Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(NewsBusters)   88% of FoxNews.com readers support the right for people to carry guns in public...oh, sorry.. I meant MSNBC.com readers   (newsbusters.org) divider line 548
    More: Strange, prisoner swap  
•       •       •

2678 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2014 at 9:38 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-07 04:06:15 PM  

Publikwerks: thamike: FilmBELOH20: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

To chime in:

As far as "mentally ill" goes, I think there need to be specific parameters set.  A history of "mental illness" is a fairly nebulous term.  I would prefer an agreed upon, government sanctioned and APA approved test with a series of questions specifically geared to scale the subject's penchant for violence and disassociative behavior, among other things.  It should be specific to guns.

I say develop a series of questions, and have the local sheriff/LEO handle it. They are the ones who ultimately have to deal with the aftermath.


Thank you, and the others who weighed in, on your well-considered responses. Your openness of thinking leads me to hope that maybe some day the people on various sides of this issue can find elements of common interest they can support together. It will require trust, though, and right now the interested parties don't trust each other at all.

A postscript to my Idaho trip: I congratulate the well-armed citizenry of Idaho for having largely done away with the scourge of shot-up highway signs. When I was a kid going to high school there in the 70s, getting drunk and shooting at highway signs was practically the official state sport. It was rare to see a sign more than a few weeks old without holes in it. Now, I don't know if it's the cost of ammo or if it's the raising of the drinking age from 19 to 21 or what it is, but I didn't see a single bullet hole on this visit and I was driving backroads where I certainly would have expected to have done. Whatever it is, good jorb.
 
2014-08-07 04:08:52 PM  

The Name: redmid17: You can try to change the tenably legal part with a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That's not going to happen anytime soon, imo.

The firearm laws like banning handguns would probably do the most "good" but wouldn't fly.

Right, but what you just said is like saying, "Yeah, there's a hole in this boat we're on, and it's sinking, but nobody wants to fix the hole in the boat, so anyone who suggests fixing it is talking nonsense."


That's not what I'm saying but conveniently leaving out half of my post will do that for you. Doing the stuff that is more likely to happen and raises the socio economic climate of everyone in the country. Easiest way to get rid of crime, period.
 
2014-08-07 04:18:39 PM  

Publikwerks: Secondly, there isn't shiat on the books for gun control anymore. Brady bill is gone. I mean, what gun laws are out there other than the regs on Class III?


You know there are close to 20,000 gun control laws in this nation right?
 
2014-08-07 04:20:44 PM  
I'd be fine with a national registry.  I'm fine with mandating safety classes and all that stuff too.  I like learning things.  Learning how to properly maintain my firearm collection seems reasonable. I'd even call NICS when I sell guns if I was allowed to do so. I'd even pay a fee of some sort every time I purchase a new gun to update the system to handle the additional load.  I'd rather that not be left individually to FFL holders.  We do that with NFA items already.  Some folks will do the paperwork, some won't and pricing is variable.  However, where I'm probably going to have an issue is for all that I'd like a repeal of the NFA.  Give me all the testing you want to feel comfortable, but then I should have all the toys.  If it's good enough for the police, it's good enough for me.
 
2014-08-07 04:23:22 PM  

PreMortem: It's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs


Who?  There are 76 NRA board members please support your unfounded assertion by backing your statement up.  Specifically, name the ones that are CEOs of gun manufactures.  I see a small handful (3 in my quick count, but there could be a few more).

It is laughable on how wrong you are.
 
2014-08-07 04:27:16 PM  

nyseattitude: Like this?


You might want to take a closer look at that third one....  Pixels, seen lots of shops in my time... Lyingdognews.net
 
2014-08-07 04:28:41 PM  

BMulligan: Publikwerks: thamike: FilmBELOH20: BMulligan: Frank N Stein: Fun fact. In the Czech Republic it is required to have a firearms license to own a gun. The license is shall issue, and this is also extended to any foreigner who is a citizen of a NATO country.
Concealed carry is also allowed.

Question - if the United States required a license to own a gun, with a shall-issue provision in place (with a handful of suitable exceptions, such as in the case of the mentally ill), would you find that an unacceptable infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

May I offer an answer as well?  No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration.  Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured.  As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at:  If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car.  In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago.  National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

To chime in:

As far as "mentally ill" goes, I think there need to be specific parameters set.  A history of "mental illness" is a fairly nebulous term.  I would prefer an agreed upon, government sanctioned and APA approved test with a series of questions specifically geared to scale the subject's penchant for violence and disassociative behavior, among other things.  It should be specific to guns.

I say develop a series of questions, and have the local sheriff/LEO handle it. They are the ones who ultimately have to deal with the aftermath.

Thank you, and the others ...


Most of my comments aside (which mostly deal with the actions and positions of the NRA), even though I'm in MA and a liberal I don't have a problem with most gun ownership.  My neighbor behind my house told me shortly after we moved in that if I ever saw him with a satchel of guns it's because he's headed to the nearby gun range and they're otherwise locked in his safe.  That was 16 years ago and I have never had a reason to question otherwise.

This is a huge issue and there's mistrust on both sides due to past actions, and the groups that should be taking a middle ground in this (LEO/mental health professionals/lawmakers) aren't exactly impartial or universally trusted.  It's just a part of human nature.

Yes, legal owners should be able to exercise their right.  They should be able to feel safe when walking the streets wherever they go. But that doesn't give them permission to think that everyone needs to carry or that if everyone carried things would be so much better.  Nor should it absolve anyone of responsibility when things go wrong.  Where did all of these guns on the street come from?  Someone legally bought it and then lost/sold/gave it away at some point.  On the other hand, those who don't want guns on the street need to take a chill pill and realize that having some population of their neighbors armed and qualified to defend themselves is potentially a good thing for the community.

I'm not a gun grabber.  I've shot before in scouts and a few times after.  I don't feel like I need it to keep my family safe but realize others don't live in the same kind of community as I do.  I feel there's classes of people who should not be carrying, and there's classes of people whose carelessness with their guns should made them ineligible to carry or own for some period of time or until they learn better.  There's absolutely no excuse for a child to find a gun (loaded even) and then shoot themselves or someone else by accident.
 
