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.

(YouTube)   CNN explains the 2nd amendment. But no one explained to them that the political cartoon they used for the video is about the National Recovery Act, not the National Rifle Association   (youtube.com) divider line 125
    More: Fail, 2nd amendment, CNN, Jeffrey Toobin, British Parliament, NRA, marriage vows, political cartoons, National Industrial Recovery Act  
•       •       •

1762 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Feb 2013 at 10:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-21 09:55:56 AM
It's not news, it's CNN.
 
2013-02-21 10:22:37 AM
Shouldn't they be busy trying to find out what Twitter thinks?
 
2013-02-21 10:23:33 AM

angrymacface: Shouldn't they be busy trying to find out what Twitter thinks?


Preferably in hologram form.

/ CNN: Fox News for people who are just slightly too smart for Fox News
 
2013-02-21 10:27:08 AM
Vegan Meat Popsicle:
/ CNN: Fox News for people who are just slightly too smart for Fox News

Aw, be fair.  Stupid people that are absurdly trusting of instead of absurdly paranoid about the current government all the time need TV, too.
 
2013-02-21 10:32:43 AM
That's odd. Otherwise, Toobin's commentary is correct.
 
2013-02-21 10:33:06 AM

Jim_Callahan: Vegan Meat Popsicle:
/ CNN: Fox News for people who are just slightly too smart for Fox News

Aw, be fair.  Stupid people that are absurdly trusting of instead of absurdly paranoid about the current government all the time need TV, too.


I'd say that's a pretty fair description. Folks love their echo chambers.
 
2013-02-21 10:34:37 AM
Jesus, 12 frames of video in a 2 1/2 minute piece just ruins the whole thing, subby... Not the most informative video I've ever seen, but the whole thing about the political cartoon misuse is definitely a snoozefest...
 
2013-02-21 10:35:17 AM
i.imgur.com

The right-wing numbnut who operate a shooting range near me have have a poster of this up behind their register for years. Apparently none of the hordes of teabagger-types who tend to frequent such places have been smart enough to realize it's basically socialist propaganda from their point of view.

I chuckle a little bit every time I still see it there (usually go to the range once or twice a year). But, always polite at the gun range.

I mean, a sprocket? Lightning bolts? What do those have to do with guns? Think, people.
 
2013-02-21 10:40:40 AM
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

IT'S SO MYSTERIOUS!
 
2013-02-21 10:42:35 AM

Mikey1969: Jesus, 12 frames of video in a 2 1/2 minute piece just ruins the whole thing, subby... Not the most informative video I've ever seen, but the whole thing about the political cartoon misuse is definitely a snoozefest...


Don't you know, any slight misstep in any argument about the second amendment immediately invalidates anything and everything you might have said or ever will say.
 
2013-02-21 10:44:42 AM

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 282x310]

The right-wing numbnut who operate a shooting range near me have have a poster of this up behind their register for years. Apparently none of the hordes of teabagger-types who tend to frequent such places have been smart enough to realize it's basically socialist propaganda from their point of view.

I chuckle a little bit every time I still see it there (usually go to the range once or twice a year). But, always polite at the gun range.

I mean, a sprocket? Lightning bolts? What do those have to do with guns? Think, people.


You don't think a gun that shot gears would be fun?
And the 2nd amendment covers the peoples rights to own electron maces and phased plasma rifles (as long as they don't exceed a 40-watt range).
 
2013-02-21 10:45:57 AM

Zeno-25: The right-wing numbnut who operate a shooting range near me have have a poster of this up behind their register for years.


What range?
 
2013-02-21 10:47:23 AM
You know, this wouldn't be so farking bad if CNN has not been ALL about GUN DEBATE since Sandy Hook happened. You think with WEEKS of coverage and research, they would TRY and get this shiat right.
 
2013-02-21 10:50:07 AM

Wessoman: You know, this wouldn't be so farking bad if CNN has not been ALL about GUN DEBATE since Sandy Hook happened. You think with WEEKS of coverage and research, they would TRY and get this shiat right.


Well that would explain all the down votes.
 
2013-02-21 10:52:49 AM

Frank N Stein: "

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

IT'S SO MYSTERIOUS!


FTFY
 
2013-02-21 10:55:29 AM

Frank N Stein: Zeno-25: The right-wing numbnut who operate a shooting range near me have have a poster of this up behind their register for years.

What range?


It's in Ottawa, IL. Buffalo Range.
 
