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.

(NPR)   Gun-ban proponent Senator Leahy (D-VT) admits that assault rifles may be needed by the general public in the event of zombie apocalypse   (npr.org) divider line 460
    More: Obvious, Weekend Edition, assault rifles, zombie apocalypse, Richard Blumenthal, shoestring catch  
•       •       •

1797 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Mar 2013 at 2:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-16 08:21:38 PM

Fart_Machine: You seem to be under the impression that there is some groundswell of support for a mass revolution.


not at all, i think the idea is crazy to be frank. but you you said what you said and i thought it kinda weak.
 
2013-03-16 08:21:40 PM

Ablejack: ghare: Why is it the gun fetishists really seem to need mental health care?

I agree! Now which side are the fetishists!?


The hoplophobes (the real "gun nuts")
 
2013-03-16 08:21:44 PM

Ablejack: Dr. Goldshnoz: Ablejack: Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election?

Actually, with the way we are locked into a duopoly of democrats and republicans, whose overall service has been to corporations and their biggest donors rather than to their actual constituents, pretty much yeah.

Ha-HA! Now THAT is a good point!  Also kind of our own fault to some degree.


Wow, what was that? Did a light come on?

Must have been a short circuit.
 
2013-03-16 08:21:45 PM

ghare: beta_plus: cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Then our military with our drones will conquer and pacify them, just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those chickenhawk losers are not getting on their hoverround to fight, any time, ever. They don't give a fark about the constitution, you know what they want? To get to shoot someone legally, for the rush. They aren't going to fight for the constitution, or this country, or anything.


I don't think that is a fair assessment. My guess is that there is a decent representative number of veterans among the gun enthusiast ranks. Not to say that your characterization has no individual examples. You could easily demonize both sides by their extreme members positions.
 
2013-03-16 08:22:40 PM
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."  - Texas State Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
 
2013-03-16 08:23:34 PM

ghare: Ablejack: ghare: Why is it the gun fetishists really seem to need mental health care?

I agree! Now which side are the fetishists!?

Yours. Seriously.


And what side, in your own assessment ghare, have I been arguing?
 
2013-03-16 08:23:49 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Fart_Machine: You seem to be under the impression that there is some groundswell of support for a mass revolution.

not at all, i think the idea is crazy to be frank. but you you said what you said and i thought it kinda weak.


It's kind of weak to compare us to Syria.  Yes.
 
2013-03-16 08:25:17 PM

ghare: Farker Soze: quatchi: Farker Soze: Also, current arms aren't enough to fight a corrupt government?  Sure, I'll agree, give me my RPGs and motorized artillery.  What, now I'm crazy for agreeing with you?

Lawls.

I betcha if I had a thermo-tactical nuke them neighbour kids would stay the hell outta my apple trees too.

Yes they would.  If a guy was threatening mutual destruction in your neighborhood over a few apples, wouldn't you stay off his lawn?  Or are you not that bright?

If you wouldn't fight back with a thermonuclear device of your own, you're a loser and unAmerican and an appeaser.


No, it just means you don't understand the concept of MAD.  It only works if one side (not both or neither) isn't a giant peace and flowers loving pussy.
 
2013-03-16 08:25:48 PM

LargeCanine: The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

"

What we really need are laws that severely limit their manufacture and importation.
 
2013-03-16 08:31:17 PM

Farker Soze: Yes they would.  If a guy was threatening mutual destruction in your neighborhood over a few apples, wouldn't you stay off his lawn?


If they were Granny Smiths I'd chance it.
 
2013-03-16 08:44:54 PM

quatchi: Farker Soze: Yes they would.  If a guy was threatening mutual destruction in your neighborhood over a few apples, wouldn't you stay off his lawn?

If they were Granny Smiths I'd chance it.


Ah, there's another catch.  Both sides can't be batshiat crazy either.

Risk it all for a sour ass Granny?  My god man.  Red Delicious or GTFO.
 
2013-03-16 08:44:59 PM

Ablejack: Dr. Goldshnoz: Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise.

No one is asking anyone to surrender basic civil rights.