2014-08-07 04:30:02 PM  

BitwiseShift: Here in Texas you can buy your gun in the same store you buy your beer. And they don't sell coffins. But they do sell condoms. Almost one stop shopping for that first date with a Goth.

[img.fark.net image 225x225]


Goth girls don't make you use condoms!!
 
2014-08-07 04:31:17 PM  
Hi guys. I have absolutely nothing to add, it has just been a while since I posted in a Fark gun thread. But... since I'm here:  GUNS=PENIS SIZE!

/not sure about the quasi-recipriocal nature of gun size to, um, other size*, so I don't know if you should look for a man with a musket or a derringer ;p
*to say nothing of preference
 
2014-08-07 04:32:59 PM  

PreMortem: t's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs,


<citation needed>
 
2014-08-07 04:38:59 PM  

Click Click D'oh: PreMortem: t's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs,

<citation needed>


Yeah, I suspect we won't be hearing back from this dumbass.  Looking closer, I only see two - Steve Hornady and Ronnie Barrett.
 
2014-08-07 04:45:56 PM  

HeadLever: Click Click D'oh: PreMortem: t's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs,

<citation needed>

Yeah, I suspect we won't be hearing back from this dumbass.  Looking closer, I only see two - Steve Hornady and Ronnie Barrett.


If you want to broaden it to "gun industry" it looks like it might be 4-5. I'm pretty sure you have more former Hollywood actors and/or professional athletes in there than gun industry CEOs.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gun-lobby-who-got-elected-the-nra-board
 
2014-08-07 04:46:30 PM  
seadoo2006:

It begs the question ... WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING? I've lived in New York City, I've lived in Chicago, I've lived in LA and I've lived in the middle of the Appalachia Mountains and not even once have I ever felt the need to carry a gun.  It's like being prepared for an asteroid impact - the chances of it happening are so remote, so infinitesimal - that it doesn't even bear thinking about.


I worked the night shift in downtown Seattle (Pioneer Square Area) for a number of years.   While I myself was never mugger or had an incident, over the the few years I was working there were several incidents where people were killed or severely beaten in the alley behind our building.   One of my co-workers (a 20-something female) was mugged while on her way to the car after work one evening and spent several weeks in the hospital.

Just because it does not happen to you, does not mean it doesn't happen.
 
2014-08-07 04:57:27 PM  

HeadLever: PreMortem: It's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs

Who?  There are 76 NRA board members please support your unfounded assertion by backing your statement up.  Specifically, name the ones that are CEOs of gun manufactures.  I see a small handful (3 in my quick count, but there could be a few more).

It is laughable on how wrong you are.


I'm sure Tom Selleck guides policy.


/eye roll
 
2014-08-07 04:57:52 PM  

RightWingWacko: seadoo2006:

It begs the question ... WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING? I've lived in New York City, I've lived in Chicago, I've lived in LA and I've lived in the middle of the Appalachia Mountains and not even once have I ever felt the need to carry a gun.  It's like being prepared for an asteroid impact - the chances of it happening are so remote, so infinitesimal - that it doesn't even bear thinking about.


I worked the night shift in downtown Seattle (Pioneer Square Area) for a number of years.   While I myself was never mugger or had an incident, over the the few years I was working there were several incidents where people were killed or severely beaten in the alley behind our building.   One of my co-workers (a 20-something female) was mugged while on her way to the car after work one evening and spent several weeks in the hospital.

Just because it does not happen to you, does not mean it doesn't happen.


I live in a rural (Idaho) state. We have deer crossing signs downtown and I've run across deer and foxes, and been warned of coyote sightings, while out walking my dog. We also have a lot of loose dogs running around. Not everyone that carries a gun does so because they think they're going to get attacked by another person.
 
2014-08-07 04:59:28 PM  

FilmBELOH20: May I offer an answer as well? No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration. Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured. As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at: If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car. In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago. National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.


I think gun insurance needs to be a thing before I'll get behind any national permit. I assume gun insurance will calculate your location and intended use of a gun when determining your premium. If your intended use is to carry every day in a major metropolitan area, as opposed to never leaving your property in Bumfark, ND, I expect there to be a difference in premiums based on the risk inherent in each situations. Once that issue has been dealt with, I'm all for a national permit. It's up to the individual gun owner to determine what he is and isn't willing to pay for.
 
2014-08-07 05:10:52 PM  

Rwa2play: So why not back an organization like the Liberal Gun Club, openly state their intentions/goals and ditch the NRA?


Hold up just a second. I'm an active, contributing/dues-paying member of the LGC and have been so for some years. That said, we have some members who are very pro-NRA and others who are very anti-NRA. There is often disagreement about the NRA's involvement in policy as well as some rancor regarding their public statements and stances.

In 2012 some of our more senior members put together an "about us" page that's worth reading:
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/about-us/talking/

In the end, while many (perhaps most) of our members do not support it at all, the LGC has no official stance on the NRA.
 
2014-08-07 05:11:06 PM  
I fail to see why it has the 'strange' tag. There's nothing strange about that, it's common knowledge (at least to any who have ever bothered to study the subject).
 
2014-08-07 05:11:48 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: FilmBELOH20: May I offer an answer as well? No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration. Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured. As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at: If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car. In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago. National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

I think gun insurance needs to be a thing before I'll get behind any national permit. I assume gun insurance will calculate your location and intended use of a gun when determining your premium. If your intended use is to carry every day in a major metropolitan area, as opposed to never leaving your property in Bumfark, ND, I expect there to be a difference in premiums based on the risk inherent in each situations. Once that issue has been dealt with, I'm all for a national permit. It's up to the individual gun owner to determine what he is and isn't willing to pay for.


