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 Raw Story)   'Guns & Ammo' magazine publishes a thoughtful, well-researched editorial in favor of firearms safety legislation. Which is, of course, an unjustified assault on OUR FREEDOMS and WILL NOT BE TOLERATED   (rawstory.com) divider line 335
    More: Obvious, Guns & Ammo, legislation, firearms, Language interpretation, editorials, safety  
•       •       •

2466 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2013 at 10:43 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-07 01:30:49 PM  

sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.


Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.
 
2013-11-07 01:32:35 PM  

busy chillin': Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Well regulated.

Please don't, just please, please don't.  Every farking time, someone has to bring that up.  Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on?  We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.

What are the replies to that statement?

How does "well regulated" mean "no rules at all?"

I guess I haven't been in a politics tab gun thread for a while....didn't know it dirtied threads.

The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century.  Then it meant "well stocked".  So a well regulated militia is actually a well stocked militia.  Now, I don't personally believe that we ought to enforce the 18th century definition of 'well regulated' unless we also enforce the 18th century definition of 'arms', by which of course I mean muskets.  What I'm saying is, for all the ways you can attack the second amendment and those who vociferously support it, that is probably not the angle you want to use.

I wasn't attacking the second amendment. I love the second amendment. Just curious about the "well regulated" angle. I guess the 9th covers it.


While there is a definition of "well regulated" that did mean "well stocked" or "in working order", that definition was by no means the only one. There are several citations in the Oxford English Dictionary from before, during and after the American Revolutionary period where "well regulated" is defined as "well controlled" or "well ordered" (as in the modern sense of regulated). Until such time as some one can produce writings from the period by the Constitutional framers where the "well stocked" definition is clearly and unambiguously attested when writing of militias, there is no evidence that "well stocked" or "in working order" was the sole definition intended by your 2nd Amendment.

The wording of "well regulated" is certainly open to interpretation. The meaning is ambiguous. It is entirely possible that your framers might have indeed meant "well controlled".

I once posted this argument in a previous gun thread and I was immediately attacked when I produced my citations. BraveNewCheneyWorld in particular declared that I didn't understand how English worked. Such insulting responses are generally what people fall back on when presented with evidence that not only contradicts their assertion, but outright destroys it. I have no interest in a continuing argument here on this particular topic. I will, however, post my citations if there is genuine interest.

/why yes, I do happen to own an OED
//not American so I'm not really invested in the argument anyway, I just take umbrage at the misuse of etymology
///slashies always come in threes
 
2013-11-07 01:32:55 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: I wonder if any of them actually take the time to think about where the criminals get their guns from in the first place. It's not like the magically appear out of thin air. They start as legal guns and things go wrong from there. It's almost like they're afraid of being responsible for their gun, personally.


Should we go ask Brian Terry's mother about this?
 
2013-11-07 01:34:02 PM  

kapaso: The editor who penned the piece just lost his job.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/07/guns-and-ammo-bows-to-conserva ti ve-backlash-and-fires-editor-who-penned-pro-regulation-column/


Zumbo'd
 
2013-11-07 01:35:28 PM  

sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.


"You are no longer legally allowed to own this piece of property that you until today was legal to own.  We know where you live.  The penalty for non-compliance is severe."

Why am I not surprised that gun control advocates find this acceptable?
 
2013-11-07 01:35:48 PM  
Geez. It was his farking opinion. I wouldn't fire him over it.

/shrug
 
2013-11-07 01:36:39 PM  

sprawl15: odinsposse: As well as the SKS mess in California at end of the 90s.

Which wasn't a confiscation.


I didn't mention anything about confiscation. It was, however, an instance where a previously legal gun was made illegal and owners were required to get rid of them. Again, it sounded like your argument was that because of Ex Post Facto that could not happen. That is clearly not the case.

It was people refusing to get their weapons registered

Also, no. It was that the state declared some guns legal and then later decided the correct interpretation of the law meant they were illegal. The whole point being that some guns could be registered and others could not. One gun model went from "can be registered" to "can't be registered" without any grandfathering in.

Let's take this out of gun law for a minute. K2 was briefly legal to own and use. It is now illegal. If you are found in possession of K2, even if you owned it before the ban, do you think you will be allowed to keep it?
 
2013-11-07 01:37:56 PM  

sprawl15: but still not an example of what you're talking about:


He was talking about this law having no grandfather clause.  Besides your obvious deflection, It is exactly what he was talking about.
 
