Via the New York Times, here is the part of the transcript from last night’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas concerning gun control:
RUSSERT: We arrived in Nevada, the headline in Nevada Appeal newspaper: Nevada leads in gun deaths.
RUSSERT: The leading cause for death among young black men is guns — death, homicide. Mayor Bloomberg of New York, you all know him, he and 250 mayors have started the campaign, Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Senator Clinton, when you ran for the Senate in 2000, you said that everyone who wishes to purchase a gun should have a license, and that every handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry. Will you try to implement such a plan?
CLINTON: Well, I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people.
The law in New York was as you state, and the law in New York has worked to a great extent.
CLINTON: I don’t want the federal government preempting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems.
So here’s what I would do. We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions like the man in Virginia Tech who caused so much death and havoc. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented.
We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of.
And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they’re back on the streets.
So there are steps we need to take that we should do together. You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this.
RUSSERT: But you’ve backed off a national licensing registration plan?
CLINTON: Yes.
RUSSERT: Senator Obama, when you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
OBAMA: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what I do think we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. One good example — this is consistently blocked — the efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers.
That’s not something that the NRA has allowed to get through Congress. And, as president, I intend to make it happen.
But here’s the broader context that I think is important for us to remember. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership, that all of us saw, as we travel around rural parts of the country.
And it is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot.
And then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago.
We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, Democrats used to be out front for registration and licensing of guns. It now appears that there’s a recognition that it’s hard to win a national election with that position. Is that fair?
EDWARDS: I think that’s fair, but I haven’t changed my position on this. I’m against it. Having grown up where I did in the rural South, everyone around me had guns, everyone hunted. And I think it is enormously important to protect people’s Second Amendment rights.
I don’t believe that means you need an AK-47 to hunt. And I think the assault weapons ban, which Hillary spoke about just a minute ago, as president of the United States I’ll do everything in my power to reinstate it. But I do think we need a president who understands the sportsmen, hunters who use their guns for lawful purposes have a right to have their Second Amendment rights looked after.
So what Hillary and Barack are saying is that while they support licensing and registering all guns, they don’t think they can get it done but if they could, they would.
Hillary is flat out wrong when she states that police deaths are going up around the country “in large measure because the bad guys have assault weapons.” As the Miami Times (which I quoted on Monday) stated a few days ago, of the 69 police officers murdered with firearms last year, only one was killed by an “assault weapon.”
All three of them want the “assault weapons ban” act back in place with Edwards saying he doesn’t think we need an AK-47 to hunt. Well thank you very much but I think I have the right to decide for myself what I’ll hunt or sport shoot with. He goes on to state that he’ll do everything in his power to get the AWB reinstated. So does Clinton.
Compared to them, Obama almost sounded moderate, yet, he is on record as supporting a complete ban on semi-automatics by civilians.
Alphecca is, obviously, a “one issue” blog but that issue is gun rights and I think we can safely rule out any of these three (I know, you’re shocked — shocked!) as becoming our candidate of choice.
That leaves the Republicans, but only two of them: Fred Thompson and Ron Paul. Thompson needs a big win in South Carolina because while the race is wide open, Giuliani and Romney could pick up a lot of states on Super Tuesday. Paul? I just don’t see it happening, much as I like many of his ideas and a call to live strictly by the Constitution.
189 Responses to “Wolves in Sheeps’ Clothing”



on 16 Jan 2008 at 8:31 am # Lazarus Long
My, but those folks can dance.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 9:50 am # jack
“Reinstate”? You know what the sons of bitches have in mind. Jack.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 10:07 am # Tom
Can anyone explain what an “illegal gun” IS?
Is it a gun in the country without a visa? Is it a…well, that’s the only thing I can thing of.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 10:14 am # betsybounds
Well I’ve never understood why gun controllers want to emphasize preserving the right to hunt–it isn’t fooling anyone. True firearms enthusiasts aren’t worried that we’re going to lose our long guns or the right to go hunting. What we want to preserve is our right to defend ourselves and our families, and the plain fact is that that effectively requires handguns, and the semi-automatic models are best-suited for that task. In the only true test of whether we can rely on law enforcement to defend us, the courts have ruled that police departments cannot be sued for failure to provide citizens with protection. That’s the end of that debate, or should be. Case closed.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 10:18 am # BlogDog
Of course if Hillary had been talking to gun rights advocates she would have said, “No gun is illegal!”
on 16 Jan 2008 at 10:27 am # Michael F
If you have been around since the early 90’s, you know what the Democrats have in store for gun owners: stealth suppression of Second Amendment rights, by dividing hunters, sportsmen and other gun owners.
Mr. Thompson is the only candidate with strong support for the Second Amendment built into his conservative platform, and whose record has always indicated this support. I strongly urge gun owners to back Fred in his candidacy for President.
Thanks for the transcription of the three Democratic dissemblers.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 10:36 am # Just Some Guy
Betsybounds is right. Wouldn’t it be nice to see some citizen ask something like the following?
“I’d like to direct my question to Sen. Obama. Senator, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say anything about hunting. It talks about my right to own a gun with regard to a ‘militia’, which means the founding fathers saw the Constitutional right to bear arms in terms of military and defense. So why do you keep stressing gun ownership in terms of hunting and ignoring the fact that the reason most people own guns is to defend themselves, because our well-paid government isn’t up to the job?”
on 16 Jan 2008 at 11:09 am # M. Simon
If they wanted to reduce gun deaths why not eliminate Drug Prohibition? The elephant in the closet.
It worked for alcohol prohibition.
I note it is never mentioned by pro gun folks either.
Why is every one stuck on stupid? Must be a national disease.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 11:10 am # Mike
Lets see, a Democrat President and Deomcratic majorities in the House and Senate. Sounds to me like a recipe for disaster for gun owners. Although McCain and Rudy worry me almost as much. Obama is wrong too, when he says law enforcement can’t run firearm traces, as long as it pertains to an active criminal investigation. What law enforcement can’t do is engage in fishing expeditions. The registry Hillary wants already exists and Congress just passes and NRA supported bill to add mentally disqualified people to it. But I’ve never seen a liberal who lets the facts get in the way of what they want.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 11:17 am # Eric Scheie
I really shouldn’t say this, but my dark side is reminded of a 1990s VRWC slogan…. “If Vince Foster had had a gun, he’d be alive today.”
on 16 Jan 2008 at 11:20 am # anonymous
“CLINTON: Well, I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country.”
They’re not “illegal guns.” They’re “undocumented firearms.”
on 16 Jan 2008 at 11:42 am # anonymous
“Gun ownership should be safe, legal, and rare.”
“No gun should be an unwanted gun.”
“While I am personally opposed to personal firearms ownership, I would not restrict a woman’s right to choose whether or not to own and/or carry a gun for self protection.”
“Opponents of personal firearms ownership should not be allowed to force their personal beliefs upon others.”
“The ‘abstinence only’ approach to firearms safety education is foolish.”
“Hope is not a method.”
on 16 Jan 2008 at 11:45 am # Tom
M. Simon, I’ve said that before and stand against the drug laws as they are unconstitutional. If alcohol, a drug, needed an amendment, so too do drugs, AND all the agencies of the government meant to address them.
Of course, as you may know the recent DOJ argument essentially reads “just because it’s unconstitutional doesn’t mean we shouldn’t leave it as law since it benefits society” even if it only benefits the government’s power and wallet.
Nothing the government does is for the benefit of the citizen, it has changed it’s mission and nobody will do anything about it, as evidenced as the people who support the status quo in leadership and dismiss Dr Paul as having no chance. The only thing I’ll say is of course he has no chance when you will vote for a continuation of large, oppressive, intrusive, out of control government. You’re in such fear of foreigners that you support preemptive wars against anyone who says boo. The nanny state conditioning is working VERY well.
You are part of the problem with the government. If it’s ignorance it can be fixed, but you have to educate yourself. If it is fear, how will attacking more people with an overtaxed military help protect us when the government has no plans to do anything about protecting the nation where WE LIVE? If it is apathy, you have been in the drivers seat in getting us here.
Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 11:48 am # anonymous
“I’m not ‘pro-gun’. I’m ‘pro-choice’.”
on 16 Jan 2008 at 12:09 pm # john
huh,even new york(where i live)wasn’t too bad as far as what you could own until a RINO gov-pataki signed the assault weapon ban.Get the good stuff before november,cause it’s gonna be a rough ride!Also join NRA,GOA,JPFO and your state afiliate!
on 16 Jan 2008 at 12:22 pm # John C
Re: Obama’s state senate period, he didn’t just push for licensing/registration.
SB 1195 was a Daley bill that would have banned the sale, possession, AND manufacturing of ANY semi-automatic capable of firing more than five rounds. (goodbye Armalite, Springfield etc.) Simply possessing a magazine that held more than 5 rounds was a felony. You had ninety days to get your firearms out of the state or surrender them to the state.
At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill; Mr. Obama commented that “it sounds like confiscation to me”
And then he voted YES on it.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 12:31 pm # Pantera
I do wonder what hunting with an Ak-47 would be like. Probably not succesful, given the accuracy of the gun.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 12:35 pm # anon
Why can’t owning a gun be like owning a car?
Register it.
Pass a safety test.
Be issued a license.
We still have cars stolen.
We still have hit and runs.
We still have car-jackings.
But the manufacturers take responsibility for how their product gets to market, for the safe operation of their product, for the safety of their vehicles, and there are numerous products out there to help consumers prevent theft or track a missing vehicle through GPS, Lo-jack, etc. It would be nice if the distribution of guns had the same manufacturer responsibility.
2nd Amendment means a right to bear arms for the national defense. It does not mean a right to bear arms of any capability for your personal recreation. You want an F-16 on your ranch? How about a shoulder launched Stinger? Perhaps just an M1A2 tank? These aren’t meant for sport any more than a fully automatic rifle. You want to play with them? Join the f-ing Army!
on 16 Jan 2008 at 12:55 pm # Earl Harding
Anon,
I can buy the most powerful, fast car I want off a dealers lot, stick it on a trailer, take it home and drive like a maniac round the back fourty and I don’t have to pass a single stinking test or get a license to do it.
If I want to use it on a public highway the rules change.
So I guess you would like me to be able to buy the most powerful firearms I choose, take them home and use them on my back forty with no similar checks? Well, good on you!
Of course, if I wish to use my firearms on the publicly maintained ranges that abound in this country then maybe the car comparision you choose would apply.
But wait, I forgot, there are no public ranges round here dispite the fed taking 11% of firearms and ammunitions sales as tax to fund just such things as well as wildlife conservation.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 1:02 pm # Phil-z
I love how no one in the media points out the total ineffectivness of the the so called assault weapons ban. Other than a few cosmetic changes and a drastic price increase for the now collectable “pre-ban” models the AWB changed nothing and yet now that it’s expired supposedly the evil guns are back on the streets again. Nobody challenges this fantasy.
Hey anon, I’d like guns to be like cars too.
Anyone of any age can buy anything they want.
Anyone over 16 can pass an easy test and take it anywhere they want.
You’re responsible for what you do with the car, and no one sues the dealer who sold the car if you screw up with it.
Anyone else care to chime on this?
on 16 Jan 2008 at 1:03 pm # theirritablearchitect
Why isn’t it OK for someone in the audience to jump up and yell, “LIAR!” when the whores do their thing with the mic?
Calling out Shrillary about the, “Once again,” comment? Anyone who knows anything about the situation would know that even those guns that could have been labeled (and let’s face it, that’s ALL it was) as ‘assualt weapons’ before the “ban” were still around during the ban. They weren’t just rounded up and melted down. They didn’t just go ‘poof’ in the middle of the night. The semi-auto took a different look, and the new magazines were, of course, restricted in size, but as we all know, the existing ones were still legal and still out there. There wasn’t any ban of any real sort. What a liar.
And the BS emo-based crap, “the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people.”
Please, Bitch! Can it with the “VRWC” talk. Didn’t you learn anything the first time?
And that sack of shite Obama, “One good example — this is consistently blocked — the efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers.
That’s not something that the NRA has allowed to get through Congress. And, as president, I intend to make it happen.”
Lying bastard. But the proles just lap that shit up, and take it for the truth. Unbelievable.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 1:05 pm # anon
Earl,
You left out the part about how when you buy the most powerful car available, you purchase through a reputable dealer and fill out a ton of paperwork. Thanks for supporting my point - or at least part of it.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 1:08 pm # Phil-z
I can buy the most powerful car availible from my next door neighbor. Silly troll, back under the bridge with you!
on 16 Jan 2008 at 1:14 pm # anonymous
Why can’t owning a gun be like owning a car?
Register it.
Pass a safety test.
Be issued a license.
So a concealed weapons permit would cost $15 instead of several hundred, require only a simple test to obtain, and be good everywhere in the country.
16 year olds, and illegal aliens — er, “undocumented workers” — could obtain them, too(???).
You would be registered to vote when you apply for said concealed weapons permit (”Gun Owner Voter”). Or vice versa; get your gun license automatically when you register to vote (”Voter Gun Owner”).
Nor would there be any restrictions on inter-state sales of firearms. And gun shows would be as heavily regulated as car shows.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 1:33 pm # crotalus
Anon, I’m tired of that “cars & guns” canard.
In the first place, driving on public roads is licensed privilege for tax purposes to maintain the roads, and operating a motor vehicle is more complex, so a driver’s licence makes sense. But keeping and bearing arms is a constitutionally protected right, and any “common sense” gun control is a clearly unconstitutional infringement.
Another thing is that no one is trying to take your car from you, or denying your driver’s license without good reason (except for the greenfreaks). But governments at all levels are disarming their citizens to varying degrees, with no good reason. When they do give a reason, it’s so full of holes that few people actually believe it, and suspect that the gov’t wants a monopoy of force. I believe they do. Can’t have the serfs getting uppity and thinking they can have freedom, after all. BATFEces is busy yanking licenses of legitimate FFL’s based on stupid little paperwork errors that have nothing to do with actual criminal activity. They are doing it on purpose. They want to stop ALL gun sales in this country, no matter who is in power.
Last, none of these anti-gun laws do any good. The law-abiding are hamstrung and burdened unnecessarily, while the bad guys get what they want with little or no problem.
There is no real comparison between cars and guns. Give it up, anon!
on 16 Jan 2008 at 1:43 pm # crotalus
Anon, you nitwit! The paperwork is a sales agreement between the seller and buyer! It has nothing to do with having to register your car! That’s actually quitee simple. But when you DO register your car, you don’t risk having it taken, by force if necessary, by the thugs-in-uniformwhen the thugs-in-power pass a ban. You DO face that risk with gour guns. That actually happened in the People’s Progressive Demokratik Republik of Kalifornia.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 1:45 pm # crotalus
*sigh*
That would be “quite”, not “quitee”, separate “uniform” and “when”, and “your”, not “gour”.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 1:45 pm # CaptDMO
Anon said-
“2nd Amendment means a right to bear arms for the national defense.”
Please educate me as to where this particular narrow “interpretation” is supported by ANY of the esteemed crafters and signatories to the above mentioned National Document.
Otherwise, go home from us in peace.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 1:50 pm # anon
Phil-z
Even in a private sale, you’d still have to transfer title of ownership with the state, right? Or you’d risk your neighbor being able to call the police and say you stole it if y’all had a falling out.
Any of you who think 2nd Amendment is preventing our government from taking power are
1) Conspiracy nutjobs
2) Not paying attention
3) Do you really think even a million gun owners with assault rifles could stand up to the government if it had the backing of the United States military? Best thing you can do is raise kids who will join the military or government to guarantee civil control is never ceded and that the US military is never used within the homeland on its own citizens.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 2:02 pm # The Ace
Why can’t owning a gun be like owning a car?
Register it.
Pass a safety test.
Be issued a license.
Because you don’t have a 2nd Amendment right to drive a car.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 2:03 pm # MAJ Mike
I expect “illegal guns” might include sawed-off shot guns, fully-automatic weapons owned by people without the proper Federal permits, etc.
Otherwise, its not the guns that are illegal, its the shooter who is illegal. Do we blame the pencil when the author engages in libel? Do we outlaw the vehicle when the driver has a moving violation?
Sorry. I’m not smart enourh to understand.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 2:05 pm # The Ace
But the manufacturers take responsibility for how their product gets to market
So do gun manufactuers
for the safe operation of their product
How do car manufacturers do this, exactly? And, when say a drunk drive plows into a family and kills several children, when, at any point, is say GM responsible? (Hint: never)
It would be nice if the distribution of guns had the same manufacturer responsibility.
Proving you don’t own a firearm. (Note: gun locks are sold with handgun purchases in VA for example).
on 16 Jan 2008 at 2:24 pm # Texas Shooter
Anon, do your homework!
The Founding Fathers are QUITE CLEAR on the right to Keep & Bear Arms.
http://www.vtgunsmiths.com/arms/ffquote.html
“Do you really think even a million gun owners with assault rifles could stand up to the government if it had the backing of the United States military? Best thing you can do is raise kids who will join the military or government to guarantee civil control is never ceded and that the US military is never used within the homeland on its own citizens.”
How about 60 Million gun owners? Never underestimate the power of armed Resistance Fighters, i.e France during WWII, and Afghanistan.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 3:03 pm # theirritablearchitect
anon 1:50,
I’m sure we’ll find you when the time comes.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 3:10 pm # Drew458
I don’t like the mindset behind these DNC candidate’s statements. They are not pro-gun. No surprise there. But I don’t think most of the GOP candidates are either. But it looks like most of them are aware that taking an anti-gun stance while campaigning is a bad thing. So they’re sort of hiding their views for now, or only lightly talking about them when specifically asked?
Gun owners are almost a third of the population, and 99+% of us are fully law abiding folks. Yet somehow we’ve been marginalized and people are afraid of us. This is wrong.
Oh, and Jeff, if this is your first Insta-lanch, then congrats are in order. Hope your server doesn’t burn up.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 3:12 pm # Tom
adouch said: “3) Do you really think even a million gun owners with assault rifles could stand up to the government if it had the backing of the United States military? Best thing you can do is raise kids who will join the military or government to guarantee civil control is never ceded and that the US military is never used within the homeland on its own citizens.”
How large is our Military…and how many of them our HERE? Hell, even throw in the other standing army, the police. Now toss in some “insurgent tactics” and the answer is possibly, after all a bunch of people in Iraq can do it pretty well. Add to that the fact that at least SOME of the military/police will side with the gun owning good guys.