Actually, yes, the first 10 amendments are sorta the definition of "civil rights" in the United States.
 
2013-03-16 08:46:12 PM

quatchi: If they were Granny Smiths I'd chance it.


Madness. Granny Smiths are an inferior apple and definitely not high up on the "worth a nuclear holocaust" scale. Gala though...
 
2013-03-16 08:51:56 PM

Fart_Machine: cameroncrazy1984: CaptSacto: Zombies. Why is it always frikkin' zombies? Why not giant ants or something for once?
We need more variety in our apocalypses

You know, maybe it IS time to remake the movie THEM!

No. Please don't fark with any more classics.


but but 3D. and jessica simpson in the joan collins role. maybe the cowbell guy staring. or adam sandler.
 
2013-03-16 08:57:33 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: quatchi: If they were Granny Smiths I'd chance it.

Madness. Granny Smiths are an inferior apple and definitely not high up on the "worth a nuclear holocaust" scale. Gala though...


Granny Smiths are for baking. Pies, apple crisps, dumplings.

Honey Crisp apples are for delicious eating!
 
2013-03-16 09:03:58 PM
Silly Jesus:

i45.tinypic.com

I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear a loud crash at 3AM, I grab this:

i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-16 09:04:30 PM

LargeCanine: Granny Smiths are for baking.


And eating.
 
2013-03-16 09:15:57 PM

vrax: Silly Jesus:

[i45.tinypic.com image 604x516]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear a loud crash at 3AM, I grab this:

[i48.tinypic.com image 425x251]


True story:

I've armed myself only once due to the noise of someone trying to get into my house at night. My brother, whose house it was, was out of town. I was alone and my bedroom was directly over the back door. I was awoken by someone doing something at the back door, trying to get in. I grabbed my 9mm - the only gun I owned at the time, and retrieved the loaded 15-round mag I kept in a lockbox with the gun and quietly pulled back the slide and let it go as I carefully descended the stairs. I grabbed the phone handset off the hall table and peered around the wall of the living room all the way through the dining room to the back door. Sure enough, the screen door was partway open, bobbing as whoever it was softly bumped the door as he worked. I leveled the gun and waited, 9-1-1 punched into the phone. A minute passed. Then another. Then 5. "Is this the world's worst burglar?" I thought to myself, "Did he know my brother's car wasn't out front and figured he had time to practice his trade?" 10 minutes had gone by, and I crept forward. It seemed to take forever, moving silently to get to a position I could look out the door windows (it was one of those doors with glass panes from the bottom to the top) past the light window dressing that covered the door. Sure enough, a large, humped shadow was outside, and as I peaked outside, I was startled to see the culprit rustling through our discarded belongings. I rapped on the window and the masked would-be thief fled, striped tail streaming out behind him.

I went out and stood the trashcan back up and made sure the back storm door was latched closed, and returned to bed.

/CSB
 
2013-03-16 09:31:15 PM

vygramul: vrax: Silly Jesus:

[i45.tinypic.com image 604x516]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear a loud crash at 3AM, I grab this:

[i48.tinypic.com image 425x251]

True story:

I've armed myself only once due to the noise of someone trying to get into my house at night. My brother, whose house it was, was out of town. I was alone and my bedroom was directly over the back door. I was awoken by someone doing something at the back door, trying to get in. I grabbed my 9mm - the only gun I owned at the time, and retrieved the loaded 15-round mag I kept in a lockbox with the gun and quietly pulled back the slide and let it go as I carefully descended the stairs. I grabbed the phone handset off the hall table and peered around the wall of the living room all the way through the dining room to the back door. Sure enough, the screen door was partway open, bobbing as whoever it was softly bumped the door as he worked. I leveled the gun and waited, 9-1-1 punched into the phone. A minute passed. Then another. Then 5. "Is this the world's worst burglar?" I thought to myself, "Did he know my brother's car wasn't out front and figured he had time to practice his trade?" 10 minutes had gone by, and I crept forward. It seemed to take forever, moving silently to get to a position I could look out the door windows (it was one of those doors with glass panes from the bottom to the top) past the light window dressing that covered the door. Sure enough, a large, humped shadow was outside, and as I peaked outside, I was startled to see the culprit rustling through our discarded belongings. I rapped on the window and the masked would-be thief fled, striped tail streaming out behind him.