2013-11-07 01:39:08 PM  

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: And "tyrannical"?

*The Ghost of Vici Weaver  waves at you*


An FBI sniper broke the rules of engagement. He should have been tried for manslaughter, at the very least.
Randy Weaver was a fugitive under federal indictment, and the USMS was under orders to take him into custody.
None of this is tyranny.
 
2013-11-07 01:39:52 PM  

kapaso: The editor who penned the piece just lost his job.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/07/guns-and-ammo-bows-to-conserva ti ve-backlash-and-fires-editor-who-penned-pro-regulation-column/


FTFA's Comments:

Once again proving that the Constitution consists of the 2nd Amendment, surrounded by a list of some suggestions.
 
2013-11-07 01:41:20 PM  

Fark It: sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.

"You are no longer legally allowed to own this piece of property that you until today was legal to own.  We know where you live.  The penalty for non-compliance is severe."

Why am I not surprised that gun control advocates find this acceptable?


At some point people who had owned and operated horseless carriages for years had to acquire a driver's license. A safety course is so much less than and yet in your mind so much bigger a deal.
 
2013-11-07 01:43:25 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH

Randy Weaver was a fugitive under federal indictment...

Technically true, which is the best kind. The only reason he was in trouble with the government to begin with was refusing to turn on and help entrap people he didn't even agree with in the first place.

Some moral governance, there. "Work for us or go to jail (or have your family killed)." Upstanding.
 
2013-11-07 01:44:21 PM  

Darth Macho: Fark It: sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.

"You are no longer legally allowed to own this piece of property that you until today was legal to own.  We know where you live.  The penalty for non-compliance is severe."

Why am I not surprised that gun control advocates find this acceptable?

At some point people who had owned and operated horseless carriages for years had to acquire a driver's license. A safety course is so much less than and yet in your mind so much bigger a deal.


I was talking about a gun ban without a grandfather clause.  And using public roads is a privilege, not a right.

Gun control advocates want mandatory safety training (with a fee of some kind, I presume).  What are they willing to put on the table for gun owners who already train and are knowledgeable when it comes to gun safety, who already have guns?  What do we get for the increased cost and hassle?  Easing up on NFA restrictions?  Repeal of the Hughes Amendment?
 
2013-11-07 01:45:17 PM  

Mouldy Squid: It is entirely possible that [Y]our framers might have indeed meant "well controlled".

FTFE

Look    upthread.

(Or follow the links. Your choice.)
 
2013-11-07 01:45:48 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Geez. It was his farking opinion. I wouldn't fire him over it.

/shrug


His career in any type of journalism that has a right wing reader or viewership is over. I hope he was ready to hit the reset button.
 
2013-11-07 01:50:52 PM  

dletter: As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway?  Why would they really need a cut & dry list?  There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.


First, there are around 300,000,000 firearms in the United States, but people don't tend to own just one. The number I've seen is just under half - about 47% of households have weapons. By the numbers: Guns in America, CNN So at best, without a list, "suspected gun houses" would mean going door-to-door. They'd have an almost 50% of being right.

Secondly, in light of the repeated lies the public has been told about the extent of NSA & other spying on regular citizens, with phone records, financial data, consumer data, etc., is it "paranoia" when gun owners assume that their firearm data will also be collected and possibly used against them?

The idea that the government goes to the trouble to collect data on millions of individuals, including who they call, what they buy, how much money they have in the bank and where it came from; what they check out of the library; which videos they watch; and who they are friends with on Facebook, but somehow doesn't care if they own a weapon is sort of silly. NSA Spying on Americans, The Electronic Frontier Foundation.

If, by "paranoia", you mean the idea that the government would try to collect all those firearms... in light of the repeated privacy revelations, I'm simply not sure what is reasonable to assume at this point.

I personally would be very much in favor of gun safety classes, but can't figure out how to make it happen. I grew up knowing not to touch my dad's rifle unless he was around, knowing not to put my finger on the trigger till it was time to shoot, not to point a weapon at anything I wasn't willing to destroy; and so on. I knew that if I had questions, I could ask and he'd show me the right/safe way to do things.

The bad thing now is that no one teaches that to kids anymore, and if they ever take up firearms as adults, they can develop terribly bad habits. Not all do, of course, but none should.
 