If, according to people that what gun control, the chance of me ever needing to use my gun to defend my self is miniscule, which means the chance of me hitting an innocent bystander is even more miniscule, why should I have to waste money on insurance?
 
2014-08-07 05:11:50 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: FilmBELOH20: May I offer an answer as well? No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration. Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured. As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at: If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car. In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago. National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

I think gun insurance needs to be a thing before I'll get behind any national permit. I assume gun insurance will calculate your location and intended use of a gun when determining your premium. If your intended use is to carry every day in a major metropolitan area, as opposed to never leaving your property in Bumfark, ND, I expect there to be a difference in premiums based on the risk inherent in each situations. Once that issue has been dealt with, I'm all for a national permit. It's up to the individual gun owner to determine what he is and isn't willing to pay for.


My biggest beef with the insurance is that your driver's license is good across the US without even owning car insurance. You are, of course, on the hook for damages to the car and others, but you don't need car insurance to have a license.
 
2014-08-07 05:15:46 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: I think gun insurance needs to be a thing before I'll get behind any national permit. I assume gun insurance will calculate your location and intended use of a gun when determining your premium. If your intended use is to carry every day in a major metropolitan area, as opposed to never leaving your property in Bumfark, ND, I expect there to be a difference in premiums based on the risk inherent in each situations. Once that issue has been dealt with, I'm all for a national permit. It's up to the individual gun owner to determine what he is and isn't willing to pay fo


Please don't invent gun insurance you guys I don't want it to make it's way up here.

Seriously though the national permit thing is nice though.  We have a two tier national permit system here in Canada.  Once you are permitted you are permitted everywhere.  The restricted (hand guns mostly but some long guns as well) class restrictions are a major pain in the ass but otherwise the system is pretty good.  If you ignored those restrictions the system would be pretty good.
 
2014-08-07 05:15:56 PM  

redmid17: They are probably going to have to rule on shall-issue vs may-issue here in the next year or two. The district courts are pretty much divided down the middle on that.


With the recent Peruta ruling in the 9th, count on it going en banc and subsequent to SCOTUS.  I'll even put money down on SCOTUS taking it.
 
2014-08-07 05:16:19 PM  

PreMortem: I'm sure Tom Selleck guides policy.


Said no one in this thread.

So did you come up with a list to support your 'It's the truth that the NRA board is primarily made up of gun manufacturer CEOs" statement yet?

Or are you admitting that your explicit statement is a lie?
 
2014-08-07 05:42:32 PM  

revrendjim: I'm a liberal gun owner who used to be an NRA member but quit 10 years ago when they went insane.


Guess I'm liberal to I quit 25 years ago. Lived I AZ and middle east, idiots carrying guns do not make me feel safer.
 
2014-08-07 05:48:10 PM  

redmid17: Sergeant Grumbles: FilmBELOH20: May I offer an answer as well? No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration. Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured. As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at: If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car. In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago. National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

I think gun insurance needs to be a thing before I'll get behind any national permit. I assume gun insurance will calculate your location and intended use of a gun when determining your premium. If your intended use is to carry every day in a major metropolitan area, as opposed to never leaving your property in Bumfark, ND, I expect there to be a difference in premiums based on the risk inherent in each situations. Once that issue has been dealt with, I'm all for a national permit. It's up to the individual gun owner to determine what he is and isn't willing to pay for.

My biggest beef with the insurance is that your driver's license is good across the US without even owning car insurance. You are, of course, on the hook for damages to the car and others, but you don't need car insurance to have a license.


In North Carolina you do...
 
2014-08-07 05:55:42 PM  

Publikwerks: bobothemagnificent: Let's deal with Hillary first.  I'm not convinced she's going to run.  I'm certainly not convinced she's going to win.  What I don't see from Hillary now is what she had last time- ambition.  Right now, at least to me, she appears ambivalent at best about running.  She's also lacking that spark she had during the last time she ran.  She seems kind of worn out and worn down.  That's spurring some competition- good old O'Malley has decided to go up to New Hampshire...again.  Its pretty clear he wants to run for higher office, and he's an avid Obama supporter.  Not so much a Clinton supporter.  I respect Elizabeth Warren enough to take her at her word that she won't run.  We also have no idea who the Republican nominee will be.  I can assure you that it won't be Jeb, nor will it be Mitt, nor will it be Christie.  Jeb doesn't really want to run, Mitt wants to but knows he can't win now, and Christie is too moderate for conservative states.  There are some very good conservatives out there who do not want to run but might get into the ring.  It is also impossible to predict what the socioeconomic climate is going to be like in 2016.  Anything, literally, could happen.  Ask me this time in 2016 who is going to win and I might be able to give you a better prediction.

2nd, how many gun control laws are on the books now and how effective are they?  Is a new law really going to solve the problem.  There are already laws on the books to deal with class III firearms, and they are working fine.  What you need to do is to change social attitudes about how people should act in society.  Lets say you change the law to ban all guns.  If you do nothing else, you'll have drive-by crossbowings instead of shootings.  Or harpoonings.  It also won't stop criminals from getting guns.  It will sufficiently agitate some of the states to arrest federal officers who attempt to enforce it and get thrown out as unconstitutional.  This isn't a gun problem, its a societal atti ...


Ever the optimist. Do not compare health care "reform" with gun control.  First, there is no constitutional amendment dealing with healthcare "reform".  Second, there is no long standing precedence about healthcare reform.  Third, if you think the rest of the country is going to sit down and take gun control passively think again.  The moment there is anything that resembles a ban on handguns or semi-auto rifles, there will be a reaction.

As for Hillary, we're a long ways away from 2016.  Democrats are counting their chickens way before chicken's grandparents have laid the egg.  Here's an interesting trend: Democrats tend to favor newer candidates over established candidates when they win presidential elections: Bill Clinton and Obama are two prime examples.  They beat well established candidates that were originally projected to win their primaries.  People like to talk about the split in the Republican party.  Guess what, there's a split in the democratic party.  Clinton supporters vs. Hillary supporters.  Its not widely talked about, but it is there.  That could have a monumental effect on the election.  All I'm saying is that before we try and predict who will win the next election, we need to see who's actually going to be in the election and the socioeconomic conditions at the time of the election.
 
