"I can't believe we're so lazy and defeated as to live like this. Not a nation of cowards. Just a nation of bored narcissists and cynics, biting our nails and waiting and playing the odds. No one will ever believe that we let this happen because of idle violent fantasies, an industry lobby, and our obsession with what long-dead men believed within an utterly different reality. Parsing centuries-old words in abstraction while the state bleeds out."
Stanford takes on the NRA (and evidently Texas)...
- Thread starter WATU2
- Start date
I've been think this over Marlo has a point.
"long-dead men believed within an utterly different reality." He's right, the Bill of Rights was made in 1789 but today it's stupid. We need a guy like J. Edgar Hoover again. What's this Miranda rights crap. You think Elliot Ness cleaned up Chicago the last time according Hoyle? Chicago is one of the murder capitals now. Let's bust down some doors, kick some ass. I got your search warrant right here. You have the right to remain silent if you are dead. No more 2nd Amendment and let's get rid of the Fifth Amendment as well.
"Idle violent fantasies." [IVF] Let's stop video games that the kids play and all these bloody murders in Movies are idle violent fantasies. It all started when Clark Gable said "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." So let's cut back the 1st Amendment, at least that part.
Talk about IVF [things sound better if you can come up initials] most of the mass killings are done by people who are crazy and want to get one point across, often just that they are pissed. Go out in a flash and make the evening new nation wide. Were going to have to take another small piece out of the 1st Amendment. TV stations can only report it happened in a short statement and not give the name or picture of the person. He's usually dead anyway, if he's not that can be fixed by the first paragraph above.
The Tenth Amendment is already gone de facto so we don't have to worry about that one. We'll leave the Religious part of the 1st Amendment alone for now.
The Second Amendment just needs to be gone, no need to parse "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." Did I quote that right, doesn't matter it's going to be gone anyway.
No worries about "an industry lobby" they can only influence Congress. We'll just do everything by executive order. Congress can be bought, but as long as we have Progressive Democrats as president they will set a new standard for transparency. The rest of the Bill or Rights and some parts of the larger document written by the long dead men from a different time can be decided by executive action as needed. Yeah some of the rural people kill a deer, duck or quale or something for food, but when we go to tofu and artificial meat to save the planet we there will be no need for guns for hunting. As the deer population soars we will run over them with our electric cars.
Marlo for president.
Last edited:
Biden advocates the use of a shotgun to protect ourselves, but under the right circumstances its more lethal than an assault rifle and can pump more deadly "shot" into a crowd than about any weapon out there. We actually used shotguns extensively in "the Nam" and i assume are being used in in the middle east. In a crowd, I'd rather be near a "Tsarnaev"(sp) pressure cooker bomb than a terrorist with a sawed off shotgun firing buckshot into a crowd near me. The shotgun/riot gun was once called "the equalizer" for a reason.
Last edited:
Does the NRA really represent your views? In addition to blocking the CDC from its research, here's what else the NRA have been able to accomplish. Are these representative of your views?
You asked a question in 57620, I answered it in 57641, then in 58901 you ask why I answered it. Four days later you ask why I answered the question you asked. You are either becoming senile or you are up to your usual tricks. I can't rule out that you are both.
I am not into guns. I own no guns. I shoot no guns.
But I do believe in the Constitution.
How many innocent people have been shot by someone with a CHL or open carry license?
But I do believe in the Constitution.
How many innocent people have been shot by someone with a CHL or open carry license?
Once again, I bring up the point that women should have access to a weapon of choice since they are the ones most at risk of being raped, killed, maimed, beat up, violated, abused - right this very moment by those creatures who are being let go from prison by Obama and his ilk and would be let go by Hillary or Bernie if they ever have his authority. Taking away the right and easy access to a weapon puts them most at risk and there is a growing list of them acquiring those weapons at those gun shows the left has targeted. Go ahead, try to argue this point. Go ahead, make my day!
If women have a right to choose birth control, they need the right to choose their caliber.
If women have a right to choose birth control, they need the right to choose their caliber.
What is really sad is the "So what, OH gosh another shooting", attitude from the part the NRA crowd. We went to war that cost us trillions in cash, millions of lives, crashed our economy etc. all because of the 3,000+ deaths from 911. But when we lose tens of thousands every year to guns, many of these in horrific slaughters of kids in school, the response is a shrug or some nonsensical answer. Business as usual. Why bother?
Is that really us?
Is that really us?
How many of those "tens of thousands" which we've lost this year have been the horrific slaughter of kids in school? I dont know the number but I thought it was an extremely small percentage instead of "many of these deaths".
For the record I support background checks, registration and waiting periods on all firearm purchases.
