Short answer: No, we do not shoot them. But the argument that we don’t shoot them is not as simple as it seems.
Rand Paul: Shoot the CongressmanRight Wing: The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow us to be armed, so we can shoot at the government when we need to. (This section has been heavily modified at the request of Senator Paul)
The purpose of the second amendment, and the reason to stay heavily armed and to be prepared to use the firearms the Constitution guarantees we can keep, is to lift tyranny should it befall the land. An increasing number of people now realize that a president that does not have any interest in following the law or just tradition, and who has absurd and harmful wants he insists be realized by fiat, is a tyrant. Donald Trump is a tyrant. Perhaps you would like to wait to call him a tyrant until he does a certain number of tyrannical things, but that is kind of silly because it takes time for a tyrant to build up a strong resume. Trump applied for the job of tyrant, promising tyranny, was hired to do that, has shown that he is capable of it, and has failed to put many notches in his tyrant’s belt only because he has been successfully fought on several fronts, not because he is not really a tyrant.
Rand Paul has an excellent understanding, aside from one detail, of the use of armed force in resisting tyranny, and according to him, given that Trump is a Tyrant, people should start shooting. The following tweet has been passed around as an example of right wing thinking (or, in this case, Libertarian thinking, which is not exactly the same thing) on the 2nd Amendment:
In reality, this was a tweet by a staffer of Senator Paul's, who was tweeting the things being said by a speaker previously introduced by Paul, at some sort of an event. I was asked by Senator Paul's office to clarify that. So, to be extra clear, this is a Paul staffer quoting a speaker who is not Senator Paul.
But it does leave open the question of Senator Paul's thinking about the Second Amendment. The explanation point, the context, all that, made me assume Senator Paul agreed with this statement made a year ago. I've asked the Senator's office for clarification on the Senator's position on the 2nd Amendment, and I'll insert that here if and when that happens.
this space intentionally left blank
Here's the thing: The 2nd Amendment is a sacred thing to the right, and to Libertarians. It is part of the Constitution. It was put in the constitution because the British suppressed the Colonials by taking away their guns. Not their hunting guns, no one ever did that. Not their sports weapons. Sports shooting was not really a thing in Colonial America. Rather, they took away the Colonial arms that were cached for the purpose of fighting the British. I've seen it. I've been to the spot where they did it. The point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the people's ability to be able to fight back as groups, states, whatever, against the government, should the government become a tyranny. That is the reason the Second Amendment is so important, and that is the reason people fight for it. It is not important because it protects our rights to have certain toys, certain hunting gear, or even, to protect our homes form invasion by criminals. There is no Constitutional protection for those uses of guns, nor is there Constitutional restriction. Same for cars, toasters, and fidgets. Not Constitutionally protected, yet we seem to have them. There is, in fact, another Amendment, I'll let you research that on your own, that does protect unspecified rights that were already considered normal, and that is where hunting would likely come in.
The essential flaw in
Rand Paul’s everybody on the right's argument has to do with the fact that this is not the 18th century. Most people who want to see sensible gun control accept the idea that the 2nd is out of date and no longer applies, and should be ignored or repealed.
I'm thinking that this recent shooting may be a high water mark for the idea that the 2nd Amendment is sacred, for the simple reason that Senator Paul's staff is asking me to remove an indication that Senator Paul accepts the 2nd Amendment as a protection of weapon ownership by the people to fight a tyrannical government. That would be very interesting if he thought that, because it would mean that Senator Paul is open to putting aside the 2nd and talking about sensible gun reform. Good for him. Or, it might mean that Senator Paul is living between a rock and a hard place, as are many other.
That could cause change.
The point is this: We do not really live in a nation where regular people arm themselves for the purpose of fighting a tyrannical government. Some guy went to fight a tyrannical government the other day, and everyone --- EVERY ONE -- said no, don't do that. Everyone said that is a criminal act, or the act of a mentally disturbed person or a terrorist, or whatever. Everyone agrees, even Rand Paul, apparently, that this whole keep the populous armed so we can fight the government thing no longer applies to this society. I hope to see conservatives and Libertarians finally join the rest of us at the table to talk about gun reform .
Bernie Sanders: Don’t shoot the Congressmen but …
Sanders whipped up a lot of hate in this country, during the last campaign. So did Hillary. It wasn't their intention but it happened.