As for the illegal guns MAJ mike, they’re not illegal guns, they’re guns that have been demonized and (unconstitutionally) taxed and regulated. If someone had presented evidence in the Miller case….Ya know, I’d even pony up a $200 tax on an auto if the prices were along the lines of what they were before the ban on new stuff that was probably just an investment scheme for some insiders who liked guns.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 3:25 pm # connertown
Anon:
“Any of you who think 2nd Amendment is preventing our government from taking power are
1) Conspiracy nutjobs
2) Not paying attention
3) Do you really think even a million gun owners with assault rifles could stand up to the government if it had the backing of the United States military? Best thing you can do is raise kids who will join the military or government to guarantee civil control is never ceded and that the US military is never used within the homeland on its own citizens. ”
This is the weakest set of statements made yet. You should be ashamed. All three are false.
In regards to the last one, I agree with Texas Shooter that there are plenty more than one million. Furthermore, I would place my bet on the gun owners. The proposition you suggest is exactly the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Specifically, from the Declaration of Independence:
“when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
on 16 Jan 2008 at 3:31 pm # anon
As Dr. Paul quoted: When fascism comes to America, it’ll be wrapped in a flag and holding a cross.
Meaning having the most guns won’t save us.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 3:41 pm # connertown
anon -
So you’re a Ron Paul fan?
How dare you refer to anyone else as a nutjob.
You’re now telling us you honestly fear a fascist takeover by Christian patriots? Or I suppose it’s already happened.
For the love of God…
I think we’re done here - no rebuttal needed.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 3:51 pm # The Ace
“Any of you who think 2nd Amendment is preventing our government from taking power are
2) Not paying attention
Uh, to what?
Do you really think even a million gun owners with assault rifles could stand up to the government if it had the backing of the United States military?
Well, assuming members of the military would fire on their own civilians, considering they’d be outnumbered roughly 50 to 1, to a large degree, yes.
Now what exactly would happen (or how), we do not know. But it certainly wouldn’t be any sort of cakewalk. As the “insurgents” in Iraq have demonstrated.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 4:21 pm # Bruce
This whole “hunting” thing is nothing but a scam. I don’t know the stats, but I’d be willing to bet the vast majority of gun owners in this country NEVER go hunting. And the commenter who said we’re not afraid of losing our right to hunt is dead wrong - the enviro-wackos have in many places interfered with legal hunting and they have supporters in liberal dem political circles.
These cretins mean - by any means necessary(including nefarious) - to remove ALL guns from the American public. The recent bill judging servicemen who might have suffered trauma in combat as having a mental condition that should deny them the right to EVER own a firearm is a case in point.
That is step one. Re-instituting the “assault weapons” (i.e. weapons we don’t like the _looks_ of) ban is step two. Division of long gun (hunting) enthusiasts from handgun (those self defense nuts!) will be step three.
Step four will be … “Second Amendment? WHAT Second Amendment?”
on 16 Jan 2008 at 5:51 pm # Will
There’s actually a third candidate with rock-solid 2nd Amendment credentials: Mike Huckabee. I know you might not be a big fan of his, but if you are only looking at one issue, it’d be hard to count him out.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 5:51 pm # Will
There’s actually a third candidate with rock-solid 2nd Amendment credentials: Mike Huckabee. I know you might not be a big fan of his, but if you are only looking at one issue, it’d be hard to count him out.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 8:55 pm # Mister Guy
I’m at a loss as to how we’re going to get all the “illegal guns” off the street. Who is in favor of illegal guns anyway?
None of what these Dems had to say seemed unreasonable at all to me. Quite the opposite really…they are obviously compromising right from the get-go on what most of them would like to do on this issue of gun control. The NRA does not have the interests of all Americans in their hearts. The registry that Hillary mentioned is not being *enforced* right now.
The 2nd Amendment allows for all of us to be part of a well-regulated militia to defend the USA. That does mean that you don’t have a right to own and use guns…it just means that you don’t have a Constitutional right to own and use guns for whatever you want to. There’s a difference.
There’s a much higher likelihood that you’ll be killed or hurt by someone with a gun that you know than by stranger with a gun. If you think a few guns are going to protect you from your democratically-elected govt. and it’s military, you are sadly mistaken IMO.
Giuliani is in trouble. He still looks pretty good in states like CA, NY, NJ, and CT (where there are a lot of delegates at stake), but he’s in trouble almost everywhere else between now and Super Tuesday. The GOP race is a mess…
on 16 Jan 2008 at 10:06 pm # Xrlq
Nah, that leaves any of the Republicans in the race, at least when the general election rolls around. If gun control were the only issue that mattered, Huckabee would be among the best of the best, and McCain would be a close second. Both would easily best Paul, who voted against the much needed federal ban on reckless lawsuits against the gun industry. Even Romney and Guiliani, for all their faults, would be preferable to any of the Democrats left in the race following Richardson’s departure. At least those two give lip service to the fact that their past views on gun control were wrong, as opposed to merely unworkable politically.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 10:09 pm # Xrlq
FYI, your system clock is off by an hour. Have you moved to New Brunswick, or did you forget to fall back? I’m posting this comment at 9:09 EST.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 10:09 pm # Tony
Anon,
I don’t know about you. But, in my High-school drivers Ed.
I was informed by my instructor,repeatidly, that driving
was a “Privilege,not a Right”.
Tony
on 16 Jan 2008 at 10:37 pm # Tom
wow, the trolls are pouring in…they haven’t compromised ANYTHING guy.
Just who IS the militia guy?
Why not spend some time actually reading instead of trolling. Dealing with your pathetic age old arguments that have been filled with more holes than cheese time and time again is too much effort. Even a simple copy and paste is beyond the effort I’ll waste on you.
xrlq, Paul has introduced more pro-gun bills and never voted FOR anti-freedom gun control bills then the rest of them combined. The fact that he voted against one bill must have some reason, I doubt it was because he wants judges to put manufacturers out of business.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 10:38 pm # Xrlq
Tony, I don’t know about you, but my knowledge of the law has fuck-all to do with what any of my high school teachers, least of all my drivers ed teacher, said. The easiest way to bomb the Multistate Bar Exam is to choose any answer that depends on whether anything is a “privilege” or a “right.”
on 16 Jan 2008 at 10:41 pm # Xrlq
Tom, I couldn’t care less how many go-nowhere bills Rong Paul has introduced. How many has he gotten past? Any at all?
Sure, the fact that he voted against one particular bill - which, no thanks to him, passed overwhelmingly - certainly has “a reason.” Everything has “a reason.” So friggin’ what?
on 16 Jan 2008 at 11:05 pm # Tom
Gee, since we have republicans on record saying they support gun control, and we have dems that will serve it up to them, and we have dems that are anti gun likely to get in I think that his introduced legislation to REPEAL gun laws shouts out “don’t bother” it’s not getting signed. His lack of support is more damning of his fellow congress critters and their contempt for our rights then his failure.
Hey, at this point it’s all academic arguments. The ships going down no matter who’s at the helm, so vote mickey mouse’s crab lice for all I care.
on 16 Jan 2008 at 11:15 pm # theirritablearchitect
“None of what these Dems had to say seemed unreasonable at all to me.”
Does that mean that you have every American’s interest at heart, as you claim the NRA doesn’t?
You just don’t like guns and won’t admit it, coward.
Your crap has been clearly cut through elsewhere in the blogosphere over the last 7 or 8 years, and NOTHING about what you posted is true.
Get the hell out of here!
on 17 Jan 2008 at 1:28 am # Mister Guy
Well, I think it’s a safe bet that the militia isn’t you…unless you’re in the National Guard IMO.
I’m biased about whether the Dems and I have America’s interests at heart, since I’m a Dem. I had a feeling I’d get that kind of response from you guys.
So much for a rational discussion…you guys only up your “gun nut” street cred when you act like you do here IMO. You’re losing your own arguments.
Is the national registry being enforced now? No, look what happened at Virginia Tech. Vermont doesn’t even turn in names to it I don’t think.
I don’t own a gun, never fired a gun, and I hope I never will have to use a gun in my life. Guns kill things…unless you’re shooting at targets (and then what’s the real point?). If you want to hunt with a gun, great. If you want to keep one under your pillow at night because you fear the boogyman (who doesn’t exist BTW), fantastic. If you’re in a position in a military service, police service, or security service, lock and load.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 6:50 am # SDN
Except that the militia is me. Even the US Code Section 10 admits that I am a member of the unorganized militia, as opposed to the “organized militia”, the National Guard. Liberals, ignorant as always.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 7:46 am # Broadsword
Mr. Guy, An individual addicted to meth, who hasn’t slept in six days, whose paranoia makes the 9-11 Truther’s seem like students of the School of Plato breaks into you house at 2:45AM, for whatever unreason. He has a sharpened croquet mallet, a machete, a small .38 pistol and, because of his drug crazed paranoia, murderous intent. Your seven year old daughter is screaming in fear. He is battering away at the hollow core door behind which you, your wife, your daughter, and your cell phone have taken refuge. Your dog who woke you up when he broke through the patio glass door has been hacked to pieces, and the yelping will haunt you for weeks, if not months, though maybe not at all, if the police don’t arrive before the door fails. I hope you have a firearm under the pillow.
Yes, yes, yes…I can sense the denial from here. If the probablility of such an attack were zero, then defenselessness is irrlevant. But who is resonsible for your safety? Police suppress, not prevent crime. If you were killed, would you be just “things”?
on 17 Jan 2008 at 10:04 am # self-defender
mister guy said:
“I don’t own a gun, never fired a gun, and I hope I never will have to use a gun in my life. Guns kill things…unless you’re shooting at targets (and then what’s the real point?). If you want to hunt with a gun, great. If you want to keep one under your pillow at night because you fear the boogyman (who doesn’t exist BTW), fantastic. If you’re in a position in a military service, police service, or security service, lock and load. ”
How about you put a big sign on the front of your house/appartment that says, “no guns in this house” ?
If you don’t have the guts to do that, then maybe you should be thankful for your gun owning neighbor’s right to bare arms.
Remember, your gun owning neighbor has a better chance of protecting you than the cops do. If you don’t like or ever want to even touch a gun, fine.
I think that if you ever get a gun pointed in your face by an armed assailant and/or experience the helplessness of yourself or more importantly, someone you love, get shot or stabbed and left for dead right before your eyes, you may change your mind.
Home invasions happen. Carjackings happen, Muggings happen.
I choose to never be a victim again.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 11:30 am # ak
Hey anon….
Militia supply individual weapons…like rifles, pistols, etc. The state provides crew served weapons as in the day, artillery, or today, F-16’s. There’s the difference if you have the IQ to divine it out. ONLY loons like you make the ‘Stinger missile, M1 Abrams’ argument. And I spent 24 years active duty…so please don’t presume to tell me anything about service and rights.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 1:16 pm # doug in colorado
Actually, the other thing you don’t see in the screwy parallel between guns and cars, is that when some drunk hits and kills a pedestrian you don’t see the presstards and libtards screaming that all cars must be banned.
And as to the “point of shooting at targets”, it’s so you’ll be able to hit the badguy when he tries to come at you.
Ban guns and you just made women an inferior social class, largely incapable of defending themselves against larger, stronger males. Not for nothing was the pistol referred to as the Equalizer.
“Be Not Afraid Of Any Man No Matter What His Size.
When Danger Threatens Call On Me And I Will Equalize.”
on 17 Jan 2008 at 1:54 pm # Mister Guy
“Even the US Code Section 10 admits that I am a member of the unorganized militia, as opposed to the ‘organized militia’, the National Guard.”
I’ve heard a few guys in VT use the term “unorganized militia” before. I’m searching through U.S. Code TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10.html), and I haven’t found that citation yet. Can you show me where you think it is?
“If the probablility of such an attack were zero…”
You just answered your own question, and I think you know it. I do not live in fear. A lot of conservatives, IMO, do, which is sad. The “badguy” is not coming to get you. Ever hear of self-defense classes for women?
“How about you put a big sign on the front of your house/appartment that says, ‘no guns in this house’?”
Firearms are actually already forbidden from my apartment building…it’s in the lease. We have a high-tech locking system with a fair amount of cameras around. No security system is foolproof though…even the White House has break-ins.
“if you ever get a gun pointed in your face by an armed assailant…”
Then I’m going to say, “Don’t do me any favors, dude.” I’m not afriad to die. Nothing happens when you die IMO, so why be afraid of nothing? I’m sorry that you’ve apparently been a victim before.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 5:52 pm # self-defender
“I’ve heard a few guys in VT use the term “unorganized militia” before. I’m searching through U.S. Code TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10.html), and I haven’t found that citation yet. Can you show me where you think it is?
You didn’t look far enough. title 10, sub-title a, part 1, chapter 13, section 311:
“Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/i/chapters/13/sections/section_311.html
“Firearms are actually already forbidden from my apartment building…it’s in the lease. We have a high-tech locking system with a fair amount of cameras around. No security system is foolproof though…even the White House has break-ins.”
Then you’ll have no problem putting that sign in your window. I’m sure that a home invader will follow that rule about firearms being forbidden in your appartment building.
Why do I get the feeling that your “appartment building” is really a “college dormitory”.
“Then I’m going to say, “Don’t do me any favors, dude.” I’m not afriad to die.”
Well good on you! I’m not afraid to die either; but I’ll be damned if I’ll gonna let someone else dictate how long I have on this Earth and the quality of life I have if I can help it. Maybe he won’t do you any favors, dude, and puts a bullet through your stomach, severs your spine, and you’re a parapalegic for the rest of your life. Dude.
I’m sorry that you apparently value your life so little.
Live a little life on your own kiddo, come back in 20 years of living in the real world and tell us how you feel.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 6:07 pm # straightarrow
Mister Guy is not I think, a mister. He is Serf Guy or at least he wants to be.
His cowardice does not let him face the truth, his ego does not let him admit his inferiority to men who would live free and provide the same for their loved ones.
He has stated he will not. I certainly hope he has no loved ones. Then there will be no one other than himself and his country he can betray with his moral cowardice. No woman to rely upon him, no children to look to him for protection and security, because he will not be there. He has said so.
He stated he would rather die than defend anything or anyone. I hope he does so alone and is not the cause of the demise of any innocents.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 7:00 pm # Circle of Owls
Here is a link to the definition of the Unorganized Militia:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=unorganized%20militia&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311—-000-.html
“The “badguy” is not coming to get you.” ???
Surely you are not saying that assaults and rapes do not occur? How is this not an example of “The bad guy coming to get you”?
“Firearms are actually already forbidden from my apartment building”
I can assure you that your neighbors, never the less, do have firearms, and are still more likely than the police to protect you.
“I’m not afriad to die” - Great. Please go back up and read Broadswords scenario. So you are going to stand in the corner while the crazed addict is brutally raping your 7 year old daughter and proudly proclaim “I’m not afraid to die”? You think that these things don’t happen? Tell that to the next Police officer that you meet; should give them a good laugh. Or maybe you should attend one of the Women’s self-defense classes that you mentioned. Most of them have been victims of these scenarios; I know, I’ve helped teach these classes.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 9:20 pm # Mister Guy
I got to U.S. Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311 later today. Thanx for the links though. I’m no lawyer, but my preliminary interpretation of this is that you’re a member of the militia if your are in the National Guard or if you’ve previously been in the military (or reserves) and are under the age of 64. I still have some more reading to go though.
Your attempts at ridiculing me simply because you don’t like what I have to say are funny otherwise.
I’ve been living in this world for 36 years now…my “inferiority” to you loons…lol…that’s real funny. Because I am not afraid to die does not mean that I am afraid to fight for my own life or the lives of my freinds and family…far from it actually.
Killing is wrong. World peace starts with you my friends. Start living it and it will be someday. You all overblow the threats that you face…because you let yourselves be afraid. Be afraid…be very afraid…that way, you are that much easier to be controlled.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 10:13 pm # Tom
Look how well that whole “peace” thing is working out in Israel. They give up land to appease the lunatics and they’re killed. They remove guns and get suicide bombing.
It’s on thing to be a pacifist but to inflict that on others is immoral and the sign of either someone insecure and afraid of true freedom, mentally ill, or living in denial.
Thanks for the lecture captain holier than thou. Don’t you have some section 8 housing to get back to?
on 17 Jan 2008 at 10:37 pm # Daniel
Mister Guy said, “I’m no lawyer, but ”
Sanctimonious. Condescending. Put off. Arrogant. Self-centered.
I’m no English Major, but I play one on the internet.
Shove off, s***cart. You’re loaded.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 10:47 pm # Robert
On a somewhat related note. I have two simple questions to ask. It’s just an experiment. On the pharyngula blog, I asked these same questions to some of the commenters and none of them answered them. In fact a poster named “truth machine” was unable or unwilling to answer such easy questions.
The questions are as follows:
“How does a Nation-State impose its will on ‘its’ people?”
“What is meant by the term, ‘last argument of kings’?”
on 17 Jan 2008 at 11:03 pm # theirritablearchitect
Guy,
By the time it makes any difference, you aren’t going to be around.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 11:04 pm # theirritablearchitect
“Killing is wrong.”
Not always.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 11:05 pm # theirritablearchitect
“World peace starts with you my friends. Start living it and it will be someday.”
Fluffy bunnies and rainbows.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 11:06 pm # theirritablearchitect
The bogeyman doesn’t exist, huh?
Guess he’s not watching the news, AT ALL!
on 17 Jan 2008 at 11:17 pm # Mister Guy
Last time I checked Israel hasn’t given up any land yet…it’s still all being occupied or bombed most of the time. I’ve never heard of someone “inflicting” pacifism on anyone…that’s a new one on me. I’m not a pacifist…in a perfect world I would be, but the world isn’t perfect yet.
No room for honest debate here huh? You’re all right because you say you are…it’s simple I guess…
This country (”Nation-State”) has no will be those of it’s people I think. The “last argument of kings” thing sounds Biblical to me. I think it’s something about the the last defence against tyranny is the law or something about the end of days…
on 17 Jan 2008 at 11:29 pm # Robert
To mister guy:
Your pacifist ideas are based on superstition. Humans are animals and are NOT EXEMPT from the same laws of survival that govern other animals. If an aggressor tries to kill you or your offspring and you don’t kill him first, you and your offspring will be selected out of the gene-pool. Haven’t you paid attention to the real world. Even worse, you advocate the initiation of violence by the minions of the State against gun owners who never initiated violence. You advocated starting a war.
That makes you a PHONY “pacifist”. Al-Capone didn’t really kill his victims himself, he killed them by using proxies just as you recommend.
on 17 Jan 2008 at 11:33 pm # Robert
mister guy said:
“This country (”Nation-State”) has no will be those of it’s people I think. The “last argument of kings” thing sounds Biblical to me. I think it’s something about the the last defence against tyranny is the law or something about the end of days… ”
Thank you for displaying your ignorance. Can others on this blog care to educate him? By answering my two questions, perhaps?
on 17 Jan 2008 at 11:55 pm # Mister Guy
I do not believe that the nature of man is bad…I believe that it is good. I do think that a lot of “conservatives” in this country agree with you…that the nature of man is essentially bad, therefore we can’t trust individuals or groups of individual (acting through a democratic govt. or not) to do good things…we must fear them and act accordingly. Humans are not animals IMO…look around you and see…
“you advocate the initiation of violence by the minions of the State against gun owners who never initiated violence. You advocated starting a war.”