I went out and stood the trashcan back up and made sure the back storm door was latched closed, and returned to bed.

/CSB


You had a chance to shoot a co0n and get away with it, and you passed up ?


/George Dimmerman would not approve
 
2013-03-16 09:37:03 PM

Amos Quito: You had a chance to shoot a co0n and get away with it, and you passed up ?


/George Dimmerman would not approve


It is illegal to discharge a weapon within 1000 feet of a home in Fairfax County, barring sufficient justification.
 
2013-03-16 09:42:15 PM

cameroncrazy1984: CaptSacto: Zombies. Why is it always frikkin' zombies? Why not giant ants or something for once?
We need more variety in our apocalypses

You know, maybe it IS time to remake the movie THEM!


Well, LA DOES have extensive underground Metro rail lines now, as well as sewers...it could be a good movie.
 
2013-03-16 10:00:22 PM
<Loud crash at 3AM.jpg>

Well that rifle isn't going to help clean up the mess from that crash.  I'd go with the broom.
 
2013-03-16 10:02:45 PM

Gyrfalcon: cameroncrazy1984: CaptSacto: Zombies. Why is it always frikkin' zombies? Why not giant ants or something for once?
We need more variety in our apocalypses

You know, maybe it IS time to remake the movie THEM!

Well, LA DOES have extensive underground Metro rail lines now, as well as sewers...it could be a good movie.


i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-16 10:06:17 PM

vrax: Gyrfalcon: cameroncrazy1984: CaptSacto: Zombies. Why is it always frikkin' zombies? Why not giant ants or something for once?
We need more variety in our apocalypses

You know, maybe it IS time to remake the movie THEM!

Well, LA DOES have extensive underground Metro rail lines now, as well as sewers...it could be a good movie.

[i48.tinypic.com image 640x360]


The operative word being "could" of course.
 
2013-03-17 12:51:53 AM
Leahy's just scared the Joker will come back and finish the job

www.savetheinternet.com

/he was also in the 3rd movie and a small role in Batman The Animated Series
 
2013-03-17 04:45:45 AM

heypete: udhq: You see that first clause, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? That means your have a right to bear arms IN DEFENSE of the federal government, not against it

Perhaps you're not familiar with DC v. Heller, as the Supreme Court disagrees: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


The Supremes got it wrong. It happens (see Plessy v. Ferguson).
 
2013-03-17 08:21:13 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: heypete: udhq: You see that first clause, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? That means your have a right to bear arms IN DEFENSE of the federal government, not against it

Perhaps you're not familiar with DC v. Heller, as the Supreme Court disagrees: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The Supremes got it wrong. It happens (see Plessy v. Ferguson).


You still think it was the Hessians?
 
2013-03-17 09:10:30 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: heypete: udhq: You see that first clause, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? That means your have a right to bear arms IN DEFENSE of the federal government, not against it

Perhaps you're not familiar with DC v. Heller, as the Supreme Court disagrees: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The Supremes got it wrong. It happens (see Plessy v. Ferguson).


So, SCOTUS upholding that Americans have a basic civil right which has been continuously practiced since the Colonial Era and was explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights is equivalent to "Separate but Equal" racial discrimination?
 
2013-03-17 09:58:18 AM

Doktor_Zhivago: Amos Quito: When that happens, those who mean to retain power might appreciate the fact that their subjects are incapable of offering effective resistance.

Don't you think

Yes your AR and your love of freedom will stop this:
[www.usmilitary.com image 378x375]
And this:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x207]
And this:
[aeronauticpictures.com image 485x359]

It's not 1776 anymore where the height of military tech is a big metal tube.  But keep dreaming derping.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare
 
2013-03-17 10:57:46 AM

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: vpb: Amos Quito: vpb: Really the zombie argument is better than anything I have heard an actual gun nut come up with.