Today there are still grump muffins wandering around the planet complaining about Hillary this and Bernie that. Bernie has been a supporter of the Second Amendment, so one might expect his position to be similar to Rand Paul’s, but it isn’t. Representative and Senator Sanders supported the Second Amendment for a different reason.
It is hard to be a Senator, but not if you are from Vermont.
Vermont is an easy state to govern or represent because everybody in Vermont is the same. Also, they all live in Yurts. Many of them also have guns; These are not weapons of interpersonal violence, but rather, for shooting woodland beasts. So, if you are pro-Yurt, and don’t oppose hunting, then you can get on to the business of supporting the Maple Sugar industry and helping out with the tourism, which doesn’t need much help because Vermont is surrounded by metropolitan areas that supply countless leaf-peekers every fall for several weeks. It has got to be the easiest state in the country to lead or represent.
And as such, Senator Sanders never faced any real serious problems with policy vs. reality issues within his state. This allowed him, along with a few other Representatives and Senators from a few other states, to do crazy and unexpected things like vote against wars, or come up with policies that ignore special interests and meet the needs of the people. This is why Sanders could have radically pro-people policies while Clinton had to stay all the time in compromise mode throughout the last election. This is why Sanders could say outlandish things like education should be free, but Clinton got dinged for admitting out loud the strategy that allowed Lincoln to win the Civil War and free the Slaves in a world where no one else could have done either: Have a strategy in your head, and another one that people will go along with in your mouth, and work tirelessly to make the two eventually the same.
So Sanders and Clinton were dramatically different, but in ways that a thoughtful analysis would allow either to be complemented on their tactics and abilities. They came from different places, were reaching for almost identical goals, but the differences ended up enraging a lot of people more than the similarities united them. Apparently, that level of hate and anger was sufficient in the case of one Sanders supporter to allow him to take Rand Paul seriously, heavily arm himself, intent on fighting tyranny. (We are only guessing as to motive here, but I’m going to stick with this story until proven otherwise.)
James T. Hodgkinson: Look for New Gingrich’s Book among his effects
The first thing I notice about James. T. Hodgkinson is that his name most resembles a hypothetical made up character in an Aaron Sorkin script. I assume citizen Hodgkinson is a distant cousin of Joseph Bethersenton of Fargo, North Dakota.
The second thing I notice, based on the pictures and reporting, is how closely he resembles people I meet every week and see all the time. Frustrated, often a former Sanders supporter but not always, a person who truly believes that Donald Trump is a Tyrant, and who has also realized the other really important thing: As long as the Republicans are in the majority in Congress, Donald Trump gets to do whatever he wants, even if the courts slow him down now and then. We have separation of powers in this country, but we also have amalgamation of powers.
Years ago, when he was Speaker of the House, Republican Newt Gingrich said that Republicans should do whatever is required to take power, and only after taking power, govern. At that time the Republican agenda was already pretty right wing, but it has gotten even more right wing since then. And, now, they have taken power. And in the many years between implementing this strategy and realizing success, the Republicans totally forgot how to govern. So this is what we get.
Part of that “do whatever is required” bit is changing the way voting and electing and campaigning in this country happen, so even where Democrats have a 60% majority, they will lose. Now that the Republicans are fully in power, expect that number to change to 65% or even 70%.
Indeed, expect Republicans to never leave power now that they have it. Believe me, for every minute of time, dollar of money, and erg of energy being spent now to attempt to switch one or both houses of Congress to the Democrats in 2018, there are ten being spent to make sure that won’t happen.
This is it, this is the end, of the Republic, of America, of freedom and democracy.
The Lorax: Things can get pretty bad and people can get pretty mad before Grammy Norma kicks somebody’s ass
… unless that doesn’t happen.
I’m pretty sure James T. Hodgkinson (mis)estimated, if he was semi-lucid, that there was no turning back, that the only way Trump could get thrown out of office is if Democrats took over in Congress, and he further calculated that this was not going to happen in his lifetime. (Which, by the way, turned out to be the case but for different reasons.)
But that’s not how Grammy Norma sees it.