2013-11-07 01:51:40 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Geez. It was his farking opinion. I wouldn't fire him over it.


Then U.S. conservatism wants nothing to do with you. You either toe the line as its dictated to you or you GTFO, that's just how conservatives operate these days. Doesn't matter if you're a politico, media or a voter. You either fall in line and say what you're told to say and do what you're told to do or they want nothing to do with you.
 
2013-11-07 01:53:19 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Lt. Cheese Weasel: blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?

That issue was settled decisively in favor of federal government on April 9, 1865. I, for one, do not particularly care for the idea of a "do-over" that might involve the use of nuclear weapons. Should that become the case while I am still capable of bearing arms, I will be one of those shooting the traitors who take up arms against the United States.
And "tyrannical"? Please identify any federal official who is suppressing your vote to the nearest US Attorney for prosecution.


You have no idea who Cornwallis is, do you?
 
2013-11-07 01:53:31 PM  

netcentric: BMulligan: brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.

That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.

What are you implying ?   You think people should 'bend' on womens rights or on the issue of slavery ?

Would you tell a person who is gay they can't get married or have a job because no ones rights are absolute ?    Sorry sir,  you are black,  we can't serve you any food....   ?

No,  I don't think we want that.


You realize, of course, that prior to enactment of the 13th Amendment, slavery was completely constitutional, as is denying gay and lesbian persons the right to marry even today. And of course, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

First Amendment rights are limited (think defamation, copyright, insider trading laws and so forth). Fourth Amendment rights are subject to numerous exceptions, and for much of American history, until the exclusionary rule came along, there was no remedy for violation anyway. Notions of due process as described in the 5th Amendment are and have always been dependent on a judicial determination of what process is due under the circumstances. Constitutional interpretation and application have always been imprecise and subject to balancing against other rights and policies. We can, and we should, have a vigorous public debate about how those lines are drawn, but every adult recognizes that they must be drawn somewhere. Slippery slope arguments are fun, but not very useful.
 
2013-11-07 01:53:35 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: An FBI sniper broke the rules of engagement


You know nothing about that incident then.  Not suprising.

The rules of engagement were changed during this standoff where anyone with a weapon could be shot on sight.  This arbitrarily suspeded all 4th amendment rights and was indeed tyranny.  Folks lost thier lives because of this.
 
2013-11-07 01:54:14 PM  

Fark It: Darth Macho: Fark It: sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.

"You are no longer legally allowed to own this piece of property that you until today was legal to own.  We know where you live.  The penalty for non-compliance is severe."

Why am I not surprised that gun control advocates find this acceptable?

At some point people who had owned and operated horseless carriages for years had to acquire a driver's license. A safety course is so much less than and yet in your mind so much bigger a deal.

I was talking about a gun ban without a grandfather clause.  And using public roads is a privilege, not a right.

Gun control advocates want mandatory safety training (with a fee of some kind, I presume).  What are they willing to put on the table for gun owners who already train and are knowledgeable when it comes to gun safety, who already have guns?  What do we get for the increased cost and hassle?  Easing up on NFA restrictions?  Repeal of the Hughes Amendment?


You get safer gun owners and greater public acceptability with your hobby. Your community gets a back on the back and a spot on the moral high ground. We'll even throw in one free "get out of blame for the next mass shooting" coupon.

Wildly irresponsible gun handling has been a major problem in this country since we shifted towards urbanization. Frankly, the pro-gun side has racked up a debt on the social contract. Safety courses are a good first payment on that debt.

This isn't a negotiation; this a chance to politely pay the overdue bill before the repo man shows up.
 
2013-11-07 01:54:34 PM  
skozlaw

Then U.S. conservatism wants nothing to do with you.

[imokwiththis.jpg]
 
2013-11-07 01:54:40 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Randy Weaver was a fugitive under federal indictment...

Technically true, which is the best kind. The only reason he was in trouble with the government to begin with was refusing to turn on and help entrap people he didn't even agree with in the first place.

Some moral governance, there. "Work for us or go to jail (or have your family killed)." Upstanding.


Wait.
One.
Minute.
There.
He was under indictment for what, again? The US Marshall Service spent more than a year trying to get him to turn himself in peacefully. The Weaver family responded to visits by occupying fighting positions.
And they wanted him to inform on what group, again?
 
2013-11-07 01:54:43 PM  

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: An FBI sniper broke the rules of engagement

You know nothing about that incident then.  Not suprising.