When did I do that?? Do you know what violence is? The idea that there would be a “war” if we enacted commense sense gun control is this country (allowing Americans to hunt, have a gun for protection, and serve in a military, police, or security service) is silly. What else do you people want when it comes to gun ownership?
You don’t believe that our govt. is of, by, and for the people?! What is it then? Why ask questions when you apparently already know the answers? Who’s wasting whos time here?
on 18 Jan 2008 at 12:24 am # Robert
Mister guy said:
“I do not believe that the nature of man is bad…I believe that it is good.”
Define “bad”, define “good”. Remember, I didn’t mention those terms. I mentioned “laws of survival”. As in, evolution by natural selection, a theory currently supported by current scientific data.
Mister guy said:
“Humans are not animals”
So what is the Human then if it isn’t an animal? Minerals? Plants? Protists? Fungi? Eubacteria? Archea? Sentient Robots? Neutron Star Matter? Magical Beings created by Kent Hovind’s idea of God?
Mister guy said:
“You don’t believe that our govt. is of, by, and for the people?! What is it then? Why ask questions when you apparently already know the answers? Who’s wasting whos time here?”
First, you have to know the correct answers to these two questions:
“How does a Nation-State impose its will on ‘its’ people?”
“What is meant by the term, ‘last argument of kings’?”
Perhaps my fellow individualists will answer them for your own education.
Mister guy said:
“Do you know what violence is?”
Violence: Exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse.
Initiating Violence: Unprovoked exertion of physical force on another who didn’t exert force against you so as to injure or abuse him.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 1:08 am # Mister Guy
You’re being very childish here with you’re arguments Bobby. I have to *define* bad and good for you…please. I’m well aware of evolution too, and I believe the theory. Of course, humans are mammals, but we are far from common animals…give me a break. Have you been dragging your hands on the ground recently?
Ooooo…are those the two questions to get into your secret “individualist” club? I’ll be waiting with bated breath for the code words…lol…
So, now that we’ve got our definitions correct, you know I wasn’t initiating or asking anyone else to initiate violence on anyone. Class dismissed…
on 18 Jan 2008 at 1:31 am # straightarrow
You are inferior Guy. Sorry, but you are.
Most conservatives believe most people are good and can be trusted with the tools of defense for those rare few who are not.
Whereas your statements put the lie to your of vice versa. If you really believed most people are good and intended no harm, why would you be worried about anything he carried? I don’t worry about it. I know that more than 95% of the people I will come in contact with will be good people meaning me no harm, I have no reason to fear him no matter what weaponry he may or may not have. Yet, you fear him and call him afraid for being prepared for that one miscreant monster he may meet.
As i said ego will not allow to admit your inferiority to men who would live free and protect their loved ones. I truly hope you never have any loved ones. I wouldn’t want them to lean of reed as weak as you.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 2:13 am # Robert
straightarrow said:
“Most conservatives believe most people are good and can be trusted with the tools of defense for those rare few who are not.”
One of the reasons that most humans don’t initiate force on others is this, “Why is it usually more profitable to freely do commerce with the other person than it is to start a fight with him? To expand this further, why is it usually more profitable for a clan/tribe/nation to freely do commerce with the other clan/tribe/nation than to start a fight with it?” So why is it usually less profitable to start a fight with another, simple, RETALIATION WITH DEFENSE. This is something “Mister Guy” is unable to comprehend.
I wonder if anyone could answer these questions:
“How does a Nation-State impose its will on ‘its’ people?”
“What is meant by the term, ‘last argument of kings’?”
Feel free to use google everybody. Likewise to Mister Guy.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 2:16 am # Mister Guy
“You are inferior Guy.”
Who’s the one being judgemental here again? LOL…
I’m not worried at all about what you’re carrying. I certainly don’t fear you…you’re probably a lot more harmless than you realize, but who knows. I think what I originally said was that you probably didn’t have a Constitutional right to carry a gun, which (of course) is heresy here I guess. The idea that there are millions upon millions of untrained, unknown, unregulated people out there are acting as the “militia” waiting to get the call to…do what I’m not sure…is kind of silly to me. This is 2007, not 1777. The British are not coming. We have a huge standing armed forces and police force. No one is going to be calling on you to defend the USA, ever. And this “be prepared” for the thing that will likely never happen is way, way overblown.
I ask again…what else do you people want when it comes to gun ownership?
I do wish that a lot of “conservatives” in this country would not be driven by their deep-seated fears though. Don’t believe everything that media tells you about crime. Crime has been in a downward spiral for a while now. Media coverage of crime has been going up for years though. The fear that they spread is a means of control.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 2:17 am # Robert
Mister Guy:
“Of course, humans are mammals, but we are far from common animals…give me a break. Have you been dragging your hands on the ground recently?”
So you want to make the case that humans are exempt huh, yet you accept evolution? Can anyone say cognitive dissonance?
Okay.
First, what group of mammals do humans belong to?
on 18 Jan 2008 at 2:23 am # Mister Guy
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…I have no gun, yet I am able to freely and peacefully deal with everyone that I meet…even you! Ever hear of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or “thou shalt not kill”? Sounds like words to live by IMO.
I already Googled the “last argument of kings” thing before, and then I gave a half-assed crack at defining it & you said I was wrong. This is the weirdest game show I’ve ever been on.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 2:27 am # Mister Guy
This isn’t a 10th grade science class Bobby. If you have a point to make, just state it. This will go a lot faster and sound a LOT more adult.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 2:30 am # Robert
Mister Guy:
”
“I already Googled the “last argument of kings” thing before, and then I gave a half-assed crack at defining it & you said I was wrong. This is the weirdest game show I’ve ever been on.
I just googled that phrase too, and the answer (concerning the Nation-State) is clearly there. I think you’re lying.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 2:33 am # Robert
Mister Guy:
“This isn’t a 10th grade science class Bobby. If you have a point to make, just state it. This will go a lot faster and sound a LOT more adult. ”
If you’re gonna make a statement saying humans are exempt from the laws of survival that govern other organisms, you better back it up with some basic scientific knowledge.
What group of mammals do humans belong to?
on 18 Jan 2008 at 2:44 am # Mister Guy
Humans have evolved FAR beyond other animals…isn’t that obvious? We have a long way to go still too. Do you think that we can’t think for ourselves and can’t overcome the baser desires, wants, fears, and needs of animals? Just because we’re descendant from apes (hominoidea) doesn’t mean that we are just like them. Do you understand science? I practice it daily in my job BTW.
I’m still waiting to hear how we don’t have a govt. that is of, by, and for the people…that explanation ought to be good IMO.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 3:42 am # Robert
Mister Guy said:
“[Humans have evolved FAR beyond other animals…isn’t that obvious? We have a long way to go still too. Do you think that we can’t think for ourselves and can’t overcome the baser desires, wants, fears, and needs of animals?] Just because we’re descendant from apes (hominoidea) doesn’t mean that we are just like them. Do you understand science? I practice it daily in my job BTW.”
This answer is a CLEAR INDICATION that you don’t understand the science of evolution. Brackets [] are mine. I think you’re lying again about the fact that you’re practicing “science”. I’m pretty certain that your “science” has nothing to do with understanding evolutionary theory.
Please state Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in Summary.
Also define “baser”.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 3:48 am # Robert
To Mister Guy:
Are humans descended from apes or are humans actually apes themselves and have a common ancestor with other apes such as chimpanzees? What does current scientific data say?
on 18 Jan 2008 at 4:09 am # Mister Guy
LOL!!! Play your games on your own time…not mine. This isn’t schooltime Bobby. This is a blogsite that apears to be mostly about guns.
You’re not answering my questions…so I’m done answering yours. Fair is fair. Have fun at recess…lol…
P.S. - Why is the sky blue?
on 18 Jan 2008 at 4:20 am # Robert
To Mister Guy,
I accept your surrender.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 10:19 am # theirritablearchitect
“No room for honest debate here huh?”
That’s right. Most definitely not from you.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 12:56 pm # self-defender
mister guy said:
” Because I am not afraid to die does not mean that I am afraid to fight for my own life or the lives of my freinds and family…far from it actually.”
Tell us, how you would fight a person armed with a gun breaking into your house? You have 15 seconds to prepare.
mister guy said:
“Killing is wrong.”
No, killing with malice is wrong. Killing for self preservation is a fact of nature. This has been bread out of some people apparently.
mister guy said:
“World peace starts with you my friends. Start living it and it will be someday.”
I recall some guy named Neville Chamberlain thought the same thing. History tells us how that turned out.
mister guy said:
“Be afraid…be very afraid…that way, you are that much easier to be controlled. ”
Afraid of what? Being prepared for any given senario reduces fear and promotes control. I’d argue that your “dislike” (fear) of guns makes you more controlable in a wide variety of senarios.
mister guy said:
“I do not believe that the nature of man is bad…I believe that it is good.”
I believe the nature of “A” man can be either bad OR good. I prefer to be prepared to deal with both.
mister guy said:
“And this “be prepared” for the thing that will likely never happen is way, way overblown. ”
Tell that to this woman:
http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2008/01/10/news/lake_county/docc6e7d1ca7dcd2fee862573cc00081d1f.txt
Their are literally thousands of stories like this. i.e. people protecting themselves from harm/death. (make sure to listen to the audio of the 911 call)
mister guy said:
“I ask again…what else do you people want when it comes to gun ownership?”
For people to stop trying to tell me, a law-biding citizen, what I can and cannot own when it comes to the protection of my family, my property, and myself!
mister guy said:
“I do wish that a lot of “conservatives” in this country would not be driven by their deep-seated fears though.”
You keep mentioning this fear thing. I’m thinking a textbook case of projection.
mister guy said:
“Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…I have no gun, yet I am able to freely and peacefully deal with everyone that I meet…even you!”
Let me fix that for you: “Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…I have no gun, yet I HAVE BEEN able to freely and peacefully deal with everyone that I’VE MET SO FAR…MAYBE even you!”. Fixed. Much more truthfull.
I’m still waiting for you to put that “No guns in this apartment” sign on your front door.
mister guy said:
“Ever hear of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or “thou shalt not kill”? Sounds like words to live by IMO.”
Those have to do with self defense and self preservation how?
on 18 Jan 2008 at 1:30 pm # Mister Guy
“Tell us, how you would fight a person armed with a gun breaking into your house?”
I’d hit him in the head with my Little League, aluminum baseball bat, which I’ve never thrown away from when I was a kid…or maybe punch him in the face…hard.
“This has been bred out of some people apparently.”
Yea…maybe…and maybe we’re working on the rest of you.
I don’t fear guns, and I don’t fear what my fellow man might do, which is why I don’t need a gun. I do think that the rest of you should be able to legally own a gun to protect yourself if you want though. Just because you have a gun doesn’t mean that you are in control. People with guns end up losing their rights ever day of the week. Shooting someone in a truly self-defense scenario is legal…this isn’t the U.K.. I have no problem with that.
“I’m still waiting for you to put that ‘No guns in this apartment’ sign on your front door.”
I’ll be doing that right after I put the “no asparagus” sign on my door, the “no gold bullion” sign on my door, etc. etc.. When was the last time you saw a residence that had signs on it that stated what someone could NOT find inside? This is a silly, silly arugment IMO.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 1:50 pm # Tom
“Yea…maybe…and maybe we’re working on the rest of you.
”
Yes, you are, in the schools, in the media, in the culture you control. We know that. Your specific targeting of guns when the 2nd reads “arms” and your recent comments about a baseball bat are interesting. You would rather everyone carry a club or use their fists instead of effective means. Are you by chance prohibited from buying a gun for any of the many reasons? Maybe you just like the tactile feedback of bones being crushed under your own brute force…perhaps you haven’t evolved quite as much as you think. You do realize that in the time it takes to swing that bat the intruder will have time to pull that trigger several times from a safe distance correct?
Now Mr Riley/Helmke/Kelli/one of their brainwashed minions, the good people who have been exposing your games, “arguments” and poor mental state probably have better things to do. I suggest furthering the fight against a more barbaric society where skulls are crushed in by letal sporting equipment that should be removed from childrens’ hands.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 3:03 pm # self-defender
mister guy said:
”
“I’d hit him in the head with my Little League, aluminum baseball bat, which I’ve never thrown away from when I was a kid…or maybe punch him in the face…hard.
Fair enough. I prefer to increase my chances of survival with a projectile weapon. You prefer not to. Make sure you don’t kill him with that baseball bat.
mister guy said:
”
“Yea…maybe…and maybe we’re working on the rest of you.
No “maybe” about it! Nice confirmation that the party that claims to love diversity, inclusion, and individuality is a farce, though.
mister guy said:
“I do think that the rest of you should be able to legally own a gun to protect yourself if you want though.”
It’s good to know that we have a democrat on our side and will throw his support to have the machine gun ban (the Hughes ammendment) repealled.
mister guy said:
“Just because you have a gun doesn’t mean that you are in control.”
I never said that. I said that being prepared for ANY given senario REDUCES fear and PROMOTES control. Meaning preparation helps you keep a level head and keeps panic and fear in check. Preparation helps you gain and maintain control of a situation. If you feel prepared to be in a gun fight with a baseball bat, more power to you.
mister guy said:
“People with guns end up losing their rights ever day of the week.”
If they use that gun for illegal activities, they absolutely SHOULD loose their right to own a gun. Here’s the rub though. Those people don’t care about the law anyways. Strick gun laws only effect law biding citizens. The bad guys are going to get and use guns regardless of the law. I wish you anti-gun people would get this through your head.
mister guy said:
“When was the last time you saw a residence that had signs on it that stated what someone could NOT find inside?”
Not very often. Funny thing though, many, MANY people put signs in their windows that state they ARE armed when in fact they are not. I wonder why that is?
I used to be exactly like you, mister guy. Amazing how people change when the real world opens someones eyes. I hope the real world opens your eyes with as little residual damage as possible. Some of us are lucky, and make it through relatively unscathed. Others, not so much.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 7:17 pm # Mister Guy
“Yea…maybe…and maybe we’re working on the rest of you.
”
This was obviously meant as a joke my friends…hence the smiley face. It doesn’t seem like you guys are being sucessfully “brainwashed” by all those nasty, left-wing entities so far.
Ah, yes, it’s certainly much more humane to shoot and kill someone than it is to just disable them with a blow…come on now. I don’t carry a club around with me…we’re not cavemen anymore. I think the last time that I hit anyone was in high school or college (15-20 years ago)…when was the last time you pulled the trigger? Which one of us is practicing violence? Let’s not get super-technical with the “arms” vs. “guns” stuff here…we all know those words mean the same thing in the context that we’re speaking of here. And you know of course that a machine gun is not the same thing as a long rifle or a handgun. You don’t need an MG42…how many enemies are you expecting?
I was thinking today that I’ve really only personally come across a handful of people that owned guns in my entire life so far. I think almost all of those guys were current or ex-military too. None of my family or friends own guns. Think of how many people go thru their entire life now (and have in the past) without having the need to use a gun. This preparation that you think I need to have for the highly unlikely event that some mythical, unamed intruder will be coming to get me is very curious to me. I’m not going to be in a gun fight. Gun laws apply to everyone, which is why you guys are opposed to them in the first place.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 8:48 pm # Daniel
The sky is blue due to the oxygen content in our atmosphere.
Mister Guy is truly lucky he doesn’t live in an area where his safety is in regular question.
If he had to be concerned, on a regular basis, about his life - the the population in Israel as a perfect example - the odds are he wouldn’t have these nonsensical positions of life and living.
This planet is full of danger. It’s this place, the United States of America, where most of the population can feel reasonably safe and pursue their individual sense of happiness and success.
Those of us here that suffer pain and death due to others are not so lucky, but could be - they may not realize just how much they can control - nor understand that they could.
Pray for Mister Guy.
When he leaves this mortal coil, he won’t know what hit him .
on 18 Jan 2008 at 9:52 pm # Robert
Mister Guy said:
“Gun laws apply to everyone, which is why you guys are opposed to them in the first place. ”
Yeah, I don’t like it when people initiate force against me when I didn’t threaten them with force.
Your way of typing looks familiar, Helmke/Kelli, is that you?
If it’s so, then you are really a liar. First a “social worker”, now a “scientist”?
Speaking of science:
Please state Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in Summary.
Feel free to use google.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 10:27 pm # Mister Guy
“The sky is blue due to the oxygen content in our atmosphere.”
Try again.
I have lived in and been in urban areas before. The only way for Israel over the long-term is to make peace with it’s enemies. We need to help them do that.
“This planet is full of danger.”
An excellent example of the fear that I was previously speaking about.
I accept all your prayers, even if I think they’re not going to do any good.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 10:32 pm # Robert
Daniel said:
“The sky is blue due to the oxygen content in our atmosphere.”
Mister Guy said:
”
“Try again.
As if you’re an expert in science, even though I am not a professional scientist, I know what evolution is. Do you?
Please state Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in Summary.
Feel free to use google.
on 18 Jan 2008 at 11:12 pm # Tom
Jadegold?
on 19 Jan 2008 at 12:31 am # Daniel
Some of us are indeed professional.
And for quite some time.
Obviously, Mister whatsit is a fool to think he can take us on.
on 19 Jan 2008 at 1:45 am # Robert
The phony “scientist” Mister Guy must have run off with his tail between the legs.
Mister Guy, summarizing Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection isn’t hard. You have Internet access after all.
on 19 Jan 2008 at 3:11 am # Mister Guy
I’m sorry Daniel, but I have taken you all on & it’s been quite enjoyable looking into the minds of self-proclaimed “gun nuts”…thanx for that.
(Pssst - Bobby, you’re being ignored by eveyone on here…get used to it.)
on 19 Jan 2008 at 3:40 am # Robert
Mister Guy is lying again, doesn’t surprise me. Anyway, are you a “social worker” or a “scientist”?
I just called you out and your typing is very similar to the poster “kelli” as noted by Tom. As to “everybody” ignoring me, Daniel didn’t get the memo. Once again, you’re lying. I mean it, your typing is VERY SIMILAR to “kelli” from Paul Helmke’s Brady blog (when they allowed comments in the past).
Now, since you claim humans are exempt from the laws of survival, state the current theory of evolution. In fact, here is a question, “is there a ‘direction’ in evolution?”
on 19 Jan 2008 at 3:51 am # Robert
Mister Guy said:
“Humans have evolved FAR beyond other animals…isn’t that obvious? We have a long way to go still too.”
Here’s a question, “go where?”
Does evolution have a “direction”?
Please state the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in summary.
on 19 Jan 2008 at 8:31 am # Roberta X
Fascinating!
…I’m a girl. And I’m armed to the teeth. And I’m not afraid; I own guns like I own a fire extinguisher, wear a helmet and safety gear on my motor scooter, and keep the doors of my house locked: it’s a routine safety measure.