I was at an event the other day at which there were about 20 Grammy Normas, a roughly equal number of Pappy Normas, and about the same number of people who were not 70 or older, who came together to hear some speeches and sing some songs and vow their energy to the removal of the really awful Republican that represented them in Congress. My friend John Wexler, who is a Marine vet and a long time Democratic Party activist, was there, and he said to me, “This is like an election year, look at all this activity.” And I thought about it for a second and I says, “Yeah, this is like ‘08: Obama and Franken. And it an off-off year!”
This happened to be an Indivisible Minnesota CD03 picnic, but it could have been any of a number of gatherings by Indivisible groups, Stand Up groups, or other groups, of people who are not going to shoot anyone at this time, and are going to do everything they need to do to take back our Democracy from Tyrant Trump and his Republican henchmen. Again: Without shooting them.
The reason why Rand Paul’s technique won’t work is simple: It won’t work. There is no 21st century version of an armed citizenry able to throw off the yoke of tyranny. We have to do this differently these days, and we will.
Well, to be honest, we don’t know if we will. We don’t know if this odd event, of an incompetent clown being accidentally elected (with the help of the Russians) president at the very same moment in history when the Republican party rules and is also made up of mean spirited bought and paid for jerks, is something we can recover from. And that is what makes it all so scary. James T. Hodgkinson calculated that all is lost, and it is time to start shooting. But he’s a rare bird. He’s one in 10,000.
Which, if you do the math, means that there are lot of him out there.
And this is where I disagree with Nancy Pelosi
Today, Nancy Pelosi, on the House Floor, stated that we should turn down the rhetoric, implying that the intense rhetoric in today’s American politics is too heavy, and that is what lead James T. Hodgkinson to try to kill a softball team’s worth of Republicans.
But that is not what happened. James T. Hodgkinson did not react to the rhetoric. At most, he miscalculated the chance of us handling this with some hard work over a couple of years. At least, he should have kept his powder dry, because maybe in six or seven year’s we’ll be looking at the Constitution disolved and a full on police state. He made the mistake of failing to understand the process, which puts him in a lot of company given the way things went last election. It was not the rhetoric.
Here’s the thing. The rhetoric is as I stated above. Trump is a tyrant, and if he is not stopped he will formalize what he has already done in his own head: thrown away our democracy. The Republicans are his lap dogs and will help him in any way they can to do this, as long as they get to keep power. This is really really bad. That sounds like over the top rhetoric, the kind of rhetoric that would drive an unstable person who happens to be heavily armed to go to the ballpark, as it were. But it is simply the sorry truth and we should not walk away from it, for if we do, it will be to our peril.
At this time it is a bad idea to miscalculate what Grammy Norma and the others can do. That just sets us back. It makes strong Democrats in the house quiet down. That is not a good thing.
Don’t shoot the Republicans. But do everything else you can do to toss their sorry asses in the trash bin of history.
Trump kept bleating on about shooting Hillary or the judge she'd appoint.
Apparently *we* don't shoot them, but rightwingers do.
Ironic. 2nd Amendment is supposed to be the people's right of final redress against the government gone bad. Yet here the seconders are wanting the government to gun up to protect themselves against being shot by people unhappy with a government gone bad. Whether their assessment is right or not.
"to allow him to take Rand Paul seriously, heavily arm himself, intent on fighting tyranny"
So he was a Rand Paul fan
Wow, no, not as far as I know.
"The essential flaw in Rand Paul’s argument has to do with the fact that this is not the 18th century."
There are many problems with him, all stemming from the fact that he is a dishonest racist asshole.
Perhaps the most fantastical statement made today was made by President Trump when he said we are strongest when we are unified. It takes a very special type of lowlife to say that with a straight face while having the history he has.
He was a loser Democrat and member of a Facebook site that advocates killing Republicans.
I think that deserves a whoosh, greg.
What is a woosh?
That the evidence for his actions being due to being a Sanders fan are as good as being a Paul Ryan fan in the text but not considered a Ryan fan is why the whoosh, greg.
The irony in mentioning he was a Sanders fan and doing what Ryan said to do yet only going for the Sanders fan, which may or may not have been relevant. We don't know yet. If his effects turn up some quoting of Sanders that seems to select that he had thought Sanders was exhorting him to violence, THEN his fandom of Sanders is a factor. It's possible, because there's a high chance I don't know what Sanders has said to anywhere near the detail needed to guess at the likelihood.