The rules of engagement were changed during this standoff where anyone with a weapon could be shot on sight.  This arbitrarily suspeded all 4th amendment rights and was indeed tyranny.  Folks lost thier lives because of this.


And she wasn't even holding a weapon, only an infant.
 
2013-11-07 01:54:52 PM  
er back pat on the back
 
2013-11-07 01:55:35 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: The only reason he was in trouble with the government to begin with was refusing to turn on and help entrap people he didn't even agree with in the first place.


Yep and never mind the fact that they changed his court date without telling him or anyone else so that he couldn't have shown up, even if he had wanted to.
 
2013-11-07 01:57:42 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: The US Marshall Service spent more than a year trying to get him to turn himself in peacefully.


By trying to blackmail him up front, they sure went about that process in an awkward manner.  Way to show someone you work on the up-and-up.
 
2013-11-07 01:58:17 PM  

factoryconnection: dittybopper: Except that they won't: The reason driving deaths were trending down like that was the economic crash in 2007/2008. Fewer people working and taking vacations means fewer people on the road, which means fewer accidents.

Driving death rates have been falling consistently because of safety regulations over the years.  Driving in the 60s was perilously dangerous and the cars themselves made it much more so.  Cars nowadays are vastly safer and thus people survive even unhurt accidents that would have killed them.  I wonder what drove the safety culture?

Of course, violent crime has dropped over the past 20 years and with it gun murders which is more and more thought to be tied to the rise and fall of environmental lead exposure to children from the 50s through the late 70s.  Fewer people with prefrontal cortex developmental problems, fewer people going apesh*t crazy and killing people.


There are signs that the number of motor vehicle fatalities have begun to climb in the last 2 years with the economic recovery.

news.onlineautoinsurance.com


ibis.health.state.nm.us

dps.mn.gov


The talking point about "guns poised to cause more deaths than cars by 2015 (or whatever)" was based upon extrapolating the steep decline in traffic fatalities due to fewer miles driven because of the recession, a temporary situation that wasn't going to last.
 
2013-11-07 01:58:41 PM  

Darth Macho: You get safer gun owners and greater public acceptability with your hobby. Your community gets a back on the back and a spot on the moral high ground. We'll even throw in one free "get out of blame for the next mass shooting" coupon.


We already have NRA courses, hunter safety courses, concealed carry courses.  If they're a requirement for the "privilege" of owning a gun do we get credit for past courses?  Do we get tax credits for these courses?

Wildly irresponsible gun handling has been a major problem in this country since we shifted towards urbanization.

I am in no way, shape, or form for irresponsible and criminal gun users in America's ghettos.

Frankly, the pro-gun side has racked up a debt on the social contract. Safety courses are a good first payment on that debt.

So, this is a punitive measure, and only the beginning.  And you call us paranoid....

This isn't a negotiation; this a chance to politely pay the overdue bill before the repo man shows up.

Thanks for tipping your hand and being honest about your true intentions.
 
2013-11-07 02:00:09 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: And they wanted him to inform on what group, again?


They wanted him to infiltrate the Aryan Nations and he refused.  So they blackmailed him in order to get him to comply or to go to jail.  Not tyrannical at all.
 
2013-11-07 02:00:15 PM  

Fark It: form for


form *responsible for
 
2013-11-07 02:00:45 PM  

sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.


Note section g.:

g. Within thirty days of the effective date of rules promulgated by
the commissioner pursuant to subparagraph 7 of paragraph a of
subdivision 16 of section 10-301, the commissioner shall send by regular
mail to every person who has been issued a permit to possess a rifle or
shotgun and whose rifle or shotgun the commissioner reasonably believes
to be an assault weapon as defined in subdivision 16 of section 10-301
or as defined in such rules, a written notice setting forth the
requirements and procedures relating to the disposition of such weapons,
and the criminal and civil penalties that may be imposed upon the
permittee for unlawful possession or disposition of such weapons.
Failure by the commissioner to send, or the permittee to receive, such
notice, shall not excuse such permittee for unlawful possession or
disposition of such weapons.


The law explicitly allows use of the state registration system to notify owners of banned firearms that they may no longer possess those firearms.
 
2013-11-07 02:01:26 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH

Are you joking for some reason?
 
2013-11-07 02:02:20 PM  

sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.