What exactly is this "Assault Weapons Ban" supposed to accomplish, again?

To reduce the number of people killed in your chart genius.


If reducing the "number of people killed" were the goal, you would THINK that they'd target those weapons that are used in vast majority of killings.

But they're not.

Can they possibly be THAT stupid?

No.

Well then, we'd better question their motives, hadn't we?

What would that be?


Control. Are you new to American politics?
 
2013-03-17 12:16:21 PM

electronicmaji: cman: This is not like 1994.

This is a much different time.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Let it come. We will beat the ignorant idiots again.

If they didn't learn their lesson the first time it's about time it farking gets repeated. Only hopefully this time when reconstruction comes around we ban those involved from voting permanently.  And we ban their views from Public like Germany did with the Nazis.


You're a champion of civil liberties
 
2013-03-17 12:28:11 PM

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: heypete: udhq: You see that first clause, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? That means your have a right to bear arms IN DEFENSE of the federal government, not against it

Perhaps you're not familiar with DC v. Heller, as the Supreme Court disagrees: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The Supremes got it wrong. It happens (see Plessy v. Ferguson).

You still think it was the Hessians?


Why was the "Shot Heard Round the World" fired, bolo?

And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.
 
2013-03-17 12:29:35 PM

Silverstaff: So, SCOTUS upholding that Americans have a basic civil right which has been continuously practiced since the Colonial Era and was explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights is equivalent to "Separate but Equal" racial discrimination?


Addressed above.
 
2013-03-17 01:12:31 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: heypete: udhq: You see that first clause, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? That means your have a right to bear arms IN DEFENSE of the federal government, not against it

Perhaps you're not familiar with DC v. Heller, as the Supreme Court disagrees: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The Supremes got it wrong. It happens (see Plessy v. Ferguson).

You still think it was the Hessians?

Why was the "Shot Heard Round the World" fired, bolo?

And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.


No, they didn't.  You can argue that the Constitution should be amended because the 2nd is no longer necessary (which I don't agree with) but citizens were expected to form up militias with their own "military arms."
 
2013-03-17 01:34:50 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: heypete: udhq: You see that first clause, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? That means your have a right to bear arms IN DEFENSE of the federal government, not against it

Perhaps you're not familiar with DC v. Heller, as the Supreme Court disagrees: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The Supremes got it wrong. It happens (see Plessy v. Ferguson).

You still think it was the Hessians?

Why was the "Shot Heard Round the World" fired, bolo?

And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.


Keep making up history - it suits your preference for ideological satisfaction over reality well.

/Anyone know what this "bolo" nonsense is?
 
2013-03-17 02:00:28 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Silverstaff: So, SCOTUS upholding that Americans have a basic civil right which has been continuously practiced since the Colonial Era and was explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights is equivalent to "Separate but Equal" racial discrimination?


Addressed above.

You're intentionally misrepresenting US history to advance your political agenda of opposing civil rights.  The right to bear arms is unconnected to service in a militia.  There are two clauses in there, unconnected to each other in meaning, that's what SCOTUS said, and that is the grammar of the statement, which is in accordance with the words of the founding fathers and the overall history of the US.

There was no history of attempting to disarm the general public of arms in US law at any time before the 20th century.  The only gun control until the last few decades was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which existed only to restrict fully automatic weapons and a few weapons with no legitimate self defense or sporting purposes.

The idea that guns as a whole could be banned and that the Second Amendment didn't really enter into play before the last 40 years, around 1970 when a Presidential commission under Nixon advocated a complete handgun ban in the US with confiscation of all handguns. . .opposition to which turned the NRA from a hunters association into a gun rights lobby.  We went almost 200 years as a country before anti-freedom types thought that pistols and rifles were scary bad murder machines instead of self-defense and hunting/sporting implements.  If you're advocating gun bans, that's what you are, anti-freedom.  You are actively trying to strip me of my freedom, and I won't stand for it, and more than I'd stand for somebody trying to enshrine a specific state church of the US.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson,

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson,
 
2013-03-17 02:33:52 PM

Silverstaff: demaL-demaL-yeH: Silverstaff: So, SCOTUS upholding that Americans have a basic civil right which has been continuously practiced since the Colonial Era and was explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights is equivalent to "Separate but Equal" racial discrimination?