2013-02-21 10:55:35 AM

Blathering Idjut: Frank N Stein: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,Tthe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

IT'S SO MYSTERIOUS!

FTFY


Still not that mysterious.
 
2013-02-21 10:56:11 AM

Zeno-25: Frank N Stein: Zeno-25: The right-wing numbnut who operate a shooting range near me have have a poster of this up behind their register for years.

What range?

It's in Ottawa, IL. Buffalo Range.


Never been there. But it doesn't surprise me.
 
2013-02-21 10:56:37 AM

Frank N Stein: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

IT'S SO MYSTERIOUS!



What the hell are you talking about?  Didn't you watch the video?  Toobin explains that like 20 years ago the NRA changed the definition of the 2nd Amendment.

What it is used to say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What the NRA changed it too:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infinged.

Sneaky, redneck basterds!
 
2013-02-21 11:02:10 AM

Zeno-25: Frank N Stein: Zeno-25: The right-wing numbnut who operate a shooting range near me have have a poster of this up behind their register for years.

What range?

It's in Ottawa, IL. Buffalo Range.


It's not a bad place to go shooting, at least for my friends and myself who have several high-powered rifles that aren't typically allowed at indoor ranges. It's worth visiting if the weather is good on a spring or summer day.
 
2013-02-21 11:02:53 AM
I was just thinking about this issue, and I came to the realization that people are completely wasting their time trying to come up with rational arguments to convince the pro-gun people. It's about something much more simple than that: The freedom to be an asshole.

Part of me agrees with that. I like being an asshole sometimes, and I don't think I should be forced to not be. I don't own an AR-15, but I might want to one day. Could be fun to have one. Does allowing that gun on the market lead to higher death tolls of innocent people? Maybe, but what if I just don't give a shiat? Can, and should, society force me to give a shiat?

That's the core of individual freedom: Don't like who I am? Don't like what I do? Tough. I have this gun, and if you try to stop me, I'll shoot you. I have to admit it sounds quite appealing. The other side of it is: What happens when someone says, "No, I have decided my morality is superior to yours, so now I get to force you to do certain things you didn't want to do." That does sounds like a dangerous precedent, and a bit like Nazis and Communists and the like. Hmmm.

...I think that's the thought process people have to contend with, if they want to convince certain people of gun reform. I'm not sure it's possible for many of us - we just enjoy being assholes too much.
 
2013-02-21 11:08:12 AM
Mr. Toobin claims that militias no longer exist. At what time was the Militia Act of 1903 repealed or invalidated?
 
2013-02-21 11:10:15 AM
This video is quinessential gun-nut logic. "I can't refute the argument, but this small technical or semantic misunderstanding negates your point, for reasons."

In this case the very obvious point being, the 2nd ammendment has never been about an individual right until the NRA decided 20 years ago they could make a case for it, and 5 years ago, when they got the hypocritical, activist joke of a Supreme Court, led by shill Republican appointees to rule for it in a 5-4 decision.
 
2013-02-21 11:11:47 AM
Toobin is wrong when he says that "militia" in the first clause means state militias.  All able-bodied men comprise the "militia."
 
2013-02-21 11:11:53 AM

justtray: This video is quinessential gun-nut logic. "I can't refute the argument, but this small technical or semantic misunderstanding negates your point, for reasons."

In this case the very obvious point being, the 2nd ammendment has never been about an individual right until the NRA decided 20 years ago they could make a case for it, and 5 years ago, when they got the hypocritical, activist joke of a Supreme Court, led by shill Republican appointees to rule for it in a 5-4 decision.


Readers should be aware that justtray is both a liar and an advocate of a police state. He should not be considered to be a credible source of information.
 
2013-02-21 11:13:25 AM

justtray: the 2nd ammendment has never been about an individual right until the NRA decided 20 years ago they could make a case for it


The Miller case was over 70 years ago.
 
2013-02-21 11:15:31 AM
Regardless of your views about guns, I think we can all agree to be disturbed by the existence of people for whom this video would be news.
 
2013-02-21 11:16:17 AM

Virtuoso80: I was just thinking about this issue, and I came to the realization that people are completely wasting their time trying to come up with rational arguments to convince the pro-gun people. It's about something much more simple than that: The freedom to be an asshole.