I “shoot at targets” (and take gun classes), too, just as I used up a fire extinguisher learing how to operate them, just as I take Motorcycle Safety Foundation riding classes every few years: you’ve got to know how to opeate this stuff if it is going to do you any good. Skills must be learned and maintained.
As for the militia, the Feds don’t seem to think I’m in it but *my* state’s constitution defines our militia as every resident older than a certain age. It also promises I have the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of the State *and* *myself.*
“Mr. Guy” is quite confident of his safety; that’s admirable. As someone who has been robbed at gunpoint twice, stalked, threatened and beaten up, I’m not as confident. Rather than cower in fear, I took steps to be better able to deal with such problems. –It would have been better to have been prepared before they happened, but some of us are slow learners. Am I afriad? No; no more than I am afraid of fire or motorcycle accidents. I know bad things happen and I do what I can to limit the frequency and severity of their occurrance. This is not accomplished by pretending they only happen to other people.
As for gun-grabbers and politicians (but I repeat myself), they’ll have to take my guns by force. And maybe they can; but I’m taking an honor guard with me. Look, if it comes to beating down doors, you’re dead anyway and all you can do is make it costly enough to slow ‘em down. Unlike “Mr. Guy,” I’m okay with that.
Unlike “Mr. Guy,” I do not believe that authority is its own justification.
on 19 Jan 2008 at 9:06 am # Daniel
looking into the minds of self-proclaimed “gun nuts”…
Mister Guy, you assumed wrong.
Many of the armed population are not Gun Nuts.
Your presumption is based on your unwillingness to see other possibilities.
My time spent during any day of the week is actually working for a living as an engineer. I don’t have as much time for my various hobbies as I would like.
What spare time I have is metered out to evening lodge associates, charity functions, local fire dept & community outreach, mentoring kids that need extra help in their schoolwork.
That sound like a “nut” to you?
Just because I recognize the need for self-awareness, self-responsibility, self sufficiency and self-defense?
If so, you are too far gone to be saved.
Enjoy your trip, it’s gonna be a real doozy.
on 19 Jan 2008 at 7:26 pm # Mister Guy
Good for your state Roberta. I hope you are safe in the future. No one is looking to take anyone’s guns “by force”…don’t be afraid.
The editor of this website calls himself a “gun nut”…scroll way up…that’s what I was refering to. You can call yourselves whatever you want to IMO. I wish we all didn’t have to work so hard to try and get by in this country BTW, but that’s another story.
on 19 Jan 2008 at 7:46 pm # Robert
Mister Guy said:
“Humans have evolved FAR beyond other animals…isn’t that obvious? We have a long way to go still too.”
Here’s a question, “go where?”
Does evolution have a “direction”?
on 20 Jan 2008 at 12:44 am # Daniel
Changing your focus?
looking into the minds of self-proclaimed “gun nuts”…
Why is your quote plural?
Or, did you forget that?
on 20 Jan 2008 at 2:58 am # JLK
What few people seem to understand is that “the government” has NO authority to regulate rights including firearms rights. There’s something terribly wrong with a government that grants itself power. See the tenth amendment of the Bill Of Rights. Oh, by the way, think your vote counts? Go to youtube and type in “Hacking Democracy”. Please watch all nine parts. FWIW America is supposed to be a constitutional republic not a democracy.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 4:16 am # Mister Guy
“What few people seem to understand is that ‘the government’ has NO authority to regulate rights including firearms rights.”
Of course they do. Ever hear of the Elastic Clause in the U.S. Constitution or the right of the federal govt. to regulate interstate commerce? Even if most of you had a Consitutional right to own a gun, no right is universal. Freedom of Speech…you can’t “yell fire in the crowded theater”, libel someone, conspire with someone to commit a crime, etc., etc..
The phrase “republic” that you “conservatives” love to keep quoting simply means a representative democracy. Glad to know that you’re not in favor of democracy in general.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 4:31 am # Robert
Mister Guy said:
“The phrase “republic” that you “conservatives” love to keep quoting simply means a representative democracy. Glad to know that you’re not in favor of democracy in general. ”
Democracy is simply one of the checks against a State’s power. It is not the goal of the U.S. Constitution.
To use your acronyms kelli…. errr, I mean Mister Guy, BTW how about answering my questions.
Mister Guy said:
“Humans have evolved FAR beyond other animals…isn’t that obvious? We have a long way to go still too.”
Here’s a question, “go where?”
Does evolution have a “direction”?
on 20 Jan 2008 at 4:33 am # Robert
Mr. Guy, please state Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in a short summary. Feel free to use google or wikipedia.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 6:10 am # Wai
Funny how Mister Guy thinks he so FAR more evolved than primates, but don’t chimps and other large primates use club-like weapons (ie: bats) in attacking or defending themselves? So what Mister Guy is (hypocritically) saying is that he’s FAR more evolved than primates, yet he would resort to the use of clubs for the purpose of defending himself and his loved ones from someone armed with a gun that can dispatch him from 5 yards (the distance from the door to the corner in which he is cowering). I sure hope Mister Guy can reach that far with his little league bat to take out the bad guy before the bad guy has a chance to shoot Mister Guy.
And you can stop Laughing Out Loud because no one else here is laughing with you. Anyone who interjects laughter or a smile during an argument knows his argument is weak and knows he has already lost said argument. Laughing and smiling are but a distractive ruse.
None of us “gun nuts” (as you put it) have been ignoring Robert (yes, his name is Robert, not “Bobby”) as his questions were directed solely at you. By not even addressing him by his name, it shows your arrogance and disdain.
What does the “…Elastic Clause in the U.S. Constitution or the right of the federal govt. to regulate interstate commerce” have anything to do our inalienable right to keep and bear arms? What’s more, the federal government doesn’t have rights, it has powers granted to it by the people.
Israel ceded land in the Gaza Strip to Palestine last year. Yet Hezbollah continued to attack Israel, with Iran’s megalomaniac Ahmedinejad chiming in about nuking Israel out of existence. Was your head buried so far up your ass that you lost and entire year?
Do you not remember from history that Hitler imposed gun registration on Germany right before he went door-to-door to confiscate guns so that his subjects could no longer defend themselves against that megalomaniac?
With all due respect, you’re a fucking idiot, IMO, LOL,
on 20 Jan 2008 at 1:13 pm # theirritablearchitect
“you can’t “yell fire in the crowded theater”, ”
You most certainly can, and you haven’t given a thought as to the WHY of that statement.
“Even if most of you had a Consitutional right to own a gun”
Again, when the whole house comes down, I’m finding you and force-feeding you something you WON’T like.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 2:03 pm # Daniel
MG is forgetting again.
People are not granted constitutional rights to own guns.
We already had, and still have, them.
The Constitution/Bill of Rights specifically states - “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
THE right. (See U.S vs. Cruikshank, 1876)
Apparently, MG’s memory is gone and he can no longer read.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 2:21 pm # Tom
Besides the obvious times when shouting fire is required, the problem with the “fire” argument is the chicken little/boy who cried wolf syndrome.
If everyone goes around screaming fire at first people like “mister guy” run around like idiots before actually doing anything to verify there is a fire. After a while they might get to be like intelligent people, that is to actually look around and verify that there IS a fire before going insane.
congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce…they have decided that EVERYTHING falls into that area. VERY different from what was intended. To argue the powers given to the government by the people can be used to remove the very rights the government is charged with guarding shows no understanding of the system.
Riddle me this guy….
If the founders had intended for the government to be able to restrict the 2nd, why wasn’t the same language used in the 3rd present in it? That language would be “but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
Since we’re “at war” how would you feel about congress passing a law that puts soldiers up in private homes, they could make it so you have to feed them too, after all congress has never passed a law that was above and beyond the power they were given.
Why do you hold the constitution in such disregard? Do you also support the warrantless wiretapping? Forcing people to testify even if it would incriminate them? Military tribunals for Americans?
You cannot selectively choose to uphold only parts of the constitution.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 3:07 pm # Mister Guy
Sorry Wai…I hate to disappoint you, but no one will be shooting me anytime soon.
BTW, I never cower, since I am not the one that’s afraid all the time. Lighten up people…you’ll live longer.
A loooong time ago, Bobby said:
“On a somewhat related note. I have two simple questions to ask. It’s just an experiment. On the pharyngula blog, I asked these same questions to some of the commenters and none of them answered them. In fact a poster named ‘truth machine’ was unable or unwilling to answer such easy questions.
The questions are as follows:
‘How does a Nation-State impose its will on ‘its’ people?’
‘What is meant by the term, ‘last argument of kings’?’”
No one but me has tried to answer these questions from him so far I believe. You haven’t been helping him out in his childish, silly word and question games at all. He won’t answer any of my questions…so I won’t answer his, ever. Game over…
“What does the ‘…Elastic Clause in the U.S. Constitution or the right of the federal govt. to regulate interstate commerce’ have anything to do our inalienable right to keep and bear arms?”
That was a rebuttal of the silly argument that the govt. has no authority to regulate any rights. Firearms travel across state lines and can therefore be regulated by the federal govt..
“Israel ceded land in the Gaza Strip to Palestine last year. Yet Hezbollah continued to attack Israel, with Iran’s megalomaniac Ahmedinejad chiming in about nuking Israel out of existence.”
Israel unilaterally withdrew from most of the Gaza Strip, then proceeded to barricade and bomb it in “response” to attacks from Hamas there. Hezbollah doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Gaza. Their concern alone is with Lebanon being free from any outside influence (whether that’s Israel, Syria, or any other nation), and they kicked Israel’s ass when they tried to re-invade Lebanon recently. Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons…so their idle threats mean nothing, just like when Bushy Boy threatens to attack Iran. We’re not attacking Iran anytime soon…there’s no one left to fight. Our Army and Marines are already overstretched as it is now.
I agree that the recent changes that the Bush Regime have made to our country are, in fact, reminiscent of what Hitler did in Germany. But, I maintain that it will be a cold day in Hell when anyone comes for your lawfully-purchased guns in this country.
Our course you don’t have a right to “yell fire in a crowded theater”. Try starting a riot for no reason tomorrow and see what happens to you.
“Again, when the whole house comes down, I’m finding you and force-feeding you something you WON’T like.”
More idle threats…just like I read recently on your blog website. You won’t be feeding me or anyone else anything, ever.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 3:30 pm # Mister Guy
And now the *complete* Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The NRA loves to quote only a portion of the actual document…it’s disingenuous at best. I’ve already stated that most of you…unless you are part of the National Guard or have previously been in the military or reserves and are under the age of 64…have no Constitutional right to own a gun, since you’re *not* part of the militia. That *does not* mean that you can’t own a gun legally! There’s a difference…one that I’m sure we will not be able to agree upon.
This Founder’s “intent” argument that “conservatives” in this country love to roll out is an impossible standard to meet. On the one hand, you guys want to go by the letter of the law (”strict constructionalist”) that was written by them and on the other you want to magically delve into the minds of people that lived hundreds of years ago to see what they would do if they were around today. That’s what the Elastic Clause is all about. The Founding Fathers were smart enough to realize that the world of the future would be very different…so different, in fact, that they could hardly even imagine it. I betcha that most of the Founding Fathers would look at things like cars, airplanes, etc. and think that we might all be witches and the like. You cannot read the minds of people that have been dead over 200 years!!
The complete Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
What does that, praytell, have anything to do with gun ownership?? We are *not* officially at war…Congress hasn’t declared war on anybody since WWII I think. This is actually one of the many disgraces of the last 60-70 years…that we’ve toppled entire countries and lost thousands of troops in unconstitutional, undeclared wars.
“Do you also support the warrantless wiretapping? Forcing people to testify even if it would incriminate them? Military tribunals for Americans?”
I absolutely do not support warrantless wiretapping and military tribunals for Americans! These are outrages of the Bush Regime that are at least borderline criminal IMO. I haven’t heard of anyone being forced to testify at a criminal trial against their wishes, but I am thoroughly opposed to that as well.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 4:17 pm # Tom
“What does that, praytell, have anything to do with gun ownership??”
It has quite a bit to do with gun ownership. First off, just because you won’t read what the militia is doesn’t mean that WE are not the militia. Since you fail basic elementary school reading comprehension try reading again troll, honest it’s NOT DIFFICULT, it’s even in plain English:
“a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are NOT members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia”
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The fact is that there is NO language in the 2nd that shows ANY intention to allow the individual right (see the clause related to rights, not the one describing why they are not to be infringed) to be removed in any way. Also note is says ARMS, not guns, not swords, nothing that is an ARM can be removed from the people BECAUSE a militia (the people of the state/nation) are the best defense. Not a standing army to go trouncing all over the globe fighting preemptive wars against anyone the people at the top decide sounds like a good idea.
“That was a rebuttal of the silly argument that the govt. has no authority to regulate any rights. Firearms travel across state lines and can therefore be regulated by the federal govt..”
So, is it the case in ILLinois that gun manufacturers located IN the state are unregulated when selling to citizens of the same state? Hardly! I’m sure you’re familiar with the Gonzales v. Raich case, right? Perhaps you are well versed in Wickard v. Filburn? The wheat in question was never to travel across state lines, but was regulated.
You fail to understand that I have a preexisting right to defend my life. Guaranteed in part by the 2nd, but also the 9th, which reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
You have no concern about toppling countries as that is what you leftists seek to do to America. You would have the government slaughter innocent women and children again like it did under the control of the Clinton regime (two can play that game.) YOU on the left will lose many millions of people when you try to disarm and subject us to your Orwellian vision.
“But, I maintain that it will be a cold day in Hell when anyone comes for your lawfully-purchased guns in this country.”
Please post your physical address so we can have some words when your lies are proved false.
Now, why don’t you just go blow a load on your monitor over how much fun it is to waste time and engage in juvenile arguments over what level of tyranny we should have in a free country. The answer is none, but you and the mentally ill that support slavery and totalitarian regimes won’t stop until you succeed in removing ALL of our rights. You’re too stupid to see that taking away the one that is the only check on removing the others will guarantee more are removed under whatever “regime” comes along later.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 5:05 pm # Mister Guy
Yea, I read all that before, and my interpretation of it is different than yours…what a surprise eh? No one will be calling on you to defend the USA, whether you think you’re in the militia or not, ever. I’m not going to repeat why I think that over and over again. The Second Amendment is one whole phrase…you can’t parse it out and pick which things you want to highlight. The arms vs. guns thing has already been discussed here before as well. And round and round we go…
The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I agree…you & I & all human beings have a right to health care. The rest of the entire western world has recognized that, and I think we will be too in this country someday soon. I never said that you don’t have a right to defend your life…quite the opposite actually…that right goes back a long way, thru Common Law I believe.
“You would have the government slaughter innocent women and children again like it did under the control of the Clinton regime (two can play that game.) YOU on the left will lose many millions of people when you try to disarm and subject us to your Orwellian vision.”
This sounds like you’re talking about what happened in Waco, TX and/or with Randy Weaver. I don’t condone the govt.’s overreaction to either of those cases, but it would have been nice if Mr. Weaver wasn’t trying to sell illegal guns and that cult leader in TX didn’t rape little girls in the first place IMO. I think I’ll say this for the last time…no one is coming to take your guns away!! Stop being afraid of something that’s never going to happen!
“Please post your physical address so we can have some words when your lies are proved false.”
More idle threats…I am undetered. I am against slavery and totalitarian regimes, and I was against the War in Iraq. My freedom is not related to whether or not I have a gun, and it never will be.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 6:02 pm # Daniel
MG apparently doesn’t want to follow-up properly.
Apparently he still can’t read.
“THE right. (See U.S vs. Cruikshank, 1876)”
A reference to a court ruling.
Read it. Here.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/federal/11fed.htm
One can interpret all that one likes to, but unless you are a lawyer - and posing your argument in court - your interpretation means nothing out in the real world.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 9:03 pm # theirritablearchitect
Actually, if I may, Daniel, I don’t care what a lawyer, or even any judge or court has to say about the issue.
I know what it means, and any attempts by those in any court to subvert those values that are inherently a part of our free country will eventually get what they deserve. It’s all coming to a head, and sooner than Jadegold/Mister Guy will ever admit to.
Prepare.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 9:17 pm # theirritablearchitect
“I think I’ll say this for the last time…no one is coming to take your guns away!! Stop being afraid of something that’s never going to happen!”
Liar!
Your posting over the years does NOT support that position. You’d just as soon have ALL of us “gunloons” rounded up in a camp and made an example of. I know your type.
“From hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee”
Until the end.
on 20 Jan 2008 at 9:20 pm # Roberta X
Better reread abour Weaver’s “illegal gun,” MG, you are talking smack.
As for the 2nd, I guess I don’t even read it the way most other gun nuts do: my reading is we’re being told the State has a Militia (and one drilled and standardized: “well-regulated”) and therefore, the People had darned well better be armed, too. Am I right? –I don’t care. The Second Amendment, indeed the entire Bill of Rights, grant no rights; rather, they set limits on the power of the Federal government. I’ll always own and carry guns and other weapons, no matter what some asinine law or legal theorist says. There is an inherent human right to self-defense, just as there are inherent rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you make all guns illegal, I’ll buy me a submachine gun and a trench broom: might as well hang for sheep as for goats!
As for a “right” to health care, no such right exists. Unlike the rights listed above, that one (along with any supposed “right” to a job, housing or security) requires compelling the work of others to ensure it. Such so-called rights are no more than a call for slavery by force of law.
Your perfect State already existed, at least on paper; the Soviet Union made all manner of promises about free universal health care and jobs and housing and what did it result in? A vast wasteland of cheaply-built, overcrowded apartments, poor medical care for all but the few elite, and miserable work, workers and products. Socialism created the greatest slum the world had ever seen and eventually it all fell apart. Why are you so hot to give it another shot here? Envious of China?
on 20 Jan 2008 at 9:46 pm # theirritablearchitect
“I’ll always own and carry guns and other weapons, no matter what some asinine law or legal theorist says.”
Can we get an “Amen”, and from an Apostate, no less.
on 21 Jan 2008 at 12:01 am # Robert
How can anyone have an honest debate with Mister Guy? He claimed that humans are exempt from the laws of survival that govern other organisms. I asked him if he can back up that claim with some basic scientific data. He replied to this by claiming he had a job involving science, then he stated that humans were “FAR more evolved” than other animals. Then he claimed that humans have a long way to go in becoming “more evolved”. He implied that evolution actually had a goal and direction other than the survival of genes to be passed on to the offspring. This is an indication that he has absolutely no idea what the basic science of evolution is. One can easily google “natural selection” and find out. Some “scientist” he is /Sarc.
Mister Guy is a LIAR and one cannot debate honestly with LIARS.
on 21 Jan 2008 at 12:22 am # theirritablearchitect
Ayup.