So do I and the last weapon I bought, it (the background check) was automatically part of the process here in wonderful Tulsa. But if we aren't vigilant, the "no nad" lieberals will always take their regulation powers to the extreme. More paperwork and more "checking" that will make it almost impossible for the honest folks out there to get the weapon of their choice including the most vulnerable in our society. Right now the process is about right IMO, mainly because the "regulators" are not in complete control.
This is a new one for me. I'm sure it involves some really intelligent economic analysis though.
Food for thought....in "gun free" Chicago through the first two and a half weeks of this month there have been 133 people shot and 20 killed. Think about those numbers yet no public outcry or any reporting to speak of for that matter. Gun measures are fine but the issue of real gun violence lies in the conditions of our inner cities and the values of those within. I'm still amazed that this rampant violence fails to be a blip on the radar of the news media, politicians, and civil rights groups.
The underlying statistics on gun violence is so obviously in favor of more guns that the NRA lobbied to ban all research into gun violence...
Feel free to discuss how much of the freedom to own firearms we should trade in order to prevent how much gun violence, but the argument that more guns means more safety is contrary to every study on the matter and the experience of every other civilized nation.
aTUfan:
many people are shot by people with CCLs. Over the weekend a man shot his wife to death thinking she was an intruder. Statistically, if you have a CCL you are much more likely to accidentally shoot someone than to prevent a crime. Much like the TSA, a CCL makes people feel safer without any evidence it actually makes them safer.
To the Constitutionalists:
The Constitution was interpreted for the first ~200 years to allow for "well regulated militias" to have weapons (no firearm restriction on citizens was struck down during this time). Historically, the intent of the founders was to ensure that the State and Local militias were left alone. This allowed the nation to defend itself while discouraging the creation of a standing army. Of course, at the same time they never dreamed that the government would try to take away hunting rifles and shotguns - but they also never fathomed a citizen owning a repeating assault rifle with armor piercing bullets, a semi auto pistol, and an rifle capable of shooting a man at 300 yards.
The argument "I believe in the Constitution" is passe and meaningless without historical context and interpretation. In that we now have a the most powerful standing army, and I personally own assault rifles, a semi auto pistol, and a couple of rifles capable of 300 yard take downs - I'd say the direct comparison of what ye' ole' founder would have wanted falls kind of flat.
LAWPOKE:
Chicago is not, and never has been gun free. While it is difficult to buy a firearm in the City of Chicago, you can buy weapons anywhere else. The suburbs, Wisconsin, or Indiana. Localized bans are as worthless as localized "dry zip codes" in Dallas, or dry counties in Arkansas. A mild inconvenience at best. Hell, at least in a dry county you have to leave the county to get more booze every time you drink it all - with a firearm someone has to leave once for 100 rounds and one Glock and you're good for a few years of gang warfare.
aTUfan
"'BLM' more black are shot by other blacks than by police; so where is the public out cry?"
Those people are called murderers and we hunt them like animals, convict them, and try to execute them. They are not the government. When the government takes rights away from any citizen it should be taken very seriously. Killing someone is a complete removal of a rights, sometimes the "victim" had to be killed, other times not. I doubt the police get it right 99.9% of the time as their self investigations report. Never forget that police are a tool of the government, they are the knife edge of big government.
- - -
I readily admit I don't have a solution. I should be allowed to own my firearms simply for my own enjoyment. The shotgun is the only firearm I have that I use for any "practical" application (even then, killing things that fly and don't taste as good as chicken isn't really that practical), but so what - my rights shouldn't be taken away because a bunch of other people are idiots.
But I also don't think the status quo is acceptable. Other nations have tackled this problem successfully. I'm sure we can figure something out.
Feel free to discuss how much of the freedom to own firearms we should trade in order to prevent how much gun violence, but the argument that more guns means more safety is contrary to every study on the matter and the experience of every other civilized nation.
aTUfan:
many people are shot by people with CCLs. Over the weekend a man shot his wife to death thinking she was an intruder. Statistically, if you have a CCL you are much more likely to accidentally shoot someone than to prevent a crime. Much like the TSA, a CCL makes people feel safer without any evidence it actually makes them safer.
To the Constitutionalists:
The Constitution was interpreted for the first ~200 years to allow for "well regulated militias" to have weapons (no firearm restriction on citizens was struck down during this time). Historically, the intent of the founders was to ensure that the State and Local militias were left alone. This allowed the nation to defend itself while discouraging the creation of a standing army. Of course, at the same time they never dreamed that the government would try to take away hunting rifles and shotguns - but they also never fathomed a citizen owning a repeating assault rifle with armor piercing bullets, a semi auto pistol, and an rifle capable of shooting a man at 300 yards.