The answer to the question can be stated in two parts.
1) The only way a second amendment can overthrow a corrupt government is if you shoot the congressmen that are in it.
2) You should not do that.
The second amendment as a counter to government corruption is bollocks and irrelevant today, and likely has been irrelevant for all of the 20th century onwards. Just drop it as an argument for gun ownership. It's toast.
If you march against government, being armed makes it much easier to get the police to shoot you (roughly as much as being black and marching makes it easier), because they've been trained in the idea that you will kill them so they have to kill you first. And if you are armed, the government at whatever level can call the army in to deal with you. Hard to justify that if the protesters are unarmed. Even if they're throwing rocks and smashing cars.
The only way for an armed citizenry to counter corrupt government should be an anathema to any civilised person. So at the very least drop the fucking idea of doing it .
Well, the Republicans have the Presidency, the Congress and picked up over 1000 legislative seats throughout the country...all elected by the people.
The good news for the left is that they still have the deranged lunatic far left nut jobs on their side. That should work well for them going into the future...
I cried when I found out that Governor Wallace, running for president, had been shot by a would-be assassin. I did not like Walllace; I guess I was for McGovern that year, but I was a student at the Georgia Augusta University in Goetttingen Germany and I had just come out of the Staatsbibliothek when I found out. I walked across the street to read the newspaper pages pasted up each day in the windows of the local newspaper. The big headline was that George Wallace had been shot in America. I thought to myself, "What kind of country do I come from, that they shoot the candidates for president?" I was raining in Germany that day, so I figured that nobody would notice and I had a good cry on my way to class.
To those engaged in this conversation, do note that the post has been changed as indicated above. Have a look.
Doesn't change the thrust of the post, but it does get a little bit more interesting.
" That is the reason the Second Amendment is so important, and that is the reason people fight for it. "
And today it's as irrelevant as the commandment not to covet your neighbour's wife.
Moreover, the 2nd then becomes for the rights of the states to have a millitia to overthrow the government. Not for having your toys for killing random people or making you feel safer.
So join one. Leave your guns at the barracks. Same thing that the Finns do.
If the government sneaks into your home in the night, there's no way to use the 2nd in the way you describe since you don't all sleep in one huge communal dorm. Your guns would be needed when you collect together to rise up and overthrow the government, not under your pillow at night.
Note that the above was so obvious that greg came to it in the next few paragraphs and I wrote practically the same despite living in a different country.
THAT is how bloody obvious the BS about the 2nd is.
Wow #10: No woosh.
I don't know who he was a fan of.
In my original post, I took Senator Paul's apparent position (reifying a particular 2nd amendment interpretation) as typical of the conservative/libertarian view of weapon ownership rights. That's all that was, no woosh. One can be amenable to an idea and not a fan of a particular politician. You have oversimplified the problem and made an error in wooshiness.
Having said that, there are indications, as noted in my rewrite, that Senator Paul does not hold the 2nd Amendment as meaning, today, that the citizens have a right to be armed in order to fight a tyrannical government.
That would be top page news if so, and it looks like it might be true. They've not gotten back to me yet.
No, my point went over your head, greg. My point was that it was as evident he was driven by Rand Paul as Bernie Sanders, IOW no actual evidence, but it's Bernie getting it not Rand.
His update request is probably because he DOES NOT WANT to be related to "Shoot the Gubmint!" tweet at this moment because it's not politically safe to be so. When the dust settles down he'll not worry, but at the moment he's butt-covering.
"Senator Paul does not hold the 2nd Amendment as meaning, today, that the citizens have a right to be armed in order to fight a tyrannical government."
Leaving aside whether Paul is capable of basic honesty or any intelligence, the notion that a group of overweight tea bagger losers in basements would be able to fight back effectively against the level of military power a modern tyranny could muster against them is ludicrous. It's as foolish as the standard "if we had more people with guns walking in public more crime would be stopped" argument.
Second comment: Paul clearly found himself in a no-win situation here. He was taking massive feedback about that tweet on-line (some of the retweets of the comment in question were followed by hilarious, but biting, commentary), and even he realized that standing by it would not go over well.