The human mind is the only reason that the human species is alive today. We must adapt the environment (not to be confused with the BS that the Goracle is always blabbering about) to our needs, since humans don’t have fur, or speed, or large teeth or much strength.
Gray matter rules, and if that means that we’re on the top of the food chain, I ain’t apologizing for it.
If someone wants to write a law that directly contradicts my ability/desire to, say, eat meat, for whatever reason, they will meet certain consequences for it. Stuff such as this and other things are all happening right now, and the results are sure to be spectacular.
on 21 Jan 2008 at 1:13 am # Mister Guy
“I don’t care what a lawyer, or even any judge or court has to say about the issue.”
The rule of law means nothing to you then??
“From hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee”
Yea, I liked the “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” too.
“Your perfect State already existed, at least on paper; the Soviet Union made all manner of promises about free universal health care and jobs and housing”
My perfect state has never existed yet. I’m not a communist.
“If you make all guns illegal…”
No one is seriously discussing doing this in this country as far as I can tell.
on 21 Jan 2008 at 1:13 am # Tom
Not only that, but you have lunatics who have drunk the gorebal warming kool-aid and are refusing to reproduce.
on 21 Jan 2008 at 8:31 am # Roberta X
The rule of the mob means nothing to me, MG; self-defense is an inherent, individual human right. No nose-count or autocratic edict can change it. What a sad, strange, fear-haunted little world you must live in if you fail to grasp this essential truth!
on 21 Jan 2008 at 11:07 am # theirritablearchitect
That quote is from Moby Dick, you idiot!
And NO, the rule of law means nothing to me, if and when it is in itself a maneuver to subjugate a free citizenry. It doesn’t deserve anything more than my derision and non-compliance, so piss off.
“No one is seriously discussing doing this in this country as far as I can tell. ”
I can’t help it if you aren’t paying attention to the obvious. It’s all right out there for all to see, and it’s just disgusting.
on 21 Jan 2008 at 11:57 am # Robert L.
The Bush administration is doing more to actually strip us of our rights than the democrats want to do. Bush is actually taking the time to have lawyers write briefs which support the DC gun ban, which comments such as “Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment.”
That’s not what my SA says. This is not a debate about democrat or republican, it’s about voting in politicians who can read. If any of them were to take the time to read:
The Declaration of Independence
The Federalist Papers
The Constitution
It would be pretty clear what the SA means.
For any of you who have not read them in a while, skip the blogs this week and look them over.
http://www.usconstitution.net/
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
on 21 Jan 2008 at 12:23 pm # theirritablearchitect
Robert L.,
Couldn’t agree more. The Patriot Act was stupid. McCain-Feingold? Asinine legislation if I’ve ever seen it.
Neither of the parties have a candidate, save maybe Fred Thompson, who has a clue about anything as far as I can see, and I’m simply not going to be voting for any of them.
Let’s face it, the Donks are all about gun control, taxes, regulation and making everything “Green,” all for our own good, or would have us think.
The Pachs aren’t any better, with the current front-runners being either an evangelical dixiecrat, or an anti-free speech authoritarian who just as quickly sell our gun rights up the river as spit on us.
I’m tired of it all, and it’s FAR passed time to throw all the bums out on their ear and get regular people into Congress. That will never happen, of course, because it takes lotsa money to get elected. Something in short supply these days.
on 21 Jan 2008 at 12:28 pm # Wai
Really, MG? No one is out to make all of our guns illegal? How about the U.N. who met on July 4th, 2007 in NYC to discuss taking away all our guns, who right now are still in discussions in Geneva because they failed in NYC. So behind our backs and off our shores, they’re trying to dictate our Constitution to us. All they need to pass this treaty with the U.S. is a 2/3 majority vote of the Senate and the Assembly.
If you believe no one is trying to make our guns illegal, then you’re more delusional than I thought.
“From hell’s heart…” was written by Herman Melville. And yes, I watch Star Trek too. Speaking of which, they still use arms in the 24th century for “defensive purposes” in their mission of exploration, or have you failed to notice that too? If and when we finally do reach out to the stars, how do you propose we defend ourselves and our planet from hostile forces? Sure sure, that’s science fiction fantasy I’m talking about, but that’s exactly where you’re living - in a fantasy world where everything is peaches and cream and absolutely no one is out to hurt anyone else.
You have nothing to fear? I don’t trust anyone who has nothing to fear. Complacency like that is bound to get himselves and everyone around him killed.
Here’s what I found for definitions of ‘militia’:
From Merriam-Webster:
“1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service”
From Princeton:
“civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army
the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service”
From Wikipedia:
“Militia is the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity.”
Civilians and citizens (aka the people) - that’s what a militia is comprised of. MG accuses us of parsing words in the 2nd amendment, but that’s exactly the thing he and his kind does by taking out “the people” from the entire language of the 2nd amendment.
MG, you are free to move to England where they have banned handguns and have free healthcare for everyone. Of course, if you do move to England, you will need the free healthcare for when you get attacked by criminals with handguns. And don’t forget to bring your little league bat, because sharp pointy knives have been banned there too. And get yourself a good attorney for when you do defend yourself with the bat, because YOU will need one when you’re being charged with assault, while the criminal gets a slap on the wrist and walks. If that’s the kind of fucked-up country you want to live in, you’re perfectly free to move there. We certainly don’t want you here fucking up our country.
on 21 Jan 2008 at 4:38 pm # straightarrow
He’d better be damn careful with that Little League bat, too. I could resemble a table leg. That got one poor yob shot to death by police in England.
I assume it was an assault table leg.
on 21 Jan 2008 at 8:43 pm # Mister Guy
“That quote is from Moby Dick, you idiot!”
I was joking again…I’m guessing finding a sense of humor is kind of rarity here. Wasn’t the Captain’s obsession in that book kind of a exercise in futility BTW? How often have you been to jail?
The USA Patriot Act was an abomination IMO. We’re never going to get the kind of people that you want into political office without real campaign finance reform…otherwise, deep pockets will continue to win most of the time.
“What a sad, strange, fear-haunted little world you must live in if you fail to grasp this essential truth!”
I don’t live in fear. “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” Sound familiar? Times were a *lot* tougher back then than there are now.
The United Nations is not in control of the USA, and I don’t think it ever will be. Star Trek was written by a guy who was living in the 20th Century…of course there were guns in it & communicators that are bigger than my cell phone is right now, so what?
This isn’t the U.K., and it never will be. We rebelled from them a long time ago, remember?
on 22 Jan 2008 at 12:17 am # Wai
If you don’t live in fear, why do you fear law-abiding citizens owning or wanting to own guns?
“The United Nations is not in control of the USA, and I don’t think it ever will be.”
Again, it’s this kind of complacency that gets people killed. You don’t think the treasonous anti-Constitution Dimwitcrat-led Senate and Assembly would sign that treaty the first chance they got, to disarm all law-abiding Americans? Notice I said “all law-abiding Americans,” because it’s a foregone conclusion that criminals won’t be disarmed and will always find ways to get guns.
“There is nothing to fear, but fear itself.”
I fear idiots like you who will actually accomplish taking away our guns, or at least pass laws that will take away our guns en masse. Whether or not we’ll give them up willingly remains to be seen. Then you’ll see idiots like you won’t be able to stop what you started. Your lack of foresight and forethought is something to be feared.
“The gun-grabbers keep inciting the gun-owners. They seem to forget who has all the guns.”
on 22 Jan 2008 at 2:31 am # Mister Guy
I realized something today after my earlier post. Why am I bothering to debate points of the law, public policy, the Constitution, etc. with some people that don’t even believe in the rule of law?? It’s literally “their way or the highway”…if someone doesn’t agree with them, then it’s time to attempt to berate them, insult them, demean them, dismiss them, threaten them, and on and on and on…
Some of you people are obviously waiting (dare I say hoping and/or praying?) that the “shit hits the fan” so that you can try & call all the shots because you’ll have all the guns. I ridiculously get accused of being a communist (the “Red threat” is loooong since over BTW), but some of you people are obviously anarchists!!! It’s sad and pathetic IMO…
I don’t fear anyone thank-you-very-much…stop projecting you’re own fear onto me please. No one is “inciting” anyone…stay ahold of your wits and you’ll be fine. I’m not quaking in my books waiting for Armageddon. Wake up and realize something…what your’re waiting for is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN…try working in a positive direction for us all for a change.
on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:00 am # Robert
Mister Guy said:
“Some of you people are obviously waiting (dare I say hoping and/or praying?) that the “shit hits the fan” so that you can try & call all the shots because you’ll have all the guns. I ridiculously get accused of being a communist (the “Red threat” is loooong since over BTW), but some of you people are obviously anarchists!!! It’s sad and pathetic IMO…”
Here’s my questions again liar.
How does a Nation-State impose its will on “its” people?
What is meant by the term, “last argument of kings”?
on 22 Jan 2008 at 4:15 am # straightarrow
If you were debating the law, you would know you are on the wrong side of it. Or don’t you believe in the constitution?
You a damned liar.
on 22 Jan 2008 at 4:37 am # Mister Guy
I’m almost too broken up to answer you after you called me “inferior” a while back Mr. crooked arrow.
I believe in democracy and that this country, thru it’s Constitution, is probablly the greatest democracy that’s ever been created.
Sticks and stones my friend…
on 22 Jan 2008 at 9:56 am # theirritablearchitect
“I ridiculously get accused of being a communist (the “Red threat” is loooong since over BTW), but some of you people are obviously anarchists!!!”
First part, BULLSHIT! One has only to look at the candidates for our next general election to know that isn’t true. This country is marching straight toward the same Commie ideals that the Soviets had.
And that last bit, yes, I am an anarchist, and I’m fairly certain that you, and literally HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of others in this country don’t have a clue as to what that means.
on 22 Jan 2008 at 10:58 am # Wai
The “Red Threat” is over? What rock have you been living under all these years?
The Soviet Union is making a resurgence. North Korea is threatening peace in Asia and the Western United States if Ding-dong Ill ever gets his hands on long range missles. China is a major threat to our economy. The Middle East is a major threat to our peace & security here and abroad.
So I ask you, what rock have you been living under all these years? And might I add, what color is the sky is YOUR world??
“Why am I bothering to debate points of the law, public policy, the Constitution, etc. with some people that don’t even believe in the rule of law?? It’s literally “their way or the highway”…if someone doesn’t agree with them, then it’s time to attempt to berate them, insult them, demean them, dismiss them, threaten them, and on and on and on… ”
1) Because you obviously don’t understand what the Constitution means or what it’s for or what it’s about.
2) We don’t threaten anyone nearly as much as the liberals threaten us. Nobody here has threatened your life, but I can show you several blogs where the your kind have threatened to “chop off our arms and legs and leave us to die.” It doesn’t feel good, does it? So next time you and your kind start spewing your hate venom at us, think about what’s happened here, or have you forgotten the Golden Rule? Your arguments are weak and have no merit, so you cry foul. Should I call you a Waaaahmbulance?
Go crawl back under your rock, because that’ll protect you when the “shit hits the fan.” And I’m not talking anarchy, I’m talking about tyranny that the Islamo-fascists want to bring onto American soil. You don’t think an attack here will happen again? It’s only a matter of time.
What do you think happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, or have you conveniently forgotten about that too? There was anarchy and mayhem and the only towns that were safe were towns where the “authorities” failed to confiscate the law-abiding citizens’ guns. The citizens formed a Militia and kept law and order. The shit already hit the fan; you just conveniently ignore it.
You and your complacency is going to get you and everyone around you killed. You probably oppose the idea of a secure border, don’t you? You’d sooner just let anyone into this country, because you have nothing to fear. You’re looking through your rose-colored glasses, but you don’t realize that it’s tinted with blood.
You’re not afraid to die? Let me ask you: do you have locks on your door? If you do, why would you have them if you’re not afraid to die? Do you wear your seatbelt when you drive? Airbags in your car? Carry a cellphone everywhere you go?
I admit I’m afraid to die. That’s why I take precautions to ensure my own survival. Only a blooming idiot would be so cavalier with his own life and possibly the lives of those around him to say he’s not afraid to die. Being afraid to die and living life in fear are two different things. You, obviously, are in denial about both.
Even the boy scouts are taught at a very early age to “be prepared.” So, just how prepared are you, Mr. “I’m-not-afraid-of-anything-because-I-have-an-aluminum-little-league-baseball-bat?”
The 2nd Amendment is there for the defense of self, defense of the state and the defense of self from the state.
on 22 Jan 2008 at 11:06 am # Robert L.
Back to the issue this article is about - if we take the time to read through the Federalist Papers (the articles written and distributed to the colonies which give the background on why they should vote to ratify the Constitution), it is very clear what the SA is about. And if we read through the Declaration of Independence, because none of us were there to actually fight for it, we will see the list of grievances against the king and his monarchy. At the time, the rifles we think of as relics were military/assault weapons. The Founding Fathers intended all men to be armed as well as any military which may come to invade (foreign or domestic). In todays world, only the very rich can afford weapons on par with the military, due to a poor law from the 1930’s. And they are old weapons (pre-ban). Semi-auto rifles are the best most of us can afford to defend our homes and loved ones. We cannot afford to lose them, also.
on 22 Jan 2008 at 11:59 am # CMSA rider
Much of this discussion centers around handgun ownership for self defense. I would like to add that there are other reasons to own a handgun. There are numerous sports that require one. I belong to two of them. Cowboy Action Shooting (http://www.sassnet.com/index.php) with a membership of over 77,000 and Cowboy Mounted Shooting (http://www.cowboymountedshooting.com/) with about 7,000 members (a relatively new sport that began in the early 90’s).
In addition to shooting sports, there are gun collectors who enjoy learning about the history of the guns they collect and get a thrill from buying low and selling high.
Then there is the owner of a handgun that has a special meaning. I know of one such person who recently retired from the Army after 20 years and two tours of duty in Iraq. His retirement ceremony was held in Colorado. A member of the squad he commanded drove from Washington State to give him a commemorative 1911 Colt. He said that he was grateful for the leadership provided that resulted in the squad returning home, having completed their mission and coming home alive. The recipient will never sell that 1911.
All of these would be affected by handgun control.
on 22 Jan 2008 at 1:30 pm # self-defender
“I don’t fear anyone thank-you-very-much…stop projecting you’re own fear onto me please.”
Prove it. take a leisurely strole through Compton wearing a suit and counting a wad of cash. unarmed.
Man, that’s rich! What you’ve been doing in this whole thread is projecting your fear of guns and people with guns on us by convincing yourself that WE are the ones that are afraid. Seek help. you are a textbook example of projection.
You living in a gated, big brother cameras apartment building tells me that you DO fear people. It also tells me that you prefer others take care of your personal protection. (By the way, that’s a false sense of security. If you can’t see that, open your eyes.)
What you claim gun owners “fear”, I call, “wanting a level playing field”. I fear being unprepared. I fear being at a disadvantage in ANY given situation. That is healthy and natural.
“Wake up and realize something…what your’re waiting for is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN”
Tell that to:
Cuba
Venezuela
Australia
The UK
I mentioned this one before:
Tell that to this woman:
http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2008/01/10/news/lake_county/docc6e7d1ca7dcd2fee862573cc00081d1f.txt
Their are literally thousands of stories like this. i.e. people protecting themselves from harm/death. (make sure to listen to the audio of the 911 call)
Tell me mister guy, do you believe that the rights and liberities of millions of law-abiding citizens should be dictated by the acts of a small criminal element?
Do you believe that it is OK for party A to take from party B, by force, under threat of imprisonment, and give what was taken to party C?
“And you know of course that a machine gun is not the same thing as a long rifle or a handgun. You don’t need an MG42…how many enemies are you expecting?”
“Expect the best. Prepare for the worst. Capitalize on what comes.”
–Zig Ziglar
You’re right, I don’t think I need a MG42. I’d prefer a P90. Regardless, as a law-abiding citizen, it should be my choice. You do know that criminals own machine guns, right?
“Gun laws apply to everyone, which is why you guys are opposed to them in the first place. ”
NO! Gun laws apply to law-abiding citizens ONLY! By definition, criminals do not follow the law! Strict gun laws only stop law-abiding citizens from getting guns the criminals already have! The people that would resposibly and lawfully keep and bare a machine gun are out-gunned by criminals that already have and use machine guns unlawfully. How frikkin stupid do you have to be to not see that.
Sheesh!
I don’t think I can dumb it down any more for you.
on 22 Jan 2008 at 3:05 pm # Wai
You might have to sketch it out for him in crayon.
on 22 Jan 2008 at 9:21 pm # straightarrow
You are so ignorant, This is not a democracy. It is a republic. A democratic republic, but a republic nonetheless. You are inferior, you know? I’m sorry that hurts your feeling, but since you are purposely inferior I am not very sorry.
on 23 Jan 2008 at 12:08 am # Mister Guy
First of all, Mr. irritable bowel, I went over to your blog a while ago, and what I found was an incoherent rant. Here’s a suggestion…when you have a “thought” to post, start with the beginning of the thought and continue all the way thru it…don’t just start halfway into it and assume the rest of us can hear the voices in your head. Oh, and what a surprise that you’re from KS…read any good “intelligent design” books recently? You sir, are a paranoid, anarchist loon of the first order. My 2-year-old cousin makes more sense when she speaks than you do. I’m done sparing with the likes of you.
The Soviet Union is dead. Russia was merely making waves recently against Bushy Boy to try and prove that they are still inherently relevant, which they really aren’t.
Ever see satellite imagery that shows all the lights across the world at night? If you look at North Korea, you’ll find that there are hardly any lights, because hardly anyone there has electricity! They have huge buildings in their capital city with no heat or lights at all. North Korea is a failed state, and they are merely making scared rants out of desperation. We and their neighbors need to help them see the light out of their own plight IMO.
Why hasn’t China ever invaded Taiwan? The U.S. Seventh Fleet…that’s why. China is no more a communist nation than Russia is at this point.
Nobody is “threatening” you. The terrorists and out own govt. *want* you to be afraid. When you are afraid, they win because they can therefore more easily control you. I REFUSE to be afraid. My doors are frequently unlocked, and I’m still not afraid. You can’t convince me to be afraid like you. I didn’t set up the security in my aprtment building (I think it’s overdone actually), and I don’t live in a gated community.
“Islamo-fascists”…this is one of the more silly terms to enter the modern language recently. Islam and Fascism have nothing to do with one another.
What happened before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina was an abomination of an intentional lack of planning, caring, and response. New Orleans was ruled afterwards mostly by armed private security firms (like Blackwater) that were working for rich people and the military.
I don’t oppose the idea of a secure border. Build a fence, increase the Border Patrol’s resources of all types, and fully secure our ports…it’s common sense.
You should all wear your seatbeat…it’s the law here. You can carry a cell phone with you too if you want to, but be aware that the authorities can track you with it as long as it’s turned on. I stopped being a Cub Scout a long time ago.