The argument "I believe in the Constitution" is passe and meaningless without historical context and interpretation. In that we now have a the most powerful standing army, and I personally own assault rifles, a semi auto pistol, and a couple of rifles capable of 300 yard take downs - I'd say the direct comparison of what ye' ole' founder would have wanted falls kind of flat.
LAWPOKE:
Chicago is not, and never has been gun free. While it is difficult to buy a firearm in the City of Chicago, you can buy weapons anywhere else. The suburbs, Wisconsin, or Indiana. Localized bans are as worthless as localized "dry zip codes" in Dallas, or dry counties in Arkansas. A mild inconvenience at best. Hell, at least in a dry county you have to leave the county to get more booze every time you drink it all - with a firearm someone has to leave once for 100 rounds and one Glock and you're good for a few years of gang warfare.
aTUfan
"'BLM' more black are shot by other blacks than by police; so where is the public out cry?"
Those people are called murderers and we hunt them like animals, convict them, and try to execute them. They are not the government. When the government takes rights away from any citizen it should be taken very seriously. Killing someone is a complete removal of a rights, sometimes the "victim" had to be killed, other times not. I doubt the police get it right 99.9% of the time as their self investigations report. Never forget that police are a tool of the government, they are the knife edge of big government.
- - -
I readily admit I don't have a solution. I should be allowed to own my firearms simply for my own enjoyment. The shotgun is the only firearm I have that I use for any "practical" application (even then, killing things that fly and don't taste as good as chicken isn't really that practical), but so what - my rights shouldn't be taken away because a bunch of other people are idiots.
But I also don't think the status quo is acceptable. Other nations have tackled this problem successfully. I'm sure we can figure something out.
But let me reiterate that the SCOTUS has recently ruled that we have the rights you seem to advocate all of us give up. That SC decision closes the case and all the attempted logic, hand ringing, soul searching won't change it. Basically what the SCOTUS said is that the govt "shall make no law" that restricts the second amendment and our "individual" right to protect our lives is still in force. That is the most basic of rights - the right to live in a society that unfortunately allows the bad guys back on the streets and across that open southern border.
Jessetu:the 14th amendment was writen to ensure Citizenship to the children of freed Slaves, not to trespassers
That isn't at all what the Supreme Court said. They said DC went too far and can't outright ban handgun ownership in the home. Not even close to what you are arguing, nor has it ever been close. Hell, you aren't even remotely quoting the second amendment nor the Supreme Court. ("Shall make no law" is the First Amendment. "Shall not be infringed" is the Second..).
Go try and buy a machine gun without a permit. Try to get some 155mm shells and lob them out at the ranch. GASP! The 2nd Amendment is restricted. Just as it always has been. How restricted it can be is a moving target (no pun intended), just as it always has been (recall firearms were banned in most towns in Oklahoma for many years, as they were in many old west towns).
And you never indicated if you have a solution, or if you feel the status quo of gun violence is acceptable.
aTUfan -
You are largely correct. But it has been interpreted as allowing automatic citizenship for more than a hundred years. As it stands, the children of undocumented immigrants (not using the term to be PC, but to include people who overstayed Visas and others who did not migrate illegally, but still aren't citizens in the US) are not tresspassing. Under the law they are citizens when born in the United States - ergo, they are lawfully here by definition. Which means, ipso facto, they are not tresspassing.
Unless, of course, you meant "children of tresspassers," in which case you may be correct.
Ah, where do I begin? Lets start with the "congress shall make no law" quote from the BoR. They put that in the first amendment to set the tone that the following amendments are a restriction on govt, not the rights of the people. There's no amendment that says people DON'T have the right to own a gun, its the opposite. My post wasn't meant to be a quote of the 2nd amendment, it was meant to convey that within the BoR, those rights are not to be "infringed" on. You obviously didn't understand what I meant. There is a reason the first amendment is first and is connected to the entire document in that order. There is also a reason the 2nd is just after that first one. Its obviously there because of its importance.
And are you saying that there is a SC court decision that has limited the second amendment? If there is, lets see it. The only decisions I know of have enforced those 2nd amendment rights. The founders have left the decision of "owning" guns up the the people, not the govt. Hope that clarifies.
What solution? To what problem?
And are you saying that there is a SC court decision that has limited the second amendment? If there is, lets see it. The only decisions I know of have enforced those 2nd amendment rights. The founders have left the decision of "owning" guns up the the people, not the govt. Hope that clarifies.
What solution? To what problem?
Funny how an essential right was largely ignored for 200 years and labeled a fraud by a Conservative justice has suddenly become a driver of in Anerican politics at the very time it's pernicious effects have become so horribly clear.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856