Part of me agrees with that. I like being an asshole sometimes, and I don't think I should be forced to not be. I don't own an AR-15, but I might want to one day. Could be fun to have one. Does allowing that gun on the market lead to higher death tolls of innocent people? Maybe, but what if I just don't give a shiat? Can, and should, society force me to give a shiat?

That's the core of individual freedom: Don't like who I am? Don't like what I do? Tough. I have this gun, and if you try to stop me, I'll shoot you. I have to admit it sounds quite appealing. The other side of it is: What happens when someone says, "No, I have decided my morality is superior to yours, so now I get to force you to do certain things you didn't want to do." That does sounds like a dangerous precedent, and a bit like Nazis and Communists and the like. Hmmm.

...I think that's the thought process people have to contend with, if they want to convince certain people of gun reform. I'm not sure it's possible for many of us - we just enjoy being assholes too much.


I am unopposed to meaningful firearm regulation that will reduce access to firearms by criminals and the mentally ill, nor am I opposed to measures that hold firearm owners accountable for crimes or damage resulting from demonstrable negligence or from willfully criminal behaviour (such as illegally transferring a firearm to a prohibited person). I merely recognize that prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips and collapsing stocks will not reduce rates of violent crime.
 
2013-02-21 11:21:20 AM

justtray: In this case the very obvious point being, the 2nd ammendment has never been about an individual right


As pointed out in the Heller decision which I'm sure you haven't read, every single other amendment in the Bill of Rights is an individual right.  It would be a seriously flawed reading to interpret that amendment as protecting states rights in the middle of a list of individual rights.
 
2013-02-21 11:26:41 AM

justtray: In this case the very obvious point being, the 2nd ammendment has never been about an individual right until the NRA decided 20 years ago they could make a case for it, and 5 years ago, when they got the hypocritical, activist joke of a Supreme Court, led by shill Republican appointees to rule for it in a 5-4 decision


Where the heck did this infromed talking point come out?  This is news to me.
 
2013-02-21 11:28:32 AM

syrynxx: justtray: In this case the very obvious point being, the 2nd ammendment has never been about an individual right

As pointed out in the Heller decision which I'm sure you haven't read, every single other amendment in the Bill of Rights is an individual right.  It would be a seriously flawed reading to interpret that amendment as protecting states rights in the middle of a list of individual rights.


1. You're wrong.

2. All ammendments are the same! One couldn't possibly be referring to an individual right, but only under the condition of being part of a miltia. The meaning is obvious and not relevant to today. Before there was a standing army, we used local militias. This was long before huge urban cities existed. So people who were regulated and part of that militia needed to have guns available to them if they ever got called into combat because there was no centralized military. At best, this would be akin to allowing police officers, or more accurately, military members having a right to bear arms.

The current interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is a bastardization of logic and reason, and stands only to exemplify the entitlement complex of many selfish Americans and shine a huge light on the power of lobbies in government.
 
2013-02-21 11:29:00 AM
Dimensio:
I am unopposed to meaningful firearm regulation that will reduce access to firearms by criminals and the mentally ill, nor am I opposed to measures that hold firearm owners accountable for crimes or damage resulting from demonstrable negligence or from willfully criminal behaviour (such as illegally transferring a firearm to a prohibited person). I merely recognize that prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips and collapsing stocks will not reduce rates of violent crime.

Well, that's possible too. My point was, even if we proved it DID increase violent crime, some people still wouldn't care.
 
2013-02-21 11:29:18 AM

Frank N Stein: Blathering Idjut: Frank N Stein: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,Tthe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

IT'S SO MYSTERIOUS!

FTFY

Still not that mysterious.


It wasn't, until Scalia pissed on a couple of centuries of established precedent and redefined all the relevant terms. Now, it's a mess.
 
2013-02-21 11:29:24 AM

Saiga410: justtray: In this case the very obvious point being, the 2nd ammendment has never been about an individual right until the NRA decided 20 years ago they could make a case for it, and 5 years ago, when they got the hypocritical, activist joke of a Supreme Court, led by shill Republican appointees to rule for it in a 5-4 decision

Where the heck did this infromed talking point come out?  This is news to me.


Did you watch the video? If so, watch it again.
 
2013-02-21 11:31:41 AM

Saiga410: justtray: In this case the very obvious point being, the 2nd ammendment has never been about an individual right until the NRA decided 20 years ago they could make a case for it, and 5 years ago, when they got the hypocritical, activist joke of a Supreme Court, led by shill Republican appointees to rule for it in a 5-4 decision

Where the heck did this infromed talking point come out?  This is news to me.