“All of these would be affected by handgun control.”
None of these instances would be affected by common sense handgun control.
“take a leisurely strole through Compton wearing a suit and counting a wad of cash. unarmed.”
Ah, the ugle head of racism finally rears it’s ugly head here. You know, I was counting the days before we got to this point. I’ve been through the “mean” streets of Philly and NYC at night, without a weapon, and I was fine. I wonder how some of you would feel if it were the blacks in this country that were arming themselves? How would that go over “mass-ah”?
I’m also done dealing with this NRA baloney that “everyone should be able to own whatever weapon they want to own, including an anti-tank weapon because one person can weild it themselves” and “gun laws don’t apply to criminals” stuff. Utter nonsense…sell that crap to someone else…this is not the Old West anymore.
For the last time…republic = representative democracy. You couldn’t hurt my feelings with a ball-pine hammer…
on 23 Jan 2008 at 12:22 am # Robert
Mister Guy said:
“Oh, and what a surprise that you’re from KS…read any good ‘intelligent design’ books recently?”
How ironic. You were unable to state the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and you claimed that the human ape is exempt from the laws of survival that govern other organisms. This cognitive dissonance explains why you leftists cling to ludicrous notions such as disarmament and pacifism. It is even more pathetic when the so-called pacifist leftist (a contradiction) supports the initiation of force against gun owners that did not initiate force.
So do you want to state the theory or should I educate you?
on 23 Jan 2008 at 12:36 am # Robert
Mister Guy said:
“I’m also done dealing with this NRA baloney that “everyone should be able to own whatever weapon they want to own, including an anti-tank weapon because one person can weild it themselves” and “gun laws don’t apply to criminals” stuff. Utter nonsense…sell that crap to someone else…this is not the Old West anymore.”
Funny how you imply that our notions are quaint. It is YOUR NOTIONS that are obsolete for this century.
http://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-War-Terrorism-Globalization/dp/0471780790
http://www.amazon.com/Army-Davids-Technology-Ordinary-Government/dp/1595550542
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/
http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/longitudesprologue.htm
http://www.desktopfactory.com/
http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gershenfeld03/gershenfeld_index.html
on 23 Jan 2008 at 10:59 am # straightarrow
MG could get a job at a movie theater, he’s great at projection!
on 23 Jan 2008 at 11:39 am # Wai
MG, You’re in bigger denial and a bigger idiot than I thought.
Don’t come running to us “gun nuts” or “gun loons” when your safe and secure, pick and fuzzy little world comes crashing down around you.
I’m paranoid and proud of it. At least I’m alert and aware of everything that’s going on around me. All animals are born paranoid because there’s always something else out there that’s going to get them. It’s called the “survival instinct.” I’m glad I have one.
Your survival instinct depends upon others to provide safety. That will get you and everyone around you killed. And you want to turn everyone else to be just like you - helpless.
Let’s say you succeed in turning everyone into sheep. Who’s going to be protecting us then if there is no one left to provide protection.
Your stupid anti-gun laws only hurt the law-abiding and even law enforcement. Cases in point: the San Francisco Gun Ban that failed. Even the SFPD opposed Proposition H.
The California Microstamping Law: it will affect every law-abiding gun owner in Ca., because all a criminal has to do is go to the range, pick up empty brass with the microstamp on it, go kill someone and then plant the empty brass at the crime scene to implicate an innocent person.
The D.C. gun ban: a 30-year failure, because the only people running around with loaded guns are the criminals and the police. And the police can’t be there to protect everyone, nor do they have a Constitutional duty to do so as ruled by the Supreme Court in July of 2005.
What’s more, the police carry guns for their own protection; not to protect you or me.
Therefore, if the police don’t have a Constitutional duty to protect me as an individual and I can’t own a gun for self-defense, then who’s going to protect me?
You liberal idiots and your wanting to ban everything you don’t like or agree with is going to come to a head. You’re going to push the wrong group of people too far. You liberals with your self-proclamation of being tolerant, patient and understanding, don’t have much of any of those virtues. You’re nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who want to force people to live the way you want them to. And you say Communism is dead. No, it’s right there living inside you and oozing out of your pores.
Your “free healthcare for all” is a communist philosophy. First of all, who’s going to pay for the healthcare of those who aren’t contributing to the system? You really want another 15% of your income to be taxed to pay for it? The Dimwitcrats have already voted on giving illegal aliens Social Security benefits (which didn’t pass). How much more are you willing to give up for these Socialistic agendas?
We “gun nuts” and “gun loons” never forced anyone to live the way we do; own the things we own; or practice what we practice. We DEFEND freedom, not take it away. The exact opposite of what idiots like you are trying to do.
Again, if you want to live in a Socialist state, you’re free to move to England.
on 23 Jan 2008 at 1:56 pm # self-defender
“Ah, the ugle head of racism finally rears it’s ugly head here.”
From you. I mearly mentioned a city that is commonly known for high gun crime and gang activity. Being a former resident of that hellhole just makes it the first high crime city that comes to mind when people like you claim they are big and brave.
“I wonder how some of you would feel if it were the blacks in this country that were arming themselves? How would that go over “mass-ah”?”
YOUR racism is packed in that closet so tight it’s oozing out the cracks in the door. By the way “African-Americans” ARE arming themselves leagally and illeagaly. Just like every other race is. Is that why you want gun control? To keep the “blacks” from getting guns? Pathetic. More projection from mister guy.
“I’ve been through the “mean” streets of Philly and NYC at night, without a weapon, and I was fine.”
Alone? I highly doubt that. Times sqare and central park are not “mean” streets. Pennypack Park and Bridesberg don’t count for philly.
“I’m also done dealing with this NRA baloney that “everyone should be able to own whatever weapon they want to own, including an anti-tank weapon because one person can weild it themselves.” and “gun laws don’t apply to criminals” stuff. Utter nonsense…sell that crap to someone else…this is not the Old West anymore.”
You are done with it because you have no good answer as to why a law abiding citizen should be told what he can and cannot own. The only answer you’ve been able to give is “you don’t need it”. That answer is weak on it’s face and you know it.
Tell me, how would stricter gun laws stop criminals from getting guns and using them? How has the UK’s gun laws kept criminals from getting guns and using them? How Have Australia’s?
Please explain to me how gun laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns illegally. Tell me, has violent crime gone up or down in the UK since they enacted their gun ban?
Give me a logical, factual, and non- fear based answer to the above and I’ll honestly consider what you have to say after I’ve checked your sources. Otherwise, just be done with it and go away. We’ll consider you another notch in our holsters.
on 23 Jan 2008 at 3:01 pm # Mister Guy
“I’m paranoid and proud of it.”
Then I’m done with you too Wai. Welcome to irrelevancy. We are one of the richest countires in the world…we can provide health care to everyone the way literally everyone else in the *Western* world has. When we have a single payer system in place here (it’s still going to be a while still…watch the individual states), you’ll be able to ask your employer to just give the money that they’ve been spending on your health care premiums for your own pocket. I defend democracy BTW.
Yea, alone, and I wasn’t scared. The streets weren’t that mean either. The fear of blacks getting guns after slavery ended was a HUGE fear down in the South. It still lives on today too, probably in your mind my friend…come clean, it’s OK.
Start reading the rest of this thread my friend…I’ve given plenty of reasons why common sense gun control laws that are actually *enforced* are just fine. I’m done repeating myself over and over and over…
“I’ll honestly consider what you have to say”
No one has done that since day one here…your minds are closed and that’s it. I was under no illusions to the contrary when I first posted here.
on 23 Jan 2008 at 4:38 pm # Wai
So you’re done with me just because I admit I have a survival instinct. You’ve just proved everyone’s point that you’re the one afraid - afraid of facts and the truth. Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance.
on 23 Jan 2008 at 4:52 pm # self-defender
“The fear of blacks getting guns after slavery ended was a HUGE fear down in the South. It still lives on today too, probably in your mind my friend…come clean, it’s OK. ”
Those few people have been marginalized and shunned by 99.999% of the population. Maybe you should ask Robert Byrd (D - former KKK recruiter and US Senator WV) where he stands. Not that he would tell you the truth or anything.
Funny. You assumed that because I named a city that is predominantly Hispanic/Latino that I was being racists towards African-Americans. Why is that? Mmmmm…. Projection Maybe?
I think you should quit before you dig yourself into a deeper hole.
“Start reading the rest of this thread my friend…I’ve given plenty of reasons why common sense gun control laws that are actually *enforced* are just fine.”
No, you haven’t answered the questions I posted on 23 Jan 2008 at 1:56 pm. I’ve not asked you about what gun laws are “fine”.
I’ve asked you how gun laws stop criminals from getting guns.
I’ve asked you if other contries gun laws and gun bans have caused violent crime to go up or down.
In earlier posts I’ve asked you if the rights and liberties of millions of law-abiding citizens should be dictated by a reletively small criminal element.
I’ve asked if you think its OK for someone to tell me what I, a law-abiding, responsible citizen with no criminal record, can and cannot own.
I’ve asked you if you believe it is OK for party A to take from party B, by force, under threat of imprisonment, and give what was taken to party C.
You’ve answered none of those that I can see and I’ve read every post in the comments at least twice. Perhaps I missed your answers. A quick copy/paste of the date/time stamp on these posts you say you’ve answered the above questions will suffice. If you have sources that back up your answers, please post them.
Here’s another question. What would curb gun violence more:
A) Restricting gun ownership of law-abiding citizens.
B) mandatory life without the possibility of perole on 1st conviction for ANY crime that the perpetrator used a gun; even a mugging with a toy gun.
“No one has done that since day one here…your minds are closed and that’s it.”
I have. When you said you’d defend yourself with a baseball bat against a gun, I said fair enough, that if you were comfortable with that than more power to you, and I left it at that. I’m not here trying to convince you to get a gun. I’m trying to convince you that taking my guns or making it harder for me to own a gun does nothing to lower violent crime or to get guns out of criminals hands.
The more you restrict law-abiding gun owners, the easier it is for criminals to outgun the law-abiding gun owners.
Prove me wrong.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
–Benjamin Franklin
on 23 Jan 2008 at 7:03 pm # Wai
He has no answers; just more bullshit rhetoric that we’re all so tired of hearing. See how quickly he dismissed me because I spoke the truth? Does anyone else see that there’s nothing wrong with being paranoid and having healthy fears? I don’t.
Apparently Mister Macho Guy over there doesn’t have any. Again, I don’t trust anyone who has no fears and who insists on telling me there’s nothing to fear.
on 23 Jan 2008 at 7:48 pm # Mister Guy
“Those few people have been marginalized and shunned by 99.999% of the population.”
Now who’s living in a dream world? Taken a gander at what’s been going on in the lovely GOP recently? Race bating when it comes to illegals mostly and telling the people affected by Katrina that “they’re better off now than before”.
Yea, south-central LA is predominately Hispanic, sure…keep backpeddling there buddy.
The reason that you don’t believe that responsible, common sense gun control laws will work is because a lot of you guys apparently don’t respect the rule of law. So, in your mind, laws do no good…why should we expect anyone to follow them? You love to turn these issues on their ear, but that’s the real truth here isn’t it?
“I’ve asked you if you believe it is OK for party A to take from party B, by force, under threat of imprisonment, and give what was taken to party C.”
Like taxes? Yea, I don’t like paying taxes either my friend, but it’s a responsibilty that we all have to face up to. You’re not here to make my life any easier bud. If you’re too lazy to read what’s already been written here, that’s your problem…not mine.
You wanna talk about what will “get rid of crime” totally? Who knows…we’ve been working on that for thousands of years and there might always be some of that. That’s no reason to live in fear IMO. How about if we try and get at the root causes of crime…poverty, drugs, desperation, lack of education…let me know when you come up with some real plans to fix that, if you even give a crap that is.
You said “fair enough” and then you ridiculed me, just like I expected you too. Same ole same ole… Remember the ridiculous “no guns here” sign that you wanted me to put up? I decided to replace it with a “nothing to see here, move along” sign. Maybe all those people that buy signs that say that they have guns (when they don’t) are just too cheap to by a damn gun…just like the people that stupidly put up a sign that says they have a secuirty system when they don’t.
No one is going to take your gun…get that through your head…that’s *not* what sensible, reasonable gun control is about. No one is going to come in your home and take your gun, ever! Stop being afraid of that!! I’m tired of dealing with people that wear their fear on their sleeve like a badge of honor…wake up…you’re acting exactly the way that they want you to. I just came back from watching the movie “Cloverfield”, maybe I should arm myself in case a giant lizard comes to attack my city…
on 23 Jan 2008 at 10:58 pm # Robert
Looks like Mister Guy likes to use the race card. African-AMERICANS have the same rights to bear arms and self defense as me.
Mister Guy said:
“So, in your mind, laws do no good…why should we expect anyone to follow them?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_%28drugs%29
Laws that are unworkable and that place further restrictions on the liberty of individuals ARE NO GOOD. No-Knock Warrants anyone?
The rule of law isn’t self-justifying or absolute. It’s force is limited by the FINITE STRIKING POWER of law enforcement and the extent that a SUPERMAJORITY of the populace actually accepts it (see above links). The State has no inherent “moral” legitimacy any more than a crescent wrench has “moral” legitimacy. It is simply a tool for resolving disputes and supplementing one’s self-defense with combined defense. Since different regions in the United States have wildly differing ideas on “what ought to be”, there are separate states and localities to deal with such differences. Maybe you should stop pushing for mandatory government healthcare on a Federal level.
on 23 Jan 2008 at 11:06 pm # Robert
Mister Guy said:
“You wanna talk about what will “get rid of crime” totally? Who knows…we’ve been working on that for thousands of years and there might always be some of that. That’s no reason to live in fear IMO. ”
Still thinking Homo sapiens is exempt from the laws of survival eh?
For your education, Mister Guy the “scientist”, here is Natural Selection as defined in wikipedia:
“Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to SURVIVE and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.”
Nothing about “enlightment” or “moral uprightness”.
on 24 Jan 2008 at 12:39 am # Wai
“Yea, I don’t like paying taxes either my friend, but it’s a responsibilty that we all have to face up to.”
No, it’s not a responsibility that we have to face up to, it’s a burden that’s imposed on us by the government. As a matter of fact, it was written in the Constitution that taxes be illegal. So, seeing how it was so easy for the government to ignore that part of the Constitution, it’s not a far stretch of the imagination as to what they could do with the rest of it if WE let them.
“How about if we try and get at the root causes of crime…poverty, drugs, desperation, lack of education…”
What do you suppose cause poverty, drugs, desperation, lack of education? These are all personal responsibilities that each individual has to conquer. Either that, or fail. I can’t make you pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get off the poverty train. I can’t stop you from taking drugs and ruining your life. I can’t help it if you feel desperate and I definitely can’t help it if you lack an education because you decided to drop out of school. But I can tell you that it’s certainly NOT my job to pay more taxes to support your lazy ass, while I’m busting my hump working 60 hour weeks paying more taxes so you can sit in your government subsidized apartment, eating lobster, steak and potatoes on food stamps and buying dope with your welfare check, while I barely have time to go food shopping, worrying about what I can afford on what’s left of my paycheck after taxes and eating cold cereal for dinner because I get home too late to cook. (When I say “you”, I don’t mean YOU specifically)
No, the root cause of crime is that the government slowly took away personal responsibility away from the individual. Sounds like Socialism to me.
“No one is going to come in your home and take your gun, ever! Stop being afraid of that!!”
Tell that to Patty Konie. Watch the video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=009_1190698324&c=1
Marie Galatis, near the middle of the video IS A BLACK WOMAN! And she’s a gun owner.
Or this guy who was there firsthand to experience the total chaos happening right in his neighborhood: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=afc99_4307
Even the police were looting: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=632_1190169940 Who’s going to protect you now?
By the by, the McCain-Feingold Act curtails your freedom of (political) speech.
I re-reiterate: You, Sir, are an idiot!
on 24 Jan 2008 at 1:36 pm # theirritablearchitect
“Oh, and what a surprise that you’re from KS…read any good “intelligent design” books recently? You sir, are a paranoid, anarchist loon of the first order.”
Actually, Mr.Bitch, I think the whole I.D. thing is the single, biggest crock of shit I’ve ever heard about, and that includes the absolute LIE about Global Warming!
I don’t live here because I adhear to that ideal, and it’s presumtuous of you to assume that I accept I.D., as I’ve NEVER stated ANYTHING that would lead anyone to believe that’s the case.
Paranoid? Try “awake”, instead of being led around by the nose, as much of the world is wont to. And yes, I AM an anarchist, and again, you wouldn’t know what that means if I beat it into you, you sniveling little brat!
And if you don’t like my blog, then don’t read the fucker! You’re not welcome there! I don’t do it for YOU to read, I do it so I don’t have to beat the skull in of the dumb MOTHERFUCKERS like YOU who populate the earth! I beat the keyboard as a cathartic measure, dumbass!
on 24 Jan 2008 at 1:57 pm # self-defender
“Now who’s living in a dream world? Taken a gander at what’s been going on in the lovely GOP recently? Race bating when it comes to illegals mostly and telling the people affected by Katrina that “they’re better off now than before”.”
“Illegal” is a race now? who knew! All I’ve seen in the news recently is the Clinton/Obama identity politics and Slick Willy trying to backpedal on his racist remarks and those of the Clinton smear machine.
Site please where a GOP politician said, “they’re better off now than before”.” about Katrina.
C- for effort.
“Yea, south-central LA is predominately Hispanic, sure…keep backpeddling there buddy.”
Don’t beleive me? How about the U.S. Census?
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0615044.html
You know, some people just don’t know when to give up. The first person here to bring up race is you. Typical of leftists when they have no answer. If you can’t defeat the message, accuse the messanger of being a racist. Fact of the matter is, you would have called me a racist no matter what city known for high crime and gang activity I challenged you with. I gave you an out; but you just keep on trying to project your closet racism on me.
It won’t work.
“Like taxes?…”
I didn’t ask about taxes. I asked you if you believe it is OK for party A to take from party B, by force, under threat of imprisonment, and give what was taken to party C.
Either you are OK with someone taking something you own or you are not. Which is it? As far as I’m concerned, it’s called stealing.
…But sinse you brought up taxes; I don’t mind my tax money going to roads, sanitation, police, fire/rescue, and the military. I do have a problem with my tax money going to a hippy museum, someone that puts a cross in a jar of urine and calls it art, Lawyers that try to take “under God” out of the pledge of allegence, and someone that doesn’t even TRY to get a job to take care of themselves or their children.
“If you’re too lazy to read what’s already been written here, that’s your problem…not mine.”
/sigh…You know, it would have taken you less time to copy/paste the time stamp of the posts you claim to answer my questions in than to write the post that the above quote came from.