Addressed above.

You're intentionally misrepresenting US history to advance your political agenda of opposing civil rights.  The right to bear arms is unconnected to service in a militia.  There are two clauses in there, unconnected to each other in meaning, that's what SCOTUS said, and that is the grammar of the statement, which is in accordance with the words of the founding fathers and the overall history of the US.

There was no history of attempting to disarm the general public of arms in US law at any time before the 20th century.  The only gun control until the last few decades was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which existed only to restrict fully automatic weapons and a few weapons with no legitimate self defense or sporting purposes.

The idea that guns as a whole could be banned and that the Second Amendment didn't really enter into play before the last 40 years, around 1970 when a Presidential commission under Nixon advocated a complete handgun ban in the US with confiscation of all handguns. . .opposition to which turned the NRA from a hunters association into a gun rights lobby.  We went almost 200 years as a country before anti-freedom types thought that pistols and rifles were scary bad murder machines instead of self-defense and hunting/sporting implements.  If you're advocating gun bans, that's what you are, anti-freedom.  You are actively trying to strip me of my freedom, and I won't stand for it, and more than I'd stand for somebody trying to enshrine a specific state church of the US.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in gov ...


He's gotten his ass kicked in threads before. My favorite, after cornering him to ask what deficiency the second amendment was addressing, is that he said the second amendment was ratified in order to prevent the Hessians from disarming local militias.

That should tell you his grasp of history. His interpretation of the law makes people with GEDs in law shudder, and are generally in direct contradiction with pretty much every court ruling - not just the recent ones.
 
2013-03-17 02:44:36 PM

vygramul: And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.

Keep making up history - it suits your preference for ideological satisfaction over reality well.


What part of the Militia Acts of 1792 were made up by me?
Or did I make up  Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States?
Or Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Did I borrow Obama's time machine and write the Articles of Confederation, Federalist Paper #8Federalist Paper #24,   Federalist Paper #26, Anti-Federalist Paper #28, Anti-Federalist Paper #29, or  Federalist Paper #46?

The Anti-Federalists explicitly feared that Congress would disarm the state militias, given the Powers granted Congress in Article I Section 8. This fear led to Amendment II.

/Hint, bolo: I didn't flunk history, either: I've read and understood the source documents.
//The Supremes got it wrong.
 
2013-03-17 02:47:32 PM

vygramul: Delay: I watched a man buying a rapid fire rifle while I was buying some running shoes at a big box sporting goods store in Utah. It took a lot of time for the store clerk to do his checks. The buyer really wanted his new penis, really attached to it. Very creepy.

I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.

So you're saying there are gun nuts without penis issues.


Ah, you're going with the most often mis-quoted one by Freud, that he supposedly called a love of guns as penile compensation.

Guess what?  He believed the opposite was true.  There is nothing in his many works that provide any support for the penis theory of gun ownership.

Actually, according to Freud, he associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons.  -Dreams in Folklore (1958)
He goes on to say that "The representation of the penis as a weapon, cutting knife, dagger etc., is familiar to us from the anxiety dreams of abstinent women in particular and also lies at the root of numerous phobias in neurotic people."
 
2013-03-17 02:49:55 PM

MylesHeartVodak: vygramul: Delay: I watched a man buying a rapid fire rifle while I was buying some running shoes at a big box sporting goods store in Utah. It took a lot of time for the store clerk to do his checks. The buyer really wanted his new penis, really attached to it. Very creepy.

I think most gun nuts have serious sexual issues. They will never give up.

So you're saying there are gun nuts without penis issues.

Ah, you're going with the most often mis-quoted one by Freud, that he supposedly called a love of guns as penile compensation.

Guess what?  He believed the opposite was true.  There is nothing in his many works that provide any support for the penis theory of gun ownership.