2014-08-07 05:58:00 PM  

born_yesterday: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

Jesus Christ; laying it on a little thick in the profile, aren't you?


Let's get real world. I go to home depot for a tool. I have to walk by some asshole with an AR 15. During the day, why doesn't the asshole have a job.
 
2014-08-07 06:19:53 PM  

stonicus: redmid17: Sergeant Grumbles: FilmBELOH20: May I offer an answer as well? No, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as it was not something that could change every four years with a new administration. Further, I have no problem with registration, and I also don't have a problem with folks who call for gun owners to be insured. As many have stated before, you need to do all of those things with a car - why not with a gun?

But here's where the line on where I would support those things 100% or not at all is at: If I have to jump through all of those hoops - just like I do in order to drive a car - then I want to be able to carry my weapons just as freely as I can drive a car. In other words, if I'm licensed in North Dakota to carry my firearm, then I want that transferrable when I visit California, New York or Chicago. National Shall Issue Concealed Carry is the only way to go.

I think gun insurance needs to be a thing before I'll get behind any national permit. I assume gun insurance will calculate your location and intended use of a gun when determining your premium. If your intended use is to carry every day in a major metropolitan area, as opposed to never leaving your property in Bumfark, ND, I expect there to be a difference in premiums based on the risk inherent in each situations. Once that issue has been dealt with, I'm all for a national permit. It's up to the individual gun owner to determine what he is and isn't willing to pay for.

My biggest beef with the insurance is that your driver's license is good across the US without even owning car insurance. You are, of course, on the hook for damages to the car and others, but you don't need car insurance to have a license.

In North Carolina you do...


Well as far as I know/can tell, NC is an anomaly.
 
2014-08-07 06:25:48 PM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: If, according to people that what gun control, the chance of me ever needing to use my gun to defend my self is miniscule, which means the chance of me hitting an innocent bystander is even more miniscule, why should I have to waste money on insurance?


Because despite your insistence that your gun won't cause any harm, we seem to have something of a problem with guns that do cause harm, be it accidents or intentional misuse (school shootings, etc.). I would like to trust you, but reality says that isn't always going to be possible. If the miniscule possibility does come to pass where your gun causes harm, I want you to be the one to pay for it, be it through your policy or fines for failing to insure yourself properly, and for financial incentives to exist that promote your safe conduct.
 
2014-08-07 06:34:24 PM  

bobothemagnificent: Ever the optimist. Do not compare health care "reform" with gun control.  First, there is no constitutional amendment dealing with healthcare "reform".  Second, there is no long standing precedence about healthcare reform.  Third, if you think the rest of the country is going to sit down and take gun control passively think again.  The moment there is anything that resembles a ban on handguns or semi-auto rifles, there will be a reaction.

As for Hillary, we're a long ways away from 2016.  Democrats are counting their chickens way before chicken's grandparents have laid the egg.  Here's an interesting trend: Democrats tend to favor newer candidates over established candidates when they win presidential elections: Bill Clinton and Obama are two prime examples.  They beat well established candidates that were originally projected to win their primaries.  People like to talk about the split in the Republican party.  Guess what, there's a split in the democratic party.  Clinton supporters vs. Hillary supporters.  Its not widely talked about, but it is there.  That could have a monumental effect on the election.  All I'm saying is that before we try and predict who will win the next election, we need to see who's actually going to be in the election and the socioeconomic conditions at the time of the election.



1st off, yes there will be a reaction, much like there was one in 2010. But the ACA is still on the books. And Obama won re-election, so reaction can be delt with.

Secondly, we are a ways from 2016, but I don't see much changing. I think the GOP wins the senate in 2014, but the dems are on the defensive. They are defending the 2008 election which was very anti Bush and Obama carried alot of states. So we are going to see alot more of the same, because congress will pass stuff, and Obama will veto it. Nothing is going to get done, and the GOP and Obama will pass the buck.

So we will get to 2016, everyone will be sick of all of them. Plus, the GOP will be on the defensive, as alot of the tea party candidates won in 2010, especially in swing states.

I see a big change in 2016. And then it will be 2 years of Dem-law-passing-palloza.
 
2014-08-07 06:37:11 PM  

mizchief: Nobody talks about this because it is a non-starter for the anti-gun agenda. This does exist and the cost is very low because the risk of an incident is very low and in itself creates a self-defeating narrative.


And I'm fine with the costs being low. I just want that extra veneer of protection like we do with auto insurance. If it means dad keeps his guns locked up tighter so junior doesn't increase his gun premiums, the system is working as designed.

mizchief: That's why gun owners don't want mandatory insurance. Your car is required to carry liability insurance and if you have a registered car that isn't insured you pay fines, etc. So mandatory firearm insurance would necessitate firearm registration to be enforceable.


But I put the people paranoid about gun registration into the same crazy camp as those who want the insurance to be prohibitively expensive.
 
2014-08-07 06:45:35 PM  

heili skrimsli: firefly212: Fark the NRA and the donkey show they rode in on. From coming to town after Columbine

Because they are required by law to hold certain annual meetings and are unable to change the dates and times of those meetings without an extended period of notice, the only way they could have canceled those legally required functions in Denver that particular year would have been to violate the laws governing their charter.

They did, however, cancel every function that year they were not bound by law to hold.

But don't let the facts get in your way or anything.



Internal bylaws are not actual laws, but don't reality get in the way of your wacky rationalization.... also, thanks for editing out the other idiot and indefensible things they've done so you don't have to address them.
 
2014-08-07 06:55:50 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: If, according to people that what gun control, the chance of me ever needing to use my gun to defend my self is miniscule, which means the chance of me hitting an innocent bystander is even more miniscule, why should I have to waste money on insurance?