To give you the benefit of the doubt, I’ve reread (that’s 3 times now) all of your posts, and I’m sure I’m not the only one that doesn’t see where you have answered these questions:
1)How do gun laws stop criminals from getting guns?
2)Have other contries gun laws and gun bans caused violent crime to go up or down?
3)Do you believe that the rights and liberties of millions of law-abiding citizens should be dictated by a relatively small criminal element?
4)Do you think its OK for someone to tell you, a law-abiding, responsible citizen with no criminal record, what you can and cannot own?
5)What would curb gun violence more:
A) Restricting gun ownership of law-abiding citizens.
B) mandatory life without the possibility of parole on 1st conviction for ANY crime that the perpetrator used a gun; even a mugging with a toy gun.
These are not hard questions to answer. I’ll give you an example. Number 5? B. Number 4? No.
See how easy that was?
“You wanna talk about what will “get rid of crime” totally? ”
No one has said that here. The best anyone can hope for is to DETER crime.
“No one is going to take your gun…get that through your head…that’s *not* what sensible, reasonable gun control is about. No one is going to come in your home and take your gun, ever!”
Good grief man! you keep saying that!
Tell that to:
Cuba
Venezuela
Australia
The UK
Oh, and here’s another one. New Orleans
You know, they didn’t think anyone was ever going to come and take their guns, ever, too.
“Maybe all those people that buy signs that say that they have guns (when they don’t) are just too cheap to by a damn gun”
Or maybe they do that because they know that guns DETER crimes. It’s a statistical fact that many criminals avoid potential victims if they even SUSPECT that they may be armed.
“”Florida State criminologist Gary Kleck, along with Marc Gertz, analyzed data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and concluded that guns were used by people about 2.5 million times per year to protect themselves. In the overwhelming majority of cases, no one fired a weapon, but merely showing a weapon, or even a picture of a weapon, scared off the criminal and either prevented or limited the crime. Further, “robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.”
In 1996, the U.S. Dept. of Justice interviewed convicted felons and found that about one third had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,” and that 40% of felons had decided not to commit a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed.
University of Chicago researcher John Lott and his associate David Mustard did an enormous, county-by-county study of crime statistics. They concluded in 1996 that “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly.…[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.””
http://www.spectacle.org/0507/clark.html
Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, says study:
“”The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control. “”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167
Gun fact sheet with everything footnoted:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Please answer the questions I posted. You didn’t answer them before. You and everyone that has read the comments here know that. Saying you answered them when in fact you didn’t doesn’t magically make your answers appear in older comments within this thread.
on 25 Jan 2008 at 5:36 am # Mister Guy
You know damn well if most of the illegals in this country weren’t Hispanic that there wouldn’t be as big an uproar over it.
George W. Bush’s Mom said that quote silly. There was another Lousiana Republican state legislator that said something like “we couldn’t clean out the projects in New Orleans, but Katrina did it for us.” He must be one of those “compassionate conservatives” I keep hearing about.
“I asked you if you believe it is OK for party A to take from party B, by force, under threat of imprisonment, and give what was taken to party C.”
That’s exactly what taxes are all about…you’re not in favor of redistributiion of wealth…admit it, it’s OK. You can’t pick and choose where your taxes go…you can only vote in (or out) those politicians that you want to use your taxes. That’s the way our system works.
1) This is a silly assumption. Do we get rid of speed limits because people like to speed?
2) This isn’t another country. We have a very different and unique system of govt. here. This isn’t the UK or Australia or Canada or whatever. I don’t care how gun owners are penalized when they use their guns in those countries. This is America.
3 and 4) These again are a silly assumptions. No rights are universal…I *distinctly* remember pointing that out before. Freedom of religion…go out and start a religion that does human sacrifice…see how far you get. Freedom of speech…go and yell and start a riot somewhere that people end up getting killed at…see what happens to you. Freedom of the press…deliberately libel someone…see how fast you get sued and lose. Need I go on and on? Even if you all did have a Constitutional right to own a gun, it’s not unlimited, period. This is the absolute last time that I will repeat myself on this issue. If you don’t agree…fine…continue living in a fantasy world for all I care.
5) Can you say “cruel and unusual punishment”? Man…get vindictive much? These, of course, are not the only two options. Common sense gun laws do nothing to most law-abiding people…not that I have any hope that most of you out there actually respect the law.
New Orleans…were they under marial law or some other special form of restrictions at the time? Do you think it’s OK that the police do nothing about people roaming around with guns for no apparent reason? Do you think it’s OK to brandish a gun in front of a police officer when they don’t know you from a hole in the wall? (Hint: the answer to that last questions is No.)
So we’re gonna base public policy now on what convicted felons say just because it fits our warped view of the world? Are we getting to end of the merry-go-round that we’re on yet?
on 25 Jan 2008 at 6:11 am # Mister Guy
Sorry for the double post…my computer’s been acting up recently and I almost lost that entire last post from above. I know…you could care less.
Why have right to carry concealed laws…why not just have the people carry their guns in full view like in the Old West?
Ah, WorldNetDaily, the people that brought you:
-”What would you do if armed terrorists broke into your church and starting attacking your friends with automatic weapons in the middle of a worship service?”
-”the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance.”
And the same people that intentionally distorted that CO case recently. Don’t get me wrong…that case sounded like an over-response on the part of the govt. out there, but their piece on it was balantaly one-sided about what had been going on between that family and the local govt. out there. I think I know where this train is going…let me get off right here…
At least one of these other websites is against waiting periods and background checks! Waiting periods allow for a cooling-off period for those that want to act impulsively with a gun. How anyone could be against waiting to know if you’re selling a gun to a person that’s a convict or a mental wacko is really, honestly beyond me.
Then one of the same websites goes on to try and kill the “myth” that you’re way more likely to get hurt or killed by someone you know than by someone you don’t know. Then they’re against trigger locks. Give me a break…this is just “pro-gun at any cost” lobby propaganda. The best is when they go on to say that Bush defeated Gore fair and square. I’m not even going to go there…
on 25 Jan 2008 at 1:28 pm # theirritablearchitect
“Waiting periods allow for a cooling-off period for those that want to act impulsively with a gun”
Not if someone wants one badly enough that they’d engage in nefarious activities to obtain such.
I’m against waiting periods, but I’m not against the NICS system. Do you understand the difference? Thought not.
Again, you just haven’t thought through any of this thoroughly enough to integrate it into any kind of coherent philosophy.
Just go away!
on 25 Jan 2008 at 1:42 pm # theirritablearchitect
“No rights are universal…I *distinctly* remember pointing that out before”
That doesn’t mean that you are RIGHT, you thimble-headed gherkin!
As a matter of fact, I challenge the very assumption to that assertion, and it’s becoming apparent to me that I’ll be proven right about the state curtailing the definition of what’s free speech, and soon.
I don’t need, nor want, anyone under the auspices of government telling me what I can and can NOT say, and when and where. I have a nice, fresh example of such a thing sitting right here in front of me in the news. It’s already happening, the serious censorship is well on its way, here.
When and if it ever happens to me, I’m slitting the throat of the official who is there to enforce it. You’ll probably call that murder, but I think it’s death in the name of preservation of Liberty.
THAT is where we differ here, so just get LOST!
on 25 Jan 2008 at 2:13 pm # theirritablearchitect
“New Orleans…were they under marial law or some other special form of restrictions at the time? Do you think it’s OK that the police do nothing about people roaming around with guns for no apparent reason? Do you think it’s OK to brandish a gun in front of a police officer when they don’t know you from a hole in the wall? (Hint: the answer to that last questions is No.)”
Except, of course, that not all people were just, “roaming around with guns,” as you state, but there is evidence, on film no less, of armed government thugs kicking down the doors of homeowners who were peacable attempting to ride out the aftermath and had the means to do so, and were forcibly disarmed by these same thugs, and LEFT THERE, with nothing more than their physical strength left to defend themselves. It was a mass disarmament of the civilian population, and I don’t give a rat’s ass if the intentions of Mayor Nagin were to try to “keep the peace” by “any means necessary,” as those methods and reasons DO NOT trump the inherent rights of the citizens of New Orleans.
This isn’t a “government say, citizen do” country, even if there are laws that get written that say exactly THAT! Those laws are specious, and should NEVER be followed, as they are nothing more than an attempt at reducing this country’s citizens to mere surfs.
ONE LAST TIME. GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!
on 25 Jan 2008 at 4:25 pm # self-defender
“You can’t pick and choose where your taxes go…you can only vote in (or out) those politicians that you want to use your taxes. That’s the way our system works.”
Thank you Captain obvious. Since you won’t actually answer the question outright, I’ll assume you are OK with stealing.
“1) This is a silly assumption. Do we get rid of speed limits because people like to speed?”
What are you, a politician? That’s the lamest non-answer I’ve seen. I’ll answer your question though. No, we do not get rid of speed limits. Apples to oranges for the same reasons that has already been explained to you.
Since you won’t answer how gun laws stop criminals from getting guns, maybe you will answer this:
How do speed limits stop people from speeding?
“2) This isn’t another country. We have a very different and unique system of govt. here. This isn’t the UK or Australia or Canada or whatever. I don’t care how gun owners are penalized when they use their guns in those countries. This is America.”
Still won’t let your hand type the answer, will you. That’s another non-answer to a question I didn’t ask.
Have other contries gun laws and gun bans caused violent crime to go up or down?
A) up
B) Down
This is not an essay question and it’s easily looked up on the internet. Up or down? A or B? Why do you insist on making this question something that it isn’t?
“3 and 4) These again are a silly assumptions.”
Another non-answer. As hard as you are trying to avoid answering the question in a simple, consise way only leads me to the conclusion that you ARE OK with Ciminals dictating our rights and liberies, and that you ARE OK with someone telling law-abiding citizens what they can’t and cannot own.
“No rights are universal…I *distinctly* remember pointing that out before.”
REALLY?!?!?!
“Freedom of religion…go out and start a religion that does human sacrifice…see how far you get. ”
Starting a religion = a right
Human sacrifices = against the law
“Freedom of speech…go and yell and start a riot somewhere that people end up getting killed at…see what happens to you.”
Freedom of speech = a right
Inciting a riot = against the law
“Freedom of the press…deliberately libel someone…see how fast you get sued and lose.”
Freedon of the press = a right. anyone can start a newspaper.
Deliberately libel someone = against the law
“Need I go on and on?”
You forgot a couple:
Right to keep and bare arms = a right
Use a gun in a crime = against the law
Freedom to peaceably assemble = a right
A mob looting a store = against the law
You DO know the difference between a right and a law, don’t you?
“Even if you all did have a Constitutional right to own a gun, it’s not unlimited, period.”
–”Report by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982)—”The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected as an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”–
-U.S. Senate, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, (1982):12.
–”Supreme Court admits “the people” in the Second Amendment are the same “people” as in the rest of the Bill of Rights—In U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez the Court stated that “‘the people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [and] it suggests that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”–
-U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259 (1990).
–”Near v. Minnesota—In this case, the Supreme Court stated that government officials should punish the abuse of a right and not place prior restraints on the exercise of the right.”–
–The court stated, “The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct. Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate remedy, consistent with constitutional privilege.” Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct.–
–”What about yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater?—The courts have stated that one cannot use his “freedom of speech” to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. And yet, no one argues that officials should gag everyone who goes into the theater, thus placing a prior restraint on movie-goers. The proper response is to punish the person who does yell “Fire.” Likewise, citizens should not be “gagged” before exercising their Second Amendment rights, rather they should be punished if they abuse that right.”–
No “if” about it. It’s been reaffirmed repeatedly by the courts.
“This is the absolute last time that I will repeat myself on this issue. If you don’t agree…fine…continue living in a fantasy world for all I care.”
I think case law backs me up when I say that YOU are the one living in a fantasy world.
“5) Can you say “cruel and unusual punishment”? Man…get vindictive much? These, of course, are not the only two options. Common sense gun laws do nothing to most law-abiding people…not that I have any hope that most of you out there actually respect the law.”
Congratulations! Youv’e managed to NOT answer 5 simple questions! I didn’t ask if B) was cruel and unusual. I asked what would curb gun violence more:
A) Restricting gun ownership of law-abiding citizens.
B) mandatory life without the possibility of parole on 1st conviction for ANY crime that the perpetrator used a gun; even a mugging with a toy gun.
Again. I’ll assume that you dodging the question means that you agree that B) would curb gun violence more. Just in case though, I’ll ask the same question with different criteria:
What would curb people breaking the speed limit more:
A) Lowering the speed limit
B) $500.00 fine for every mile per hour you are clocked going over the speed limit.
None of these are hard questions.
oh, and if “Common sense gun laws do nothing to MOST law-abiding people”, Then what about the law-abiding people it DOES affect?
“New Orleans…were they under marial law or some other special form of restrictions at the time? ”
No, they were not. Martial law was never declared.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hurricane_Katrina:_Martial_Law
“Do you think it’s OK that the police do nothing about people roaming around with guns for no apparent reason?”
No apparent reason? Are you frikkin’ kidding me?!?! For the most part, local law enforcement broke down. (police were looting WITH the looters) Many people that had their guns taken were law-abiding citizens that were holed up at their homes or were TOLD to take their guns with them when they evacuated! The police were taking guns from people that were INSIDE THEIR OWN HOMES PROTECTING THEMSELVES FROM LOOTERS!
“Do you think it’s OK to brandish a gun in front of a police officer when they don’t know you from a hole in the wall? (Hint: the answer to that last questions is No.)”
Again. Thank you Captain Obvious. Only probem is, many people were not “brandishing” their weapons at the cops. Did you even watch the liveleak videos that were posted?
“So we’re gonna base public policy now on what convicted felons say just because it fits our warped view of the world?”
Isn’t that the same as asking:
Do you believe that the rights and liberties of millions of law-abiding citizens should be dictated by a relatively small criminal element?
I already answered. I said no. You have not. What say you?
“Why have right to carry concealed laws…why not just have the people carry their guns in full view like in the Old West?”
Maybe because potential criminals would then know exactly who was armed and who isn’t?
Me carrying concealed actually lowers violent crime against both armed AND unarmed citizens. Criminals tend to err on the side of caution. Would they not be able to easily pick unarmed targets if only open carry was allowed?
Thanks for the softball question.
–”Concealed Carry v. Waiting Period Laws. In 1976, both Georgia and Wisconsin tried two different approaches to fighting crime. Georgia enacted legislation making it easier for citizens to carry guns for self-defense, while Wisconsin passed a law requiring a 48 hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. What resulted during the ensuing years? Georgia’s law served as a deterrent to criminals and helped drop its homicide rate by 21 percent. Wisconsin’s murder rate, however, rose 33 percent during the same period.”–
(The comparison period between Georgia and Wisconsin is for the years 1976 to 1993. The enactment of the national Brady waiting period in 1994 ended the ability to extend, beyond 1993, any comparison of waiting periods and concealed carry laws in states such as Georgia and Wisconsin. Compare FBI, “Crime in the United States,” Uniform Crime Reports (1977):45, 53; and FBI, (1994):70, 78.)
“Ah, WorldNetDaily, the people that brought you:”
Ah, there you go again attacking the messenger again. Did you look up the results of the study? Apparently not.
“Waiting periods allow for a cooling-off period for those that want to act impulsively with a gun.”
Tell that to Bonnie Elmasri:
–”She inquired about getting a gun to protect herself from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was told there was a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. But unfortunately, Bonnie was never able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the next day by an abusive husband of whom the police were well aware.”–
And to Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross:
–”She bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state) and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later. Had a 5-day waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking her.”–
And these people:
–”Los Angeles riots—USA Today reported that many of the people rushing to gun stores during the 1992 riots were “lifelong gun-control advocates, running to buy an item they thought they’d never need.” Ironically, they were outraged to discover they had to wait 15 days to buy a gun for self-defense.”–
“Then one of the same websites goes on to try and kill the “myth” that you’re way more likely to get hurt or killed by someone you know than by someone you don’t know.”
–”While most murders do involve the killing of an acquaintance, it is fallacious to assume these are otherwise law-abiding people killing one another. In fact, sixty-one percent of murder victims themselves—and an even greater majority of murderers—have prior criminal records. This indicates that most murders occur between criminals who have already demonstrated a pattern of violence.”–
–” Nationwide, 70% of murderers (under sentence of death) have prior felony convictions. This number does not include criminals who have plea-bargained their felonies down to lesser charges.”–
“Then they’re against trigger locks.”
So am I:
–”On the morning of August 23, 2000, Jonathon David Bruce attacked a houseful of kids. Armed with a pitchfork—and without a stitch of clothing on his body—Bruce proceeded to stab the children. Two of them died.
The oldest of the children, Jessica Carpenter (14), was quite proficient with firearms. She had been trained by her father and knew how to use them. There was just one problem: the guns were locked up in compliance with California state law. Unable to use the firearms, Jessica was forced to flee the house to get help. Mr. Bruce’s murderous rampage was finally cut short when officers—carrying guns—arrived on the scene.”–
–”Contrast the Carpenter’s tragic situation to that of A.D. Parker. In February 2000, he was awakened by strange noises outside his bedroom in the middle of the night. The 83-year-old Parker grabbed a handgun he had not even used in several decades, went to his bedroom door, and found himself face-to-face with a thug holding a crowbar.
Thankfully, Mr. Parker didn’t have to fiddle with a trigger lock, remember a combination, or look for a key in the dark room. He simply pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. That is why he survived the attack.”–
–”Maryland Governor Parris Glendening struggled for at least two whole minutes to remove a trigger lock at a training session in March 2000. If it can take that long to remove such a lock—when there’s only the pressure of being embarrassed in front of the cameras—what will a trigger lock mean for a homeowner who needs to use his or her self-defense gun during an emergency, in the bedroom, in the dark?”–
–”Mafia turncoat, Sammy “the Bull” Gravano, expressed his love for gun control in an interview with Vanity Fair: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”–
“You know damn well if most of the illegals in this country weren’t Hispanic that there wouldn’t be as big an uproar over it.”
Why do you insist on proving your racism and bigotry? The proof? YOU brought up race. YOU accused me of racism towards “blacks”. Never once did it occur to you that I AM a “black” man. It never occured to you that I worked real hard to get where I am today and have a proud family that taught me values and how to achieve success. It never occured to you that it’s people like you with your soft racism who sealed my decision long ago to never agree that democrats and leftists had my best intrests in mind.
You assumed I was White.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I’m a conservative. Conservatism has no color.
You, sir, or should I say “mass-uh”, are the racist and bigot here. You’ve already proved it. Funny thing is, you probably didn’t even realize it. Most leftists don’t.
on 25 Jan 2008 at 5:29 pm # Wai
And for what it’s worth, I’m not white either.
on 25 Jan 2008 at 7:10 pm # Mister Guy
LOL!!! So much for having an open mind when it comes to us “Democrats and leftists”. What an exercise in futility…too funny.