Also - are logical facts that I use my own brain to create now "talking points?"

You do realize not everyone requires TV to get their opinions spoon fed to them right?
 
2013-02-21 11:32:09 AM

BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Blathering Idjut: Frank N Stein: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,Tthe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

IT'S SO MYSTERIOUS!

FTFY

Still not that mysterious.

It wasn't, until Scalia pissed on a couple of centuries of established precedent and redefined all the relevant terms. Now, it's a mess.


Like when Miller recognized gun ownership as an individual right for the unorganized militia in 1939?
 
2013-02-21 11:33:24 AM

Virtuoso80: we just enjoy being assholes too much.


It's the American Way.

No, really, it is, if you distill it down.  America is a very individualistic country still.  We see that as a strength, not as a weakness.   Ask Japan about that:  they saw our fractiousness as a weakness because they weren't familiar with our culture.  It didn't go too well for them.

We are still largely that fractious nation of assholes who will endlessly argue with each other.  And that's a *GOOD* thing, because that's how you make advances, by confrontation, not by just "going with the flow".
 
2013-02-21 11:34:48 AM

Frank N Stein: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Blathering Idjut: Frank N Stein: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,Tthe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

IT'S SO MYSTERIOUS!

FTFY

Still not that mysterious.

It wasn't, until Scalia pissed on a couple of centuries of established precedent and redefined all the relevant terms. Now, it's a mess.

Like when Miller recognized gun ownership as an individual right for the unorganized militia in 1939?


What an interesting reading of Miller. Perhaps someone should have mentioned that to Chief Justice Burger, who read it completely differently.
 
2013-02-21 11:35:08 AM

BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Blathering Idjut: Frank N Stein: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,Tthe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

IT'S SO MYSTERIOUS!

FTFY

Still not that mysterious.

It wasn't, until Scalia pissed on a couple of centuries of established precedent and redefined all the relevant terms. Now, it's a mess.


You didn't actually *READ* the Heller decision, did you?
 
2013-02-21 11:35:44 AM

dittybopper: Virtuoso80: we just enjoy being assholes too much.

It's the American Way.

No, really, it is, if you distill it down.  America is a very individualistic country still.  We see that as a strength, not as a weakness.   Ask Japan about that:  they saw our fractiousness as a weakness because they weren't familiar with our culture.  It didn't go too well for them.

We are still largely that fractious nation of assholes who will endlessly argue with each other.  And that's a *GOOD* thing, because that's how you make advances, by confrontation, not by just "going with the flow".


www.rumormillnews.com

Agrees.
 
2013-02-21 11:40:43 AM

dittybopper: Virtuoso80: we just enjoy being assholes too much.

It's the American Way.

No, really, it is, if you distill it down.  America is a very individualistic country still.  We see that as a strength, not as a weakness.   Ask Japan about that:  they saw our fractiousness as a weakness because they weren't familiar with our culture.  It didn't go too well for them.

We are still largely that fractious nation of assholes who will endlessly argue with each other.  And that's a *GOOD* thing, because that's how you make advances, by confrontation, not by just "going with the flow".


This is an interesting idea. Mind if I borrow it to use in class?

I do have to say that there is a part of me that envies cultures that are more "defined", as it were. Makes it harder to pin down just what an American is. Dang thing keeps changing.
 
2013-02-21 11:40:55 AM
I'd rather watch CNN International myself.
 
2013-02-21 11:42:16 AM

dittybopper: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Blathering Idjut: Frank N Stein: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,Tthe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

IT'S SO MYSTERIOUS!

FTFY

Still not that mysterious.

It wasn't, until Scalia pissed on a couple of centuries of established precedent and redefined all the relevant terms. Now, it's a mess.

You didn't actually *READ* the Heller decision, did you?


In its entirety? No. I have enough reading to do, just keeping up with the issues that arise in my court. I did read most of the analysis section, though. I didn't see anything there other than the usual sophistry.
 
2013-02-21 11:50:06 AM

Virtuoso80: I was just thinking about this issue, and I came to the realization that people are completely wasting their time trying to come up with rational arguments to convince the pro-gun people. It's about something much more simple than that: The freedom to be an asshole.

Part of me agrees with that. I like being an asshole sometimes, and I don't think I should be forced to not be. I don't own an AR-15, but I might want to one day. Could be fun to have one. Does allowing that gun on the market lead to higher death tolls of innocent people? Maybe, but what if I just don't give a shiat? Can, and should, society force me to give a shiat?