Because despite your insistence that your gun won't cause any harm, we seem to have something of a problem with guns that do cause harm, be it accidents or intentional misuse (school shootings, etc.). I would like to trust you, but reality says that isn't always going to be possible. If the miniscule possibility does come to pass where your gun causes harm, I want you to be the one to pay for it, be it through your policy or fines for failing to insure yourself properly, and for financial incentives to exist that promote your safe conduct.


Then let's require insurance for buying alcohol and and intoxicants. While I want to trust that you won't get in your car while intoxicated, reality says you're probably going to plow into a bus full of children.
 
2014-08-07 07:05:27 PM  

firefly212: heili skrimsli: firefly212: Fark the NRA and the donkey show they rode in on. From coming to town after Columbine

Because they are required by law to hold certain annual meetings and are unable to change the dates and times of those meetings without an extended period of notice, the only way they could have canceled those legally required functions in Denver that particular year would have been to violate the laws governing their charter.

They did, however, cancel every function that year they were not bound by law to hold.

But don't let the facts get in your way or anything.


Internal bylaws are not actual laws, but don't reality get in the way of your wacky rationalization.... also, thanks for editing out the other idiot and indefensible things they've done so you don't have to address them.


THe NRA is a 501(c)(4) tax exempt entity and by US law, must hold an annual membership meeting. Thanks for showing us your ignorance and lack of ability to research anything.
 
2014-08-07 07:05:35 PM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Sergeant Grumbles: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: If, according to people that what gun control, the chance of me ever needing to use my gun to defend my self is miniscule, which means the chance of me hitting an innocent bystander is even more miniscule, why should I have to waste money on insurance?

Because despite your insistence that your gun won't cause any harm, we seem to have something of a problem with guns that do cause harm, be it accidents or intentional misuse (school shootings, etc.). I would like to trust you, but reality says that isn't always going to be possible. If the miniscule possibility does come to pass where your gun causes harm, I want you to be the one to pay for it, be it through your policy or fines for failing to insure yourself properly, and for financial incentives to exist that promote your safe conduct.

Then let's require insurance for buying alcohol and and intoxicants. While I want to trust that you won't get in your car while intoxicated, reality says you're probably going to plow into a bus full of children.


Correct. It's either for ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, or it's for nothing...or at least not for those things which are guaranteed (such as firearms).

I personally have a moral opposition to insurance of any kind, and refuse to participate in it. This forced me to sell my car and live without one, which I believe to be a violation of my basic rights. But since there is no enumerated guarantee to a vehicle or travel I have no legal standing to sue. The same is not true of firearms.

Having a guaranteed right to firearms (at both the state and federal level) no law can exclude me from this right, including those which would economically or religiously (now determined by SCOTUS to include any deeply held belief, such as mine) disenfranchise me.

Therefore the ONLY way such an idea is supportable is if the entire cost of participation be taken by the nation itself...ie socialized national insurance fully subsidized by taxes and covering every us citizen equally.

Anything else and its war. Period.
 
2014-08-07 07:13:17 PM  

enry: Lemme guess. This was a online poll. Wonder if info about the poll got passed around sites where those concerned about 'gun rights' might have found out and been a bit over represented.


Everyone I know, including the libbiest libs who ever libbed, support gun rights and feel that people not only should be allowed to, but almost have a duty to own and know how to operate firearms.

I'd be more worried about the conservative groups who are anti- all sorts of things and would probably go all anti-gun as soon as their barking heads start saying we need to curtail gun ownership for the children, or because terrorism, or something.
 
2014-08-07 07:39:26 PM  

theprinceofwands: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Sergeant Grumbles: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: If, according to people that what gun control, the chance of me ever needing to use my gun to defend my self is miniscule, which means the chance of me hitting an innocent bystander is even more miniscule, why should I have to waste money on insurance?

Because despite your insistence that your gun won't cause any harm, we seem to have something of a problem with guns that do cause harm, be it accidents or intentional misuse (school shootings, etc.). I would like to trust you, but reality says that isn't always going to be possible. If the miniscule possibility does come to pass where your gun causes harm, I want you to be the one to pay for it, be it through your policy or fines for failing to insure yourself properly, and for financial incentives to exist that promote your safe conduct.

Then let's require insurance for buying alcohol and and intoxicants. While I want to trust that you won't get in your car while intoxicated, reality says you're probably going to plow into a bus full of children.

Correct. It's either for ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, or it's for nothing...or at least not for those things which are guaranteed (such as firearms).

I personally have a moral opposition to insurance of any kind, and refuse to participate in it. This forced me to sell my car and live without one, which I believe to be a violation of my basic rights. But since there is no enumerated guarantee to a vehicle or travel I have no legal standing to sue. The same is not true of firearms.

Having a guaranteed right to firearms (at both the state and federal level) no law can exclude me from this right, including those which would economically or religiously (now determined by SCOTUS to include any deeply held belief, such as mine) disenfranchise me.

Therefore the ONLY way such an idea is supportable is if the entire cost of participation be taken by the nation itself...ie socialized national insurance fully su ...


No, thats BS. You don't have to have insurance. You can "Self Insure". I mean, you may not be able to afford it, but that's on you. And SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd isn't absolute. Hence why you can't own a machine gun. If you commit a felony, you can't own a gun. It isn't absolute.

And war? LOL. You'll end up getting shot by Federal Agents.If you think Clive Bundy won, think again. The Government is waiting until after the elections, and then will drop on him like a Waco twister.

He's living on borrowed time.
 
2014-08-07 07:55:26 PM  

Publikwerks: And war? LOL. You'll end up getting shot by Federal Agents.If you think Clive Bundy won, think again. The Government is waiting until after the elections, and then will drop on him like a Waco twister.


There, that will be the hook.  The conservative anti-gun movement's natrrative will start with by saying we need to ban X type of firearm (where X is some random characteristic that has nothing to do with the excuse) because of the standoff/shootout against the Agents of America by Clive Bundy and his gathering of socialists who tried to leech off of the government by force.
 
2014-08-07 08:05:52 PM  
Actually, if shiat hits the fan it won't look like Bundy at all. This place will look like Iraq.
 