Actually, according to Freud, he associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons.  -Dreams in Folklore (1958)
He goes on to say that "The representation of the penis as a weapon, cutting knife, dagger etc., is familiar to us from the anxiety dreams of abstinent women in particular and also lies at the root of numerous phobias in neurotic people."


Not sure why you addressed me here, but ok.
 
2013-03-17 02:54:45 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.

Keep making up history - it suits your preference for ideological satisfaction over reality well.

What part of the Militia Acts of 1792 were made up by me?
Or did I make up  Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States?
Or Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Did I borrow Obama's time machine and write the Articles of Confederation, Federalist Paper #8,  Federalist Paper #24,   Federalist Paper #26, Anti-Federalist Paper #28, Anti-Federalist Paper #29, or  Federalist Paper #46?

The Anti-Federalists explicitly feared that Congress would disarm the state militias, given the Powers granted Congress in Article I Section 8. This fear led to Amendment II.

/Hint, bolo: I didn't flunk history, either: I've read and understood the source documents.
//The Supremes got it wrong.


You left out the Hessians. Why is that? Have you changed your mind, or is it simply too embarrassing?
 
2013-03-17 03:50:11 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the way, operational) clause, look to the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, approved by Congress in 1779, and the Militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the Founders planned to have no standing army and the states feared being disarmed, Amendment II was included in the Bill of Rights. The Supremes got it wrong.

Keep making up history - it suits your preference for ideological satisfaction over reality well.

What part of the Militia Acts of 1792 were made up by me?
Or did I make up  Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States?
Or Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Did I borrow Obama's time machine and write the Articles of Confederation, Federalist Paper #8,  Federalist Paper #24,   Federalist Paper #26, Anti-Federalist Paper #28, Anti-Federalist Paper #29, or  Federalist Paper #46?

The Anti-Federalists explicitly feared that Congress would disarm the state militias, given the Powers granted Congress in Article I Section 8. This fear led to Amendment II.

/Hint, bolo: I didn't flunk history, either: I've read and understood the source documents.
//The Supremes got it wrong.


You are also not taking into account English Common Law which guarantees a person to have the freedom of self defense. English Common Law has always had a major effect upon how our system is based. Hell, the Supreme Court even recognizes the writs of the King prior to the revolutionary war to apply to American law.

The second amendment was written in mind to guarantee the right of self-protection.
 
2013-03-17 04:54:27 PM

cman: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: And if you're looking for the Founders' implementation of the first (by the

The second amendment was written in mind to guarantee the right of self-protection.


It was written to make it easier for the self-protection of the community, by the community. That is correct. The right to individual self-defense remains a natural right that has nothing to do with the Second--at least until Heller, when Scalia updated the Constitution to bring it in line with modern thinking by gun ownership advocates.
 
2013-03-17 05:58:26 PM

cman: You are also not taking into account English Common Law which guarantees a person to have the freedom of self defense. English Common Law has always had a major effect upon how our system is based. Hell, the Supreme Court even recognizes the writs of the King prior to the revolutionary war to apply to American law.

The second amendment was written in mind to guarantee the right of self-protection.


Except for the tiny niggling little fact that arms could be limited by an act of Parliament:
"Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) ... by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) ... thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) ... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."

/Context: It's a big farking deal.
 
2013-03-17 07:23:54 PM

vygramul: You left out the Hessians. Why is that? Have you changed your mind, or is it simply too embarrassing?


I'd tell you to do your own research, but your reading comprehension is poor.
 
2013-03-17 07:33:40 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: You left out the Hessians. Why is that? Have you changed your mind, or is it simply too embarrassing?

I'd tell you to do your own research, but your reading comprehension is poor.


If only any of that was relevant to your claim.
 
2013-03-18 01:32:46 AM

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: You left out the Hessians. Why is that? Have you changed your mind, or is it simply too embarrassing?

I'd tell you to do your own research, but your reading comprehension is poor.

If only any of that was relevant to your claim.