You are saying, then, that a federal firearm ban without a grandfather clause would not qualify as a confiscation measure, because owners could move those firearms out of the country?
 
2013-11-07 02:04:38 PM  

Darth Macho: Fark It: sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.

"You are no longer legally allowed to own this piece of property that you until today was legal to own.  We know where you live.  The penalty for non-compliance is severe."

Why am I not surprised that gun control advocates find this acceptable?

At some point people who had owned and operated horseless carriages for years had to acquire a driver's license. A safety course is so much less than and yet in your mind so much bigger a deal.


What state or federal law forced horseless carriage owners to surrender their property?
 
2013-11-07 02:07:37 PM  
skozlaw:I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.

Hunter safety is now mandated in many states. Many states have reciprocal permits, so if you have a valid hunter safety permit in one state, you can hunt in another. If you don't have one from your own state, you can't hunt in other states. Here's a pretty up-to-date list of requirements. Hunter Education Requirements in the United States and Canada, Texas Parks and Wildlife.

The number of hunter fatalities dropped precipitously when hunter safety was mandated. Most everyone is fine with this because hunting isn't a right, and having a hunter safety card proves nothing with regard to gun ownership.
 
2013-11-07 02:10:26 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mouldy Squid: It is entirely possible that [Y]our framers might have indeed meant "well controlled".FTFE

Look    upthread.

(Or follow the links. Your choice.)


See, everyone. This is how you supply evidence as to the particular interpretation of an ambiguous phrase in a historical document. Outright assertion and misquoting the OED only makes you look like an buffoon. demaL-demaL-yeH has shown evidence that the government of the Revolutionary period did, in fact, use the term "well regulated" in the modern sense of "ordered" or "controlled". While the wording in the 2nd Amendment remains ambiguous, it is clear that the modern definition was used in documents of the time concerning militias. The evidence is sound and it is more than likely that the framers intended that "well regulated" meant some variation of "ordered" or "controlled" when they wrote "well regulated".
 
2013-11-07 02:15:53 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: demaL-demaL-yeH: Lt. Cheese Weasel: blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?

That issue was settled decisively in favor of federal government on April 9, 1865. I, for one, do not particularly care for the idea of a "do-over" that might involve the use of nuclear weapons. Should that become the case while I am still capable of bearing arms, I will be one of those shooting the traitors who take up arms against the United States.
And "tyrannical"? Please identify any federal official who is suppressing your vote to the nearest US Attorney for prosecution.

You have no idea who Cornwallis is, do you?


You have no idea who Grant and Sherman were, do you?

(And about Yorktown: The 8,500 American troops were "supplemented" by 10,500 French troops. Virginia supplied three brigades plus six companies under Dabney. The other six brigades and five regiments were Yankees.)
 
2013-11-07 02:16:16 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?


It probably would have worked out pretty badly for the dirt farmers if Britain's major enemy, France, hadn't been supporting and supplying them with arms from the beginning and then entered the war openly on their side.
 
2013-11-07 02:19:03 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Randy Weaver was a fugitive under federal indictment...

Technically true, which is the best kind. The only reason he was in trouble with the government to begin with was refusing to turn on and help entrap people he didn't even agree with in the first place.

Some moral governance, there. "Work for us or go to jail (or have your family killed)." Upstanding.

Wait.
One.
Minute.
There.
He was under indictment for what, again? The US Marshall Service spent more than a year trying to get him to turn himself in peacefully. The Weaver family responded to visits by occupying fighting positions.
And they wanted him to inform on what group, again?



He was found "Not Guilty" by a jury of his peers under the original indictment, making an illegal firearm (to whit, a sawed-off shotgun).   That lends credence to his story that the guns he sold to the ATF informant were legal when he sold them, and subsequently shortened by the ATF.
 
2013-11-07 02:23:02 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: skozlaw: Elegy: Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.

Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.

It's also nice that people from a political camp that endlessly sucks money out of school budgets will somehow agree to funding this.

It's the same with their bullshiat smoke screen about wanting better mental health services. Ask them how they want to pay for it.


Had a meeting I had to attend, so unfortunately I didn't get to put in a reply to either of you. Still gonna do it late though.

First: on hobby status. Gun ownership is not a hobby. It's a constitutional right. We have civics courses to teach why voting and democratic governance are important and how they work. We have history courses to teach why the 14th amendment is important. We should have the same for guns.