“How do speed limits stop people from speeding?”
You already answered your own question: “No, we do not get rid of speed limits.” It’s the same exact concept…too difficult for you to understand maybe though, but only because you’re biased.
I’ve heard of Republicans being good at redefining issues in a baloney way that makes their position look “foolproof”, but you take the cake buddy. The GOP needs you to help them out desperately. You bring up strawman argument after strawman argument (”Do you believe that the rights and liberties of millions of law-abiding citizens should be dictated by a relatively small criminal element?”) or ridiculous scenerio after ridiculous scenerio…it’s almost insane, almost. You obviously don’t want to discuss the real issues.
Thanx for proving my arugument once and for all that no right is universal BTW…I appreciate it. I also don’t expect you to understand what I am talking about here, since your mind is apparently warped by your view that your imaginary “constitutional right” to own a gun is apparently special above all other rights in this world…it can never be restricted by any law in your world…lol… Riddle me this Batman, why are all the laws that you hate restricting this oh-so sacred right to carry a gun still on the books then, if they are all unconstitutional?? The is the silliest bunch of baloney that I’ve ever heard…what are we…in a court of law now or something “counselor”? Happy to know that, in your world, there is no such thing as cruel and unusual punishment…for gun owners *and* drivers…lol…
Yes, I watched all the video links that were posted…they were entertaining and I’ve already addressed what I saw in them. You can ask me to repeat that again, but I won’t.
BTW, I thought I already heard that they had right to carry unconcealed laws down in TX or somewhere like that? Opposed to instant background checks as well are you? Keep repeating what some pro-gun website on the Internet told you to think…that’ll sure make it true someday, someday when maybe Hell freezes over, but someday none-the-less.
Gee whiz no martial law in New Orleans, but a “state of emergency” was in place instead…same difference.
“state of emergency [on August 26, 2005] gives authorities widespread latitude to suspend civil liberties as they try to restore order and bring victims to safety. Under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993, the governor and, in some cases, chief parish officials, have the right to commandeer or utilize any private property if necessary to cope with the emergency. Authorities may also suspend any statute related to the conduct of official business, or any rule issued by a state agency, if complying would ‘prevent, hinder or delay necessary action’ to mitigate the emergency. It also gives authority the right to compel evacuations, suspend alcohol and weapons sales and make provisions for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing.”
Thanx for the link and for proving my point once again.
Here’s a post from the Philly mayor thread on this very website (http://www.alphecca.com/?p=619), my own **emphasis** added:
“Joe
Well we all know Philly is corrupt we have known this for years. The Democrats have been supporting the crime down there for years and the cops don’t do shit expect play with themselves. This is not something new that we’re learning but let them try to take away the people’s rights those **stupid monkeys** I hope the NRA eats them alive, fucks their day up, and basically shoot them down just like every other Democrat.
I really hate Democrats and **philly needs to start all over if you get the drift.**”
All I can say is be careful who you pick as your friends out there my brother…it just might get you killed in the end.
Oh, and welcome to irrelevancy Mr. close-minded “self-defender”…recess time is over now…it’s been a pleasure. Class dismissed…try not to shoot anyone out of fear on the way out of class please.
on 25 Jan 2008 at 7:42 pm # self-defender
“LOL!!! So much for having an open mind when it comes to us “Democrats and leftists”.”
See how I magically turn into a “closed-minded “black” guy” instead of a “racist white guy”?
I told you all he doesn’t even see his own soft racism.
““How do speed limits stop people from speeding?”
You already answered your own question: “No, we do not get rid of speed limits.” It’s the same exact concept…too difficult for you to understand maybe though, but only because you’re biased.”
SIGH….
That was the answer to “Do we get rid of speed limits because people like to speed?”, not, “How do speed limits stop people from speeding?”
The answer is, THEY DON’T! The law PUNISHES those who speed.
Now, I’ll ask again:
How do gun laws stop criminals from getting guns?
If you don’t want to answer the question, just say, “I’m not answering”. Throwing some screed at “your closed-minded lessers” that has nothing to do with the actual question doesn’t make you look good. To anyone.
I’ll continue my rebuttle tomorrow morning. Time to go home.
on 25 Jan 2008 at 10:54 pm # Robert L.
“No one is going to take your gun…get that through your head…that’s *not* what sensible, reasonable gun control is about. No one is going to come in your home and take your gun, ever!”
MG, I may be going out on a limb here, but it appears that you are more left leaning than others here. Being a recovering republican myself, I’ve got some insight into the left. However, I cannot understand if you don’t see that they keep taking things from us. Our Constitutional rights (Habeas Corpus, anyone? Anyone?), our privacy (Warrant for wire tapping? Who, us?), and yes, even our trans fats if you live in the right/wrong location (NYC, NY).
There is much wrong with our system, and it’s not a partisan or religious issue. The powers of the government, as defined in our founding documents is limited. For example, it should help to protect the country from invasion, tyranny, etc., but not from our own stupidity. For example, making laws against what people eat is not what my tax dollars should fund.
Years of letting the government waste money and time on stupid crap has created a nation of sheep that lets our government and the corporations get away with exploiting us, and the rest of the world. Don’t tell me you don’t see it. Don’t tell me you aren’t ticked off. What will make them stop? Sheep?
Another thought - If you are an able bodied human, left or right, I recommend you buy a rifle, a good sturdy lock which is easy to work (some very nice American made ones can be found here http://www.tufloc.com/singlegun.html ), and take some classes on defensive use of the rifle. It is what the Founding Fathers expected of us. And it tells those who are watching that you will enforce your right to live. Your basic human right is to live, and your instinct should be to survive.
Why do I own and train with firearms? Because I could not live with myself if I had to wake up nightly to nightmares of watching the people I love be hurt, subjugated, violated or killed because I was helpless.
Is it likely that I will ever defend myself or my loved ones? Statistically, not likely. But, could I live with myself if I could not? No.
on 25 Jan 2008 at 11:41 pm # theirritablearchitect
Robert L.,
Hear, hear, sir!
on 25 Jan 2008 at 11:51 pm # theirritablearchitect
“Gee whiz no martial law in New Orleans, but a “state of emergency” was in place instead…same difference.
“state of emergency [on August 26, 2005] gives authorities widespread latitude to suspend civil liberties as they try to restore order and bring victims to safety. Under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993, the governor and, in some cases, chief parish officials, have the right to commandeer or utilize any private property if necessary to cope with the emergency. Authorities may also suspend any statute related to the conduct of official business, or any rule issued by a state agency, if complying would ‘prevent, hinder or delay necessary action’ to mitigate the emergency. It also gives authority the right to compel evacuations, suspend alcohol and weapons sales and make provisions for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing.”
Thanx for the link and for proving my point once again.”
You feckless piece of shit, do you understand what this means?
Just because it’s The Law doesn’t mean that it’s right!
COMPLETELY lost on you, I can see.
Typical leftist, if it’s in the law book, then it MUST be followed, just like it was law to round up the Jews, circa 1938 to 1945.
on 26 Jan 2008 at 11:03 am # self-defender
“I’ve heard of Republicans being good at redefining issues in a baloney way that makes their position look “foolproof”, but you take the cake buddy. The GOP needs you to help them out desperately. ”
What issue am I trying to “redefine”? You know, You keep asking questions and I answer them. When I ask you questions, you distort, answer a question that was not asked, claim I’ve answered my own question when in reality I’ve answered the question YOU asked, or just plain start foaming at the mouth about the EEEEVIL republicans and “gun nuts”. I think you are helping the GOP out more then I am, mister guy.
” You bring up strawman argument after strawman argument (”Do you believe that the rights and liberties of millions of law-abiding citizens should be dictated by a relatively small criminal element?”) ”
See there you go reading into questions instead of taking them for what they are. When talking about rights, is the above question not valid when trying to establish where people stand on rights? If not, then why did you ask:
“So we’re gonna base public policy now on what convicted felons say just because it fits our warped view of the world?”
Isn’t that the same question, just worded differently? I answered yours, because I find the question valid. Did you ask yours because you want to “bring up strawman argument after strawman argument”?
Oh, and you still haven’t answered it.
“… or ridiculous scenerio after ridiculous scenerio…it’s almost insane, almost.”
With the exception of:
What would curb gun violence more:
A) Restricting gun ownership of law-abiding citizens.
B) mandatory life without the possibility of parole on 1st conviction for ANY crime that the perpetrator used a gun; even a mugging with a toy gun.
B. is an exageration to make a point. The point being, harsh penalties on criminals would work better on curbing gun violence than placing restrictive laws on non-criminals. Apparently you don’t agree, because you refuse to answer.
Other than that, all those, “ridiculous scenerios after ridiculous scenerios” actually, happened or VERY similar things have happened.
“You obviously don’t want to discuss the real issues.”
Projection. If, you’d be intellectually honest and answer the questions I’m asking, we could move forward on these issues. But you steadfastly refuse.
“Thanx for proving my arugument once and for all that no right is universal BTW…I appreciate it.”
And thank YOU for proving that you have absolutely no idea what the difference is between a right and a law and refuse to learn… I appreciate it.
“I also don’t expect you to understand what I am talking about here, since your mind is apparently warped by your view that your imaginary “constitutional right” to own a gun is apparently special above all other rights in this world…it can never be restricted by any law in your world…lol…”
You are right. I don’t understand. Mainly because you are not making any sense, as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread. And get off the “imaginary “constitutional right”” thing. Just because YOU say so doesn’t make it true. I’ve sighted Senate reports, supreme court, and state court precedent that establishes my constututional right to own a gun. Where’s your proof that it’s “imaginary”?
“Riddle me this Batman, why are all the laws that you hate restricting this oh-so sacred right to carry a gun still on the books then, if they are all unconstitutional??”
Again, you show your ingorance on the difference between a right and a law. I’m allowed to carry a gun, open or concealed. I don’t have to register my guns. I can buy as many guns as I want in one trip to the gun store.
The machine gun ban is still on the books because BOTH sides of the aisle want the government to be able to outgun civilians. Why do you think the DC gun ban case in the courts is so important? It slipped through. I think I heard that their hasn’t been a case like this since before the 1986 machine gun ban. If that ban is found unconstitutional, it has the potential to invalidate the machine gun ban.
“Happy to know that, in your world, there is no such thing as cruel and unusual punishment…for gun owners *and* drivers…lol…”
See, now that’s just plain silly and arguementative. Of course their is such a thing as cruel and unusual punishment. Remember folks, only leftists are allowed to exaggerate in the hypothetical to make a point. Convervatives are not. mister guy said so. And he still won’t answer the question.
“Yes, I watched all the video links that were posted…they were entertaining and I’ve already addressed what I saw in them. You can ask me to repeat that again, but I won’t.”
Of course you won’t, because even if by chance you did watch them, you didn’t comment on them. You have only posted 3 times since they were posted and the above quote comes from the latest post. The 2 between when they were posted and now say ABSOLUTLY NOTHING about those videos. Go look. You tried this before. It’s not like we can’t scroll back a little and see that you in fact didn’t comment on them.
“BTW, I thought I already heard that they had right to carry unconcealed laws down in TX or somewhere like that?”
Several states do. your point? If i’m not mistaken, every state that allows open carry also allows concealed. I do know that North Carolina allows open carry, but its not recommended. There’s a law there, called “going about to the terror of the public”, or something like that. Meaning that People like you would probably wet themselves and say I was threatening you, which would in turn get me arrested, even if it was unloaded and in a holser with a trigger lock on it.
“Opposed to instant background checks as well are you? ”
I have no problem with the NICS system. Do you?
“Keep repeating what some pro-gun website on the Internet told you to think…that’ll sure make it true someday, someday when maybe Hell freezes over, but someday none-the-less.”
Is this more projection? I’ve not been stating “talking points”, I’ve been referencing studies and court cases. What have YOU been responding with?
“Gee whiz no martial law in New Orleans, but a “state of emergency” was in place instead…same difference.”
Same difference? Ummm. no.
“Thanx for the link and for proving my point once again.”
Show me where it says that a state of emergency suspends the Constitution of the United States. Take a look at this:
http://crljsymposium.googlepages.com/halbrook.doc
And in light of what happen in louisiana, The Senate voted 84-16 in favor of an ammendment to prohibit the confiscation of legally owned guns during an emergency.
http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/07/us-senate-blocks-emergency-gun.html
“Here’s a post from the Philly mayor thread on this very website (http://www.alphecca.com/?p=619), my own **emphasis** added:”
You really need to stop reading racism into everything you read. Joe was talking about the POLITICIANS! NOT the residents of Philly. I think politicians are a bunch of stupid monkeys too.
“All I can say is be careful who you pick as your friends out there my brother…it just might get you killed in the end.”
1) I always do
2)You ain’t “my brother”
3) what?
“Oh, and welcome to irrelevancy Mr. close-minded “self-defender”
OHHH NOOOO! I”M IRRELEVENT!!!1!1!! mister guy said so! it must be true!!!
pphft!
Notice he still hasn’t answered any of me questions…
on 26 Jan 2008 at 11:52 am # theirritablearchitect
Nor will he, self-defender.
on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:32 am # John
I suggest, Anon, that you read the Federalist papers. There are plenty of works from our Founding Fathers that support the notion that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to be an individual right. Were your argument correct, all other references to “the people” would mean a collective right. The SCOTUS has ruled on numerous occasions on other matters of the USC that “the people” be interpreted as applying to the individual.
On Jan 16th, Anon wrote:
“2nd Amendment means a right to bear arms for the national defense. It does not mean a right to bear arms of any capability for your personal recreation. You want an F-16 on your ranch? How about a shoulder launched Stinger? Perhaps just an M1A2 tank? These aren’t meant for sport any more than a fully automatic rifle. You want to play with them? Join the f-ing Army!”
on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:48 am # Mister Guy
I think we’ll settle this “unlimited individual right” nonsense when the Supreme Court rules later this year. It’s apparent to me that the lower court in that D.C. case just did what a lot of you guys do…parse out bits and pieces of the Second Amendment that you think further your own cause.
on 27 Jan 2008 at 5:02 am # Robert
Mister Guy said:
“I think we’ll settle this ‘unlimited individual right’ nonsense when the Supreme Court rules later this year. It’s apparent to me that the lower court in that D.C. case just did what a lot of you guys do…parse out bits and pieces of the Second Amendment that you think further your own cause. ”
Just like Plessy vs. Ferguson settled the “all men are created equal” “nonsense”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
on 27 Jan 2008 at 12:02 pm # self-defender
“It’s apparent to me that the lower court in that D.C. case just did what a lot of you guys do…parse out bits and pieces of the Second Amendment that you think further your own cause.”
Actually, it was the DC district court that, “parsed out bits and pieces of the Second Amendment” that the US court of appeals reversed. What “cause” do you think the district court was for?
–”SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants contest the
district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that the
District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate their Second
Amendment rights. The court held that the Second Amendment(“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed”) does not bestow any rights on individuals
except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized
militia such as today’s National Guard. We reverse.
—
Appellants sought declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but the court below granted the District’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Second Amendment, at most, protects an individual’s right to “bear arms for service in the Militia.” (The court did not refer to the word “keep” in the Second Amendment.) And, by “Militia,” the court concluded the Second Amendment referred to an organized military body—such as a National Guard unit.
—
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.”–
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/dccourt04_7041a.pdf
Still don’t want to answer my questions? Please don’t say you already have, because you haven’t. All you’ve done is dodge, answered a question I didn’t ask, claim I answered my own question when I was answering your question, or claimed you already answered the questions when in fact you have not.
Here they are again:
1)How do gun laws stop criminals from getting guns?
(my answer: they don’t)
Your answer?
2)Have other contries gun laws and gun bans caused violent crime to go up or down?
(my answer: up)
Your answer?
3)Do you believe that the rights and liberties of millions of law-abiding citizens should be dictated by a relatively small criminal element?
(my answer:no)
Your answer?
4)Do you think its OK for someone to tell you, a law-abiding, responsible citizen with no criminal record, what you can and cannot own?
(my answer:no)
Your answer?
5)What would curb gun violence more:
A) Restricting gun ownership of law-abiding citizens.
B) mandatory life without the possibility of parole on 1st conviction for ANY crime that the perpetrator used a gun; even a mugging with a toy gun.
(my answer: B)
Your answer?
on 27 Jan 2008 at 9:53 pm # Wai
Mister Guy isn’t going to respond to any of your questions with straight answers. He’s even afraid to respond to my comments, because I speak the truth and he’s afraid of the truth. That’s why he twists everything around so that in the end, his answers are nothing but convoluted double-talk. I can almost say with utmost certainty that he never watched any of the videos I linked to at Liveleak.
It’s no wonder the air in here stinks: he’s full of shit and when he’s talking out both sides of his mouth, it just tends to go everywhere and get on everything.
on 29 Jan 2008 at 12:41 pm # theirritablearchitect
“I think we’ll settle this “unlimited individual right” nonsense when the Supreme Court rules later this year.”
Yet more posturing, overbearing, governmental hooliganish BULLSHIT coming from the mouth of MG.
Even if the SC issues an opinion of the case that is less than favorable, NOTHING is going to happen that changes ANY current gun laws. I’m sure MG is too dense to figure that out.
on 29 Jan 2008 at 10:14 pm # Robert
Here is a rather educational discussion that might be related to Mister Guy’s insistence that Homo sapiens is exempt from the same rules as other organisms.
One atheist by the name of Aramil Caelvan thought the same way as Mister Guy and got his ass kicked in debate by another atheist who didn’t share Mister Guy’s delusions, parrhesia. I could see how one can use spiritual arguments to support the Mister Guy position but one cannot use natural evidence to support it.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3918&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:50 pm # theirritablearchitect
Just saw this from one of MG ridiculous comments:
“Common sense gun laws do nothing to most law-abiding people…not that I have any hope that most of you out there actually respect the law.”
Do these dipshits actually believe this kind of crap?
I’m sure the troll thinks shit like the AWB of ‘94-’04 was just such “common sense gun law”.
MORON!
on 05 Feb 2008 at 10:40 pm # john
It is easy to get guns of the street and reduce crime.
1- Increase jail time for crimes with guns. Add a 20 years with no parole.
2- Put more cops, undercover, sting operations, etc
3- mandatory FLL to run background even on person to person sales. Do not allow any person to person sales without NICS through FFL.
4- Allow all citizens with a clean record to obtain conceal carry permits allow them to defend themselves in all states.
5- Make realistic laws. Assault weapon ban does nothing, a rifle made during, before or after the ban will do the exact same damage or more depending on the configuration.
6- NO gun zone laws only help criminals and nut cases. People will evil agendas will bring guns to gun free zones but law biding citizens left defenseless.
7- DO surprise drug tests for crack cocaine, heroine and crank in high schools. Once cought, squeeze these kids for dealers. Then lock these drug dealers up for 30-40 years.