On the other hand, the "uh, sorry, but Senator Paul is not responsible for it, so knock it off" crap from his office staff is bullcrap: it's on his official twitter feed, so ultimately he's responsible for it. If he hadn't agreed with the sentiment he would have had it deleted or made some other comment last year.
That Paul never deleted (or had a staff member delete for him) that 2nd Amendment quote is essentially tacit approval of it if he/they did not follow immediately it up with a tweet condemning it. No amount of running away from it now will change that.
As per the rule I suggested recently:
New York Times headline, Steve Scalise Among 4 Shot at Baseball Field, Suspect is Dead,
Washington Post: Lawmaker Steve Scalise is critically injured in GOP baseball shooting; gunman James T. Hodgkinson is killed by police
we can conclude it is a left wing attack.
Rule breaks a little since Washington Post says he is angry opponent of Trump at the outset while NYT takes more than 20 paragraphs to say he is fervent opponent of Trump.
a secondary point would be that if the GOP continue on their course of destroying healthcare, education, and civil rights, while at the same time transferring billions of dollars in wealth from the pockets of the middle class and poor to those of the 1% then ultimately the realization of how badly they are being screwed will dawn on the all points of the political spectrum and then all hell, ala 1789 France, will break loose. They can not expect to continue the path they are on without this happening.
> My point was that it was as evident he was driven by Rand Paul as Bernie Sanders,
No, the evidence is he was radicalized by Bernie, Maddow, Oliver and company.
"No, the evidence is he was radicalized by Bernie, Maddow, Oliver and company."
Good god, are you ignorant of the meaning of the word "evidence" too?
Yeah, like I said, no evidence but the claim that they were involved abounds.
As much evidence as there is that he was radicalised by Alex Jones, Donald Trump and Rand Paul.
A & R both exhort people to do exactly what he did and DT keeps whining on about how corrupt all those politicians were,
"we can conclude it is a left wing attack"
Can also conclude it's a teapartier attack.
"They can not expect to continue the path they are on without this happening."
They hope that they will check out and emigrate with the cash before then, leaving some other poor sap to face the music. Same thing as their AGW denial.
Wow #25 they better be quick then. It only took the French Revolution what something like 2 years to go from start to full blown defenestration?
I've long thought that global climate change will be the final; straw but maybe in America it will come before that as McConnell, Ryan and gang go after healthcare and then Mnuchin goes after Social Security - he just turned responsibility for making that decision over to congress (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/trumps-promise-not-to-touc…) - so you know that's next on the hit list. So seniors will get a double whammy - lose their pensions and their healthcare, and those below will see that there is no old-age safety net anymore and coal miners etc. will be screwed out of healthcare. Now there's a trigger for you.
A lot of 1%ers are buying remote private islands in the tropics and remote ranches in New Zealand, and other even further removed areas, where they can build an airstrip and land their planes or moor their yachts. It's their minions that will pay the price and that encompasses most of the US government and all of the banking-Wall St. sector upper management that are not part of the 1% themselves.
I think there are several reasons for the 2nd amendment, other than the stated one of fighting a tyrannical government.
1. Having a weapon for a militia, which goes to the broader point of helping to defend the country. If the USA was ever invaded the invaders would be surprised by how many weapons the citizens have.
2. Self defence. A classic reason for millions to own a gun.
3. Hunting. More common in 1776, still many people actually rely on hunting (and fishing) to feed themselves and their families (or at least supplement their food with hunting and fishing).
So keep these other reasons in mind as you discuss gun control because of the latest crime committed by a criminal with a gun.
It is not just about fighting a tyrannical government (should one develop in the future).
Self defence with a gun again -- even though years of statistics show that is exceptionally rare
#12 Re: "Well, the Republicans have the Presidency, the Congress and picked up over 1000 legislative seats throughout the country…all elected by the people"
Not exactly. Trump did not win the popular vote and in the red states there has been effective anti-Democratic (in both senses of the word) gerrymandering as well as voter suppression aimed at Democratic voters. Also, of course, there was widespread Republican lying to the people all the way from Trump on down.
RickA @ # 27 - Aw, c'mon.
You left out the two most important, and well-documented, reasons for the Founders to have included militias in their plans:
* Murdering Native Americans
* Keeping slaves slaves.