That's the core of individual freedom: Don't like who I am? Don't like what I do? Tough. I have this gun, and if you try to stop me, I'll shoot you. I have to admit it sounds quite appealing. The other side of it is: What happens when someone says, "No, I have decided my morality is superior to yours, so now I get to force you to do certain things you didn't want to do." That does sounds like a dangerous precedent, and a bit like Nazis and Communists and the like. Hmmm.

...I think that's the thought process people have to contend with, if they want to convince certain people of gun reform. I'm not sure it's possible for many of us - we just enjoy being assholes too much.


Even simpler.  Us.  Them.  WE love guns.  THEY Want to take our guns. Therefore we hate THEM and everything they stand for.  The people who are so hardcore that they can't even talk about the issue are so difficult to talk to because they are personally invested in "being right".

It's not about being an asshole, it's about being a completely incurious human being who belongs to a large community.  See also: religions.
 
2013-02-21 11:50:52 AM

Dimensio: dittybopper: Virtuoso80: we just enjoy being assholes too much.

It's the American Way.

No, really, it is, if you distill it down.  America is a very individualistic country still.  We see that as a strength, not as a weakness.   Ask Japan about that:  they saw our fractiousness as a weakness because they weren't familiar with our culture.  It didn't go too well for them.

We are still largely that fractious nation of assholes who will endlessly argue with each other.  And that's a *GOOD* thing, because that's how you make advances, by confrontation, not by just "going with the flow".

[www.rumormillnews.com image 507x450]

Agrees.


Get out of my head.
 
2013-02-21 11:52:05 AM

BeesNuts: See also: religions.


CRRRRRAAAAAAWWWWLLLLLLIIIIINNNNGGGGG IIIIIIIIINNNNNNN MMMMMMYYYYYYYY SKKKKKKKIIIIIIIIIN
 
2013-02-21 11:56:00 AM

BMulligan: Frank N Stein: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Blathering Idjut: Frank N Stein: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,Tthe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

IT'S SO MYSTERIOUS!

FTFY

Still not that mysterious.

It wasn't, until Scalia pissed on a couple of centuries of established precedent and redefined all the relevant terms. Now, it's a mess.

Like when Miller recognized gun ownership as an individual right for the unorganized militia in 1939?

What an interesting reading of Miller. Perhaps someone should have mentioned that to Chief Justice Burger, who read it completely differently.


The Miller case was very likely a set-up by an anti-gun judge.

Chief Justice Burger would be on very shaky legal ground relying on it.  The government in that case actually argued that the Second Amendment didn't apply to individuals, and the court disagreed because they took the case:  If Miller didn't have *SOME* right to own a gun under the Second Amendment, they could have merely dismissed the case for lack of standing.

Actually, Burger's opposition to gun ownership was in an article in Parade magazine, and he didn't cite any actual legal authority:  It was merely his unsupported opinion in an opinion piece written for a Sunday newspaper insert.  Compare his opinion piece (http://www.guncite.com/burger.html ) with the Heller decision (http://www.guncite.com/Heller.pdf ).  Quite frankly, Burger's piece pales in comparison to the weight of historical evidence and logic that Scalia brings forth.  Reading the two, it's almost like Burger's was written by an old white man determined to keep guns out of the hands of black people.

Burger never ruled on the Second Amendment while he was on the Supreme Court.
 
2013-02-21 11:59:29 AM

BMulligan: dittybopper: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Blathering Idjut: Frank N Stein: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,Tthe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

IT'S SO MYSTERIOUS!

FTFY

Still not that mysterious.

It wasn't, until Scalia pissed on a couple of centuries of established precedent and redefined all the relevant terms. Now, it's a mess.

You didn't actually *READ* the Heller decision, did you?

In its entirety? No. I have enough reading to do, just keeping up with the issues that arise in my court. I did read most of the analysis section, though. I didn't see anything there other than the usual sophistry.


Translation:  I didn't really read it, but I don't agree with it, so *HANDWAVE*.
 
2013-02-21 12:00:53 PM
Food doesn't kill people; people kill Food.

www.nasdaq.com
 
2013-02-21 12:03:46 PM

clane: Food doesn't kill people; people kill Food.

[www.nasdaq.com image 334x224]


I see you have had my wifes cooking.
 
Displayed 50 of 125 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report