You claimed that I made up history.
Amendment II exists primarily because the Anti-Federalists feared that Congress would disband the State Militias due to the broadness of the enumerated Militia Powers of Congress, even though the Founders did not plan to have a standing army. These sentiments are explicit in the historical record that I oh-so-conveniently linked for you.
I pointed your lazy eyes to primary contemporaneous source materials.

You're the one who introduced foreign mercenaries from left field, and they have nothing to do with my claim that the Founders intended both clauses of Amendment II to be operative. The historical record is clear on this point - Congress passed legislation to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia, and mandated the Regulations that specified both training and discipline. They passed the legislation creating uniformity and specifying "[a] well regulated Militia" for the nation within months after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

/Keep your German red herrings to yourself, squid.
 
2013-03-18 08:08:51 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: You left out the Hessians. Why is that? Have you changed your mind, or is it simply too embarrassing?

I'd tell you to do your own research, but your reading comprehension is poor.

If only any of that was relevant to your claim.

You claimed that I made up history.
Amendment II exists primarily because the Anti-Federalists feared that Congress would disband the State Militias due to the broadness of the enumerated Militia Powers of Congress, even though the Founders did not plan to have a standing army. These sentiments are explicit in the historical record that I oh-so-conveniently linked for you.
I pointed your lazy eyes to primary contemporaneous source materials.

You're the one who introduced foreign mercenaries from left field, and they have nothing to do with my claim that the Founders intended both clauses of Amendment II to be operative. The historical record is clear on this point - Congress passed legislation to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia, and mandated the Regulations that specified both training and discipline. They passed the legislation creating uniformity and specifying "[a] well regulated Militia" for the nation within months after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

/Keep your German red herrings to yourself, squid.


Did I, now? So you've forgotten the exchange where you made the assertion that the second amendment was added in order to prevent the Hessians from disarming the militias, eh? I wonder if I should give you the link now, or let you stew some more.

And, yes, you're making up history. You completely ignore comments by the Supreme Court justice who were alive at the time of the Founders who state, quite explicitly, that one of the militia's roles was to defend the states from the usurpation of power by the federal government. No matter how much you wish it wasn't true, no matter how much you ignore it, no matter how much you cherry-pick, that will forever stand as a bright spotlight on your lies.

And make no mistake: you are lying. You know you're lying. It's been demonstrated you're lying.

Or profoundly stupid. After all, you brought up the Hessians.
 
2013-03-18 11:40:58 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: What part of the Militia Acts of 1792 were made up by me?
Or did I make up  Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States?
Or Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Did I borrow Obama's time machine and write the Articles of Confederation, Federalist Paper #8,  Federalist Paper #24,   Federalist Paper #26, Anti-Federalist Paper #28, Anti-Federalist Paper #29, or  Federalist Paper #46?

The Anti-Federalists explicitly feared that Congress would disarm the state militias, given the Powers granted Congress in Article I Section 8. This fear led to Amendment II.

/Hint, bolo: I didn't flunk history, either: I've read and understood the source documents.
//The Supremes got it wrong.


vygramul: And, yes, you're making up history. You completely ignore comments by the Supreme Court justice who were alive at the time of the Founders who state, quite explicitly, that one of the militia's roles was to defend the states from the usurpation of power by the federal government. No matter how much you wish it wasn't true, no matter how much you ignore it, no matter how much you cherry-pick, that will forever stand as a bright spotlight on your lies.

And make no mistake: you are lying. You know you're lying. It's been demonstrated you're lying.

Or profoundly stupid. After all, you brought up the Hessians.


Even taking into account that you're a monolingual bolo, your laziness and lack of reading comprehension skills are both appalling and profoundly disappointing.
I linked to primary source materials, including Franklin's masterful propaganda on mercenaries and the letter to George III from the Continental Congress protesting the disarmament of the militia in Boston and the theft of their arms.
Hessian mercenaries constituted a quarter of Great Britain's forces during the Revolutionary War and instrumental in disarming the New Jersey militia in late 1776.

/Please, proceed.
 
2013-03-18 11:50:15 AM
A moment ago, they were Red Herrings.
 
Displayed 50 of 460 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report