Like it or not, guns, and the right to bear arms, are both part of American culture and governance. The right for every american to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution, and guns are everywhere - not only in movies and TV but literally, physically, everywhere in society. Teaching responsibility at a young age is a good way to deal with that fact, and a good way to help prevent accidental firearms deaths.

Second: funding such a program is easy. Take the costs of the program an multiply by 3 for a grand total. 1/3 of the grand total actually funds the program. 2/3 of the grand total goes into general education. Conservatives love it because it teaches the principles of gun ownership early; liberals love it because schools get more money. Supplies can be solicited through buy-back programs and donations to keep costs down; I'm sure the gun manufacturers would be all over it for the PR.

As I said, though, gun control advocates would never, ever support such responsible legislation. Such an educational program would demystify the gun from a totemic object of abstract societal horror and turn it into what it actually is: a rather prosaic inanimate object that is only as "good" or as "bad" as the person holding it.
 
2013-11-07 02:26:57 PM  

dittybopper: He was found "Not Guilty" by a jury of his peers under the original indictment, making an illegal firearm (to whit, a sawed-off shotgun).   That lends credence to his story that the guns he sold to the ATF informant were legal when he sold them, and subsequently shortened by the ATF.


Which made him no less a belligerent fugitive who was in an armed standoff with the US Marshall Service for more than a year. He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.
 
2013-11-07 02:29:12 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.


Did you miss the part where they moved his court date and never told him?  Or are you just being obtuse for some other reason.
 
2013-11-07 02:31:11 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH

Which made him no less a belligerent fugitive who was in an armed standoff with the US Marshall Service for more than a year. He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.

Well, ok. I guess you're not joking.

Which day was his day in court, again?

Your callous disregard of the murder of a woman holding a child is disgusting. Just...wow. What ideology have you sold yourself to that says such action is acceptable? What is fundamentally wrong with you as a person that you think this was ok?
 
2013-11-07 02:32:40 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary


Yep, because when you have been blackmailed by the ATF, court date moved without any notification, and harassed by jack booted thugs working for the goverment because you didn't want to deal with them, you are going to put all your faith into the court system.

Are you that dumb, or just play one on the internet?
 
2013-11-07 02:33:07 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.


You are statist trash.  His wife was murdered while holding onto a child because the government didn't tell him they changed his court date.  He was found not guilty.  The victims sued the Justice Department, and won.  His family was targeted because he refused to become an informant.
 
2013-11-07 02:33:14 PM  

Elegy: Like it or not, guns, and the right to bear arms, are both part of American culture and governance. The right for every american to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution


So far so good.
Now talk about the responsibility that goes with it: The responsibility of every American to take up arms in defense of the United States is not enshrined in the Constitution. The responsibility to do so as a member of a well regulated militia, however, is, along with the Enumerated Powers of Congress to regulate the Militia.
 
2013-11-07 02:35:22 PM  

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.

Did you miss the part where they moved his court date and never told him?  Or are you just being obtuse for some other reason.


No, I didn't. Did you miss the part where the US Marshall Service spent for  more than a year after that date trying to get him to surrender peacefully?
 
2013-11-07 02:36:32 PM  

Skeptos: Lt. Cheese Weasel: blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?

It probably would have worked out pretty badly for the dirt farmers if Britain's major enemy, France, hadn't been supporting and supplying them with arms from the beginning and then entered the war openly on their side.


My whole point was, Cornwallis was deeply hurt, harrassed by a bunch of dirt farmers (militia) and eventually defeated once forced to flee north to Yorktown.  His disdain for militia is the same disdain noted above that US Marines would have for a bunch of fat rednecks with AR-15s.  Simply making a parallel comparison.  Tanks and choppers not particularly effective vs an insurgency.

Military superiority does not always equate to victory on the battlefield when faced with a determined insurgency with a taste for battle and a will to see it through. This lesson is taught over and over.
 
2013-11-07 02:36:50 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Elegy: Like it or not, guns, and the right to bear arms, are both part of American culture and governance. The right for every american to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution

So far so good.
Now talk about the responsibility that goes with it: The responsibility of every American to take up arms in defense of the United States is not enshrined in the Constitution. The responsibility to do so as a member of a well regulated militia, however, is, along with the Enumerated Powers of Congress to regulate the Militia.


And what part of mandatory firearms training for every middle schooler in America violates the "well regulated" provision?
 
Displayed 50 of 335 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report