2014-08-07 08:09:25 PM  

OregonVet: Actually, if shiat hits the fan it won't look like Bundy at all. This place will look like Iraq.


Go right ahead. Be my guest.
 
2014-08-07 08:29:13 PM  

Publikwerks: theprinceofwands: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Sergeant Grumbles: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: If, according to people that what gun control, the chance of me ever needing to use my gun to defend my self is miniscule, which means the chance of me hitting an innocent bystander is even more miniscule, why should I have to waste money on insurance?

Because despite your insistence that your gun won't cause any harm, we seem to have something of a problem with guns that do cause harm, be it accidents or intentional misuse (school shootings, etc.). I would like to trust you, but reality says that isn't always going to be possible. If the miniscule possibility does come to pass where your gun causes harm, I want you to be the one to pay for it, be it through your policy or fines for failing to insure yourself properly, and for financial incentives to exist that promote your safe conduct.

Then let's require insurance for buying alcohol and and intoxicants. While I want to trust that you won't get in your car while intoxicated, reality says you're probably going to plow into a bus full of children.

Correct. It's either for ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, or it's for nothing...or at least not for those things which are guaranteed (such as firearms).

I personally have a moral opposition to insurance of any kind, and refuse to participate in it. This forced me to sell my car and live without one, which I believe to be a violation of my basic rights. But since there is no enumerated guarantee to a vehicle or travel I have no legal standing to sue. The same is not true of firearms.

Having a guaranteed right to firearms (at both the state and federal level) no law can exclude me from this right, including those which would economically or religiously (now determined by SCOTUS to include any deeply held belief, such as mine) disenfranchise me.

Therefore the ONLY way such an idea is supportable is if the entire cost of participation be taken by the nation itself...ie socialized national ...


Publikwerks: No, thats BS. You don't have to have insurance. You can "Self Insure". I mean, you may not be able to afford it, but that's on you. And SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd isn't absolute. Hence why you can't own a machine gun. If you commit a felony, you can't own a gun. It isn't absolute.

And war? LOL. You'll end up getting shot by Federal Agents.If you think Clive Bundy won, think again. The Government is waiting until after the elections, and then will drop on him like a Waco twister.

He's living on borrowed time.


Requiring something many/most can't afford (like the $60,000 bond option on vehicles in lieu of insurance) is economic disenfranchisement, and a violation of the 14th Amendment. Except that driving is currently considered a privilege, not a right. With firearms that's not the case.

I can own a machine gun, if I jump the hoops. However the whole NFA violation is a separate issue. It IS absolute unless you surrender your rights through negative action (such as the felony). Even then you can fight for reinstatement. While somewhat abusive, it's a semi-reasonable compromise. Imposing a requirement that some cannot meet financially (through no fault or option of their own), or morally (through right of protected beliefs) would be a direct violation and wouldn't stand scrutiny.

I didn't say I'd win, but trample my rights and I WILL fight to the death to correct the abuse, using every ounce of knowledge and skill gained through my military service and professional training. I'd certainly lose, but the death toll and infrastructure toll would be enormous, I guarantee it. As would the further erosion of popular support for the government. Just a twig, but with enough of them they can dam the mightiest river, or break any back burdened to carry them.
 
2014-08-07 08:32:39 PM  

Publikwerks: OregonVet: Actually, if shiat hits the fan it won't look like Bundy at all. This place will look like Iraq.

Go right ahead. Be my guest.


Having served in the military during a war let me assure you: YOU DO NOT WANT THAT ON YOUR STREETS.

No matter how careful people tried to be civilian damage would be astronomical. It's a type of terror and sickness you don't even want to imagine.

Believe me when I tell you not to push people over the line that forces them to that.
 
2014-08-07 08:33:19 PM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Then let's require insurance for buying alcohol and and intoxicants. While I want to trust that you won't get in your car while intoxicated, reality says you're probably going to plow into a bus full of children.


That would suggest we don't already have plenty of rules in place for how to handle alcohol and other intoxicants, including what to do about intoxicated drivers. I'm not sure why you're under the impression we're so trusting of alcoholics, and I can think of a few methods of dealing with the problem quite a bit more heavy-handed than any gun legislation I can think of.
 
2014-08-07 08:40:45 PM  

theprinceofwands: Requiring something many/most can't afford (like the $60,000 bond option on vehicles in lieu of insurance) is economic disenfranchisement, and a violation of the 14th Amendment. Except that driving is currently considered a privilege, not a right. With firearms that's not the case.

I can own a machine gun, if I jump the hoops. However the whole NFA violation is a separate issue. It IS absolute unless you surrender your rights through negative action (such as the felony). Even then you can fight for reinstatement. While somewhat abusive, it's a semi-reasonable compromise. Imposing a requirement that some cannot meet financially (through no fault or option of their own), or morally (through right of protected beliefs) would be a direct violation and wouldn't stand scrutiny.

I didn't say I'd win, but trample my rights and I WILL fight to the death to correct the abuse, using every ounce of knowledge and skill gained through my military service and professional training. I'd certainly lose, but the death toll and infrastructure toll would be enormous, I guarantee it. As would the further erosion of popular support for the government. Just a twig, but with enough of them they can dam the mightiest river, or break any back burdened to carry them.


On your second paragraph, you admit, there are compromises. Your right isn't absolute. And you can morally object to insurance, but that doesn't matter.  Alot of people are morally against taxes, but they still have to pay them. The Hobby Lobby decisions was dumb, and it will go to the SCOTUS.

Anywho, my biggest problem is the whole "I'm gonna fight the feds with violence". Not only are you going against pepople who are just doing their job, you doing it the completely wrong way. A good example is Ruby Ridge. He fought the feds, and they started killing his family. He put his gun, and fought back the RIGHT WAY, taking the feds to court. And he won.

That's how you do it. That's how you make a difference. You kill federal agents, well, you lose you're most valuable weapon, the public. Then they won't care, and the Feds will Waco your ass, and no one will care enough to say why.
 