In other words, serving a tyrannical government.
Has there been anti-Republican gerrymandering in states run by Democrats?
"1. Having a weapon for a militia,"
Which is only used to overthrow the government. Unless you're going to scrap the entire standing army.
"2. Self defence. "
Which is only used to overthrow the government. Unless you're going to scrap the entire standing army. against criminals, all you're doing is giving them a way to get free weapons, and you mostly need those guns against people who also have guns. A SHIELD is used for self defence. DISTANCE is the 100% effective-against-everything defence. Yet some states have "Stand your ground" laws.
No, that "against the criminal" law is bullshit.
Nobody, other than for entertainment.
And there's no use to handguns or semi/automatics when hunting. Single shot bolt-action rifles are what you need.
"Has there been anti-Republican gerrymandering in states run by Democrats?"
Yes. But since the Rs own most of them and are most aggressive doing this, they vastly outnumber the number of gerrymandered R areas, ensuring they get to gerymander even more when they win.
However, given that you did not dispute the other claims, we can take them as accepted fact.
I am merely pointing out there are many reasons for people to want weapons.
Not every person in a militia is trying to overthrow the government (in fact I am aware of zero).
Not every person who has a weapon for self-defense is trying to overthrow the government (in fact I am aware of zero).
There are many many people in the United States who hunt and fish to supplement their food - they don't just hunt for fun.
So I strongly disagree with you.
I have been listening to MPR and reading some news, and I find a meme developing that now that a republican lawmaker has been shot, that somehow NOW we will get gun control.
This is totally off base, in my opinion.
It is not the absence of republican lawmakers being shot which has stalled gun control in the past.
It is that many of the laws being pushed by gun control advocates are unconstitutional. The second amendment ensures that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Arms cover handguns, shotguns, rifles, knives, swords, and all the other weapons commonly carried by soldiers throughout history. If I felt strongly enough about it, I could bring a lawsuit against an ordinance in my city banning knives of longer than 3 inch blades - and I would probably win - because it violates the second amendment. Nobody cares about such laws, as they are totally ignored (just look in any kitchen drawer).
Handguns cannot be banned in the United States - period.
Shotguns cannot be banned in the Unites States - period.
Rifles cannot be banned in the United States - period.
Yes assault rifles were banned for a period of time - but such a ban would be struck down, if enacted in the future (in my opinion). I am not even sure automatic weapons would withstand litigation, because automatic weapons are commonly used by soldiers and are clearly "arms".
The court cases bear this out (handguns, rifles and shotguns), and laws like these are being struck down as fast as cities and states enact them.
What we can legislate on are background checks - so I wouldn't mind seeing a law requiring background checks for gun show sales.
The second amendment is the second most important amendment (they were ordered by importance).
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are the only rights more important than the right to keep and bear arms.
That is just a fact (in the United States) - and the only way to ban guns in the United States is going to require actually amending the constitution.
It doesn't matter how many republicans are shot (or how many democrats either) - that will not magically allow guns to be banned in the United States. Even if legislators wanted to (which they don't).
So this meme is just wishful thinking.
It doesn't matter how stupid Wow (and others like him) think the right to keep and bear arms is, or what reasons anybody can think up for why nobody should want a handgun, rifle or shotgun. In America, you have the right and it cannot be taken away, without changing the constitution. This will never happen in America (not the 2nd amendment anyway) - so you better all just get used to it.
Guns are here to stay.
"I am merely pointing out there are many reasons for people to want weapons."
I'm merely pointing out that they're all bloody useless ones. There are many reasons to want manscaping, but there's no constitutional right to have it done.
Lots of people want to have drugs, even hard core drugs, for many reasons. No constitutional right to them.
You cn't go "But we have many reasons to want them", because, you know what, murderers want guns, and for another reason you didn't put up. Criminals of all types want them for various reasons.
They do not mean they should be allowed to have guns.
You have to show an exigent NEED for guns. Not a use for them.
"Guns are here to stay."
So are hardcore drugs.
Moreover, guns are here to stay in the UK too. But nobody has the RIGHT to own them. So this asinine and moronic claim is merely the petulant cries of someone who doesn't have an excuse and doesn't want one because they can get what they want (gun porn) merely by not changing.
You know, 100% absolutely identical to the BