughter, it's the one thing I've done right in 43 years, so I might call her my "best friend" at some point, doesn't make it pathetic.

It DOES make you kind of pathetic, since that seems to be the only thing you've got here. Find a winning cause, dude...


i happen to think words mean things and that misusing them leads to confusion. beating this dead horse probably is a lost cause.
 
2013-01-31 07:35:10 AM
There are no more news channels. they are gossip networks. Stories about celebrities, and finger pointing politicians for the lowest of the masses so they too can be "informed" in the ways of stupidity, ignorance, and complacency.

You're all slaves, and eat of the shiat and filth from your masters with arms, mouth, and ass wide open.
 
2013-01-31 09:10:05 AM

whitman00: Fox News and 1000 right wing radio programs edit tape 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for years on end with the sole purpose of twisting the facts to make Democrats and liberals look bad.

MSNBC might have been caught doing it once.

Translation- both sides are bad so stop criticizing us for doing it.


If that was true MSNBC would be screaming about it 24/7. Trust me NBC has people looking for that constantly, and yet they turn up nothing.
 
2013-01-31 09:12:28 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Danger Mouse: The libfart medie outlet MSNBC was caught lying

What was the lie?


That he was heckled, that stupid a*shole Martin Bashir said that. Which wasn't the truth.
 
2013-01-31 09:22:42 AM
It doesn't matter if your comments were unsolicited "heckling" or selfish, stupid, oversimplified NRA talking points shouted in response to a rhetorical question by the father of a dead child.  You're still a gun nut asshole, regardless of what some editor did.
 
2013-01-31 10:16:11 AM

Curious: skullkrusher: Yeah, he's normal and you're a farking dick.

that part doesn't further your argument.


hehe it was an observation. I don't need to further the argument.
 
2013-01-31 10:44:09 AM

lordjupiter: It doesn't matter if your comments were unsolicited "heckling" or selfish, stupid, oversimplified NRA talking points shouted in response to a rhetorical question by the father of a dead child.  You're still

an a gun nut asshole, regardless of what some editor did.

FTFY.
 
2013-01-31 12:37:02 PM

Curious: CruiserTwelve: Curious: sure it is. so why have some whinny father at your hearing going on about how he lost his "best friend".

how pathetic is that.

You think it's pathetic that a father lost his six year old child?

are you just being deliberately obtuse or does a grown man calling his 6 y/o his best friend not strike you as pathetic?

yeah i know it's the current terminology but for god's sake it's pathetic that a parent would consider his/her child their "best friend". in a healthy parent child relationship "best friend" is not a defining term.


Says someone who clearly doesn't have kids
 
2013-01-31 12:43:26 PM

USP .45: demaL-demaL-yeH: MyRandomName: The same people who know what the term well regulated actually meant in historic context?  Hint, an Army Regular was an average army soldier.  Well regulated meant well equipped, ie standard equipped soldier.

Oh, look! It's that bullshiat again.

1. Regulated has meant "control by rules" in English since Middle English was spoken: It dates back to Chaucer.
2. A well regulated Militia, Founder style. And here are the laws that prescribed that "well regulated Militia".

Yes, rules regarding being properly equipped and drilled for service.

If the 2A meant what you wanted it to mean, then our national guard would have muskets and shotguns because of "gun regulations," then if deployed they'd be fighting with completely substandard equipment and in reality would not be well regulated.

Owned. Next.


Crack. You're smoking your own.
 
2013-01-31 12:48:41 PM

Curious: Mikey1969: Who CARES what he called his kid? It's not "pathetic". I doubt he shared beers with the kid on the weekend or invited im to the Wednesday night poker game. Instead, he lived to see his son, and loved to do nothing more than be with him. I'm the same with my 4 year old daughter, it's the one thing I've done right in 43 years, so I might call her my "best friend" at some point, doesn't make it pathetic.

It DOES make you kind of pathetic, since that seems to be the only thing you've got here. Find a winning cause, dude...

i happen to think words mean things and that misusing them leads to confusion. beating this dead horse probably is a lost cause.


Yeah, because nobody speaks in metaphor. EVER. Hell, when I tell my daughter that I love her "This much", it might be confusing to her because there can't be a "this much" that that can actually be realistically expressed with my arms.

Really, you just want to kick a man when he's down. Beat a dead horse, so to speak. I hope it at least makes you feel good for it.
 
2013-01-31 01:17:05 PM

pippi longstocking: There are no more news channels. they are gossip networks. Stories about celebrities, and finger pointing politicians for the lowest of the masses so they too can be "informed" in the ways of stupidity, ignorance, and complacency.

You're all slaves, and eat of the shiat and filth from your masters with arms, mouth, and ass wide open.


Well, *thank* you for popping in and protecting us.

www.wearysloth.com
 
2013-01-31 01:49:46 PM

GanjSmokr: The question is "Would I be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?"


If your screen name is at all accurate no, you would not legally be able to purchase an automatic weapon.
 
2013-01-31 01:56:25 PM

skullkrusher: Zombie Butler: COMALite J: skullkrusher: Kibbler: How many angles can dance on the head of a hollow-point round, I wonder.

why are you being obtuse? I like it better when you act acute.

Zombie Butler: Acute observations although I think many are too obtuse to get it.

/sorry couldn't help m'self

Hey, when he's right, he's right!

oh curses I just now noticed that Skullrusher and I had parallel thoughts. If I wasn't so Dense i would have read the line and wouldn't have made the same puns. That I didn't read it is plane to see.  Ah well, perhaps next time.

when I read your posts sometimes I wonder if you'd be better off hanging a sign from your door saying "Hi, pot in use".


Well I always try to take the High road in my posts.
Perhaps you are right,  a warning sign on my introduction page (runs off to photoshop).
 
2013-01-31 02:01:22 PM

manimal2878: GanjSmokr: The question is "Would I be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?"

If your screen name is at all accurate no, you would not legally be able to purchase an automatic weapon.


Yes, I know how the fed feels about a legal (in my state) substance.

Since you are snarkily injecting yourself into the conversation, maybe you can answer the modified question: "Would any individual who could pass the required background check and had enough money be able to legally purchase an automatic weapon if they were banned?"
 
2013-01-31 02:24:20 PM

lordjupiter: It doesn't matter if your comments were unsolicited "heckling" or selfish, stupid, oversimplified NRA talking points shouted in response to a rhetorical question by the father of a dead child.  You're still a gun nut asshole, regardless of what some editor did.


Umm... it wasn't rhetorical.  He actually turned around in his seat to address those in the room directly.  Also, no one said a peep the first time he asked... because they are reasonable folks.  It was only after he prodded them again and again that people spoke up.

What Bashir did was total journalistic fraud and if NBC had any pride, he would have been removed from their building on Tuesday.  The fact that you and other Farkers here are trying to defend it speaks volumes for how deep into the cesspool politcal discourse has dipped.  What's even worse, NBC supporters have stooped to comparing the once-great news organization to blogs... as in, "Well, InfoWars said XYZ, so it's cool if NBC acts the propaganda wing for the Federal Goverment."

What a disaster.
 
2013-01-31 04:09:22 PM

Zombie Butler: skullkrusher: Zombie Butler: COMALite J: skullkrusher: Kibbler: How many angles can dance on the head of a hollow-point round, I wonder.

why are you being obtuse? I like it better when you act acute.

Zombie Butler: Acute observations although I think many are too obtuse to get it.

/sorry couldn't help m'self

Hey, when he's right, he's right!

oh curses I just now noticed that Skullrusher and I had parallel thoughts. If I wasn't so Dense i would have read the line and wouldn't have made the same puns. That I didn't read it is plane to see.  Ah well, perhaps next time.

when I read your posts sometimes I wonder if you'd be better off hanging a sign from your door saying "Hi, pot in use".

Well I always try to take the High road in my posts.
Perhaps you are right,  a warning sign on my introduction page (runs off to photoshop).


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-31 05:11:54 PM
NBC and Fox shouldn't even call what they do news.  They are in the political propaganda business.
 
2013-01-31 06:55:46 PM

skullkrusher: Zombie Butler: skullkrusher: Zombie Butler: COMALite J: skullkrusher: Kibbler: How many angles can dance on the head of a hollow-point round, I wonder.

why are you being obtuse? I like it better when you act acute.

Zombie Butler: Acute observations although I think many are too obtuse to get it.

/sorry couldn't help m'self

Hey, when he's right, he's right!

oh curses I just now noticed that Skullrusher and I had parallel thoughts. If I wasn't so Dense i would have read the line and wouldn't have made the same puns. That I didn't read it is plane to see.  Ah well, perhaps next time.

when I read your posts sometimes I wonder if you'd be better off hanging a sign from your door saying "Hi, pot in use".

Well I always try to take the High road in my posts.
Perhaps you are right,  a warning sign on my introduction page (runs off to photoshop).

[upload.wikimedia.org image 310x303]


oh ouch ya got me! (falls over in comic death twitches)

To you, good sir, the battle! We shall meet again! (fist shaking)
 
2013-02-01 08:09:23 AM

the_vegetarian_cannibal: dittybopper: whitman00: Fox News and 1000 right wing radio programs edit tape 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for years on end with the sole purpose of twisting the facts to make Democrats and liberals look bad.

MSNBC might have been caught doing it once.

Translation- both sides are bad so stop criticizing us for doing it.

Actually, they've been caught numerous times lately. In addition to this, they've also:

1. Edited the Zimmerman 911 call to make him appear racist.
2. Edited video showing an armed black man at a Tea Party rally so you couldn't tell he was black, with the implication that the armed person was white and racist.
3. Said that Steve Perry was talking about President Obama when he mentioned a "big, black cloud that hangs over America", when in fact Perry was talking about the national debt.

Hell, NBC has a *LONG* history of making shiat up.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 600x446]


I meant "Rick Perry".  For some reason (probably because the distaffbopper was playing Journey earlier in day), I got the two names mixed up.
 
2013-02-01 09:00:05 AM

skylabdown: lordjupiter: It doesn't matter if your comments were unsolicited "heckling" or selfish, stupid, oversimplified NRA talking points shouted in response to a rhetorical question by the father of a dead child.  You're still a gun nut asshole, regardless of what some editor did.

Umm... it wasn't rhetorical.  He actually turned around in his seat to address those in the room directly.  Also, no one said a peep the first time he asked... because they are reasonable folks.  It was only after he prodded them again and again that people spoke up.

What Bashir did was total journalistic fraud and if NBC had any pride, he would have been removed from their building on Tuesday.  The fact that you and other Farkers here are trying to defend it speaks volumes for how deep into the cesspool politcal discourse has dipped.  What's even worse, NBC supporters have stooped to comparing the once-great news organization to blogs... as in, "Well, InfoWars said XYZ, so it's cool if NBC acts the propaganda wing for the Federal Goverment."

What a disaster.


Umm, it doesn't matter.  Just remove the word "rhetorical" and re-read.
 
Displayed 271 of 271 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report