2014-08-07 08:53:19 PM  

theprinceofwands: Publikwerks: OregonVet: Actually, if shiat hits the fan it won't look like Bundy at all. This place will look like Iraq.

Go right ahead. Be my guest.

Having served in the military during a war let me assure you: YOU DO NOT WANT THAT ON YOUR STREETS.

No matter how careful people tried to be civilian damage would be astronomical. It's a type of terror and sickness you don't even want to imagine.

Believe me when I tell you not to push people over the line that forces them to that.


First off, I don't want Iraq, but I don't think it goes that far. You'll end up with A TON of protesters, but actual violence would be limited.
Because only a very small minority would take up weapons. The pro-business side of the GOP/ Fox News would decry the bans, make fun of whoever passed it, but it would not endorse civil disobedience because that's bad for the bottom line. So they'll channel that rage/whatever at protests and donations to PACs, ect. They'll use it to their advantage.

So when I say Bring it on, it because I think the threat of it is overblown.

But, if it did happen, that would suck. But then the gloves would come off. Let me ask you this: Do people remeber what McVeigh's beef was?
NOPE. They cheered when he died.

 You kill innocent people, you lose.

Government could start using everything on you. Drones. A-10s. You think your AR-15 is gonna scare a hellfire missle? NOPE. But most sane people know this. You can't beat the government through force.
 
2014-08-07 08:54:38 PM  

Publikwerks: theprinceofwands: Requiring something many/most can't afford (like the $60,000 bond option on vehicles in lieu of insurance) is economic disenfranchisement, and a violation of the 14th Amendment. Except that driving is currently considered a privilege, not a right. With firearms that's not the case.

I can own a machine gun, if I jump the hoops. However the whole NFA violation is a separate issue. It IS absolute unless you surrender your rights through negative action (such as the felony). Even then you can fight for reinstatement. While somewhat abusive, it's a semi-reasonable compromise. Imposing a requirement that some cannot meet financially (through no fault or option of their own), or morally (through right of protected beliefs) would be a direct violation and wouldn't stand scrutiny.

I didn't say I'd win, but trample my rights and I WILL fight to the death to correct the abuse, using every ounce of knowledge and skill gained through my military service and professional training. I'd certainly lose, but the death toll and infrastructure toll would be enormous, I guarantee it. As would the further erosion of popular support for the government. Just a twig, but with enough of them they can dam the mightiest river, or break any back burdened to carry them.

On your second paragraph, you admit, there are compromises. Your right isn't absolute. And you can morally object to insurance, but that doesn't matter.  Alot of people are morally against taxes, but they still have to pay them. The Hobby Lobby decisions was dumb, and it will go to the SCOTUS.

Anywho, my biggest problem is the whole "I'm gonna fight the feds with violence". Not only are you going against pepople who are just doing their job, you doing it the completely wrong way. A good example is Ruby Ridge. He fought the feds, and they started killing his family. He put his gun, and fought back the RIGHT WAY, taking the feds to court. And he won.

That's how you do it. That's how you make a difference. You ...


The hobby lobby decision was dumb, though not for the reasons you're probably thinking. More foundational, however, the ACA/AHA is dumb, and unconstitutional despite what SCOTUS said. Mind you, I'm 100% behind nationalized/socialized health care...just not the way it was done (which was nothing but a fascist authoritarian power grab).

No, the courts have never been error proof, nor the final recourse of morality. Look at slavery, korematsu, eminent domain, etc. It's merely another branch of the fascist oligarchy now. Sure you try it, but in the end you stand on what is right, not what is law. To do less is tantamount to evil.

I swore an oath to defend the nation and constitution against all enemies - foreign and domestic. Any 'legal' attempts to remove guaranteed rights of citizens names you, by definition, a domestic enemy. Of course I'll try reason first, and the courts...but I think it's vital that people understand that in the end we will not compromise our most sacred and deeply held beliefs. If we're left with no other alternative, we will fight to the bitter end, no matter the cost.

Guess what? The Nazi's were just 'doing their jobs'. Problem is, if your job is evil, and you do it, then YOU become evil. You are responsible for your actions, same as me. When I was ordered to do things I believed unlawful or immoral, I refused. I faced the consequences, but I made a choice. If a law enforcement officer doesn't believe in dying over a bad law, they can refuse to fight. They can find another job. They can join the revolution. They can move. They have nearly limitless options. If their CHOICE is to try and remove my rights & freedoms, then I will kill them, as many as I can at least, and I'd calmly eat fajitas over their smoking corpses should I prevail. I'd do it all with a clear conscience as well. I don't WANT to, but I assure you I'm capable of it and would if left no alternatives.
 
2014-08-07 08:59:40 PM  

Publikwerks: theprinceofwands: Publikwerks: OregonVet: Actually, if shiat hits the fan it won't look like Bundy at all. This place will look like Iraq.

Go right ahead. Be my guest.

Having served in the military during a war let me assure you: YOU DO NOT WANT THAT ON YOUR STREETS.

No matter how careful people tried to be civilian damage would be astronomical. It's a type of terror and sickness you don't even want to imagine.

Believe me when I tell you not to push people over the line that forces them to that.

First off, I don't want Iraq, but I don't think it goes that far. You'll end up with A TON of protesters, but actual violence would be limited.
Because only a very small minority would take up weapons. The pro-business side of the GOP/ Fox News would decry the bans, make fun of whoever passed it, but it would not endorse civil disobedience because that's bad for the bottom line. So they'll channel that rage/whatever at protests and donations to PACs, ect. They'll use it to their advantage.

So when I say Bring it on, it because I think the threat of it is overblown.

But, if it did happen, that would suck. But then the gloves would come off. Let me ask you this: Do people remeber what McVeigh's beef was?
NOPE. They cheered when he died.

 You kill innocent people, you lose.

Government could start using everything on you. Drones. A-10s. You think your AR-15 is gonna scare a hellfire missle? NOPE. But most sane people know this. You can't beat the government through force.


There's a big difference in firing missiles and dropping bombs in other countries and doing it over here. All those soldiers families are over here and in easy reach. Can't kill the Apache pilot that blew up your friends? His family will be the next best thing. The government can't protect all of those people. Of course, that's assuming the government can get the military to go along. Sure some of them will but, how many of them won't like it and maybe start funneling heavy weapons out.
 
2014-08-07 09:01:16 PM  

Publikwerks: theprinceofwands: Publikwerks: OregonVet: Actually, if shiat hits the fan it won't look like Bundy at all. This place will look like Iraq.

Go right ahead. Be my guest.

Having served in the military during a war let me assure you: YOU DO NOT WANT THAT ON YOUR STREETS.

No matter how careful people tried to be civilian damage would be astronomical. It's a type of terror and sickness you don't even want to imagine.

Believe me when I tell you not to push people over the line that forces them to that.

First off, I don't want Iraq, but I don't think it goes that far. You'll end up with A TON of protesters, but actual violence would be limited.
Because only a very small minority would take up weapons. The pro-business side of the GOP/ Fox News would decry the bans, make fun of whoever passed it, but it would not endorse civil disobedience because that's bad for the bottom line. So they'll channel that rage/whatever at protests and donations to PACs, ect. They'll use it to their advantage.

So when I say Bring it on, it because I think the threat of it is overblown.

But, if it did happen, that would suck. But then the gloves would come off. Let me ask you this: Do people remeber what McVeigh's beef was?
NOPE. They cheered when he died.

 You kill innocent people, you lose.

Government could start using everything on you. Drones. A-10s. You think your AR-15 is gonna scare a hellfire missle? NOPE. But most sane people know this. You can't beat the government through force.


Would never happen.

The moment a government deploys heavy against citizens the rest of the population (and in fact the entire world) turn against that government. It collapses the nation almost overnight. It would turn that handful of active resistance into an unbeatable army (which, let's remember, is compromised not just of neophytes and hippies but military, law enforcement, genius chemists, etc.

Infrastructure attacks would drop power, water, television, internet, ports, highways, etc. Companies backing the government would become targets of opportunity and lose their facilities, Wall street and banking would collapse. Worth would evaporate. Food production and distribution would essentially halt.

In essence if it ever comes to true revolution in this country it's over for everyone. Total, irrevocable collapse. The end result of that is that government loses and ceases to exist, even IF they somehow won the fighting (which isn't guaranteed with a potentially  large percentage of the military refusing to turn on its citizens). While I was in the military they asked us what our response would be in civil insurrection. 75% said they'd refuse to fight for the government. A third of those said they'd actively fight for the protesters.

Also, just to remind you: nobody said anything about 'killing innocents', though it would certainly happen. But anyone agreeing with, or seeking to enforce, immoral mandates of the government aren't innocent. They become equally culpable as those that give the orders, and are therefore valid enemy combatants...not innocents.
 
2014-08-07 09:02:28 PM  

dobro: 88% of those polled don't understand the second amendment. It says nothing about carrying in public, open or concealed, and only guarantees the right of ownership for the purposes of a "well regulated militia".


100% of this guy doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment, the Heller decision, or the English language.

+10 if you were trolling though
 
2014-08-07 09:08:30 PM  

theprinceofwands: The hobby lobby decision was dumb, though not for the reasons you're probably thinking. More foundational, however, the ACA/AHA is dumb, and unconstitutional despite what SCOTUS said. Mind you, I'm 100% behind nationalized/socialized health care...just not the way it was done (which was nothing but a fascist authoritarian power grab).

No, the courts have never been error proof, nor the final recourse of morality. Look at slavery, korematsu, eminent domain, etc. It's merely another branch of the fascist oligarchy now. Sure you try it, but in the end you stand on what is right, not what is law. To do less is tantamount to evil.

I swore an oath to defend the nation and constitution against all enemies - foreign and domestic. Any 'legal' attempts to remove guaranteed rights of citizens names you, by definition, a domestic enemy. Of course I'll try reason first, and the courts...but I think it's vital that people understand that in the end we will not compromise our most sacred and deeply held beliefs. If we're left with no other alternative, we will fight to the bitter end, no matter the cost.

Guess what? The Nazi's were just 'doing their jobs'. Problem is, if your job is evil, and you do it, then YOU become evil. You are responsible for your actions, same as me. When I was ordered to do things I believed unlawful or immoral, I refused. I faced the consequences, but I made a choice. If a law enforcement officer doesn't believe in dying over a bad law, they can refuse to fight. They can find another job. They can join the revolution. They can move. They have nearly limitless options. If their CHOICE is to try and remove my rights & freedoms, then I will kill them, as many as I can at least, and I'd calmly eat fajitas over their smoking corpses should I prevail. I'd do it all with a clear conscience as well. I don't WANT to, but I assure you I'm capable of it and would if left no alternatives.


My reasoning on Hobby Lobby being dumb - There are lots of times when the government makes people pay for things they find repugnant. Pacifists hate war, yet must pay for the DoD. Crisitan Scientists find modern medicine to be a sin, yet, they have to help fund the Department of Health. Or the Amish - to live and work in the community, they have to deal with compromises. And they do, they just try and keep it out of their personal lives. Anyway.

I agree with you that the ACA was the wrong way to go. Should have expanded Medicaid. Just increase the Medicare tax, and then funnel the money to the states, and allow them to expand their medcaid systems to cover everyone. The states could then work it out how they wanted to deal with it.

I like letting the states handle those type of things.

Now, I don't agree that the right to bear arms is sacred. I post earlier how it was, in my opinion, a hedge against the Feds banning slavery. They wanted to make sure they would have guns to fight the civil war(if it came to that...which it did).

Now, I like civil debate, so I going to throw a flag(watching preseason football) on you're post. Enacting gun controls is a far cry from being sent to a death camp and exterminated. So 10 yards for Godwining. First down.
 
Displayed 50 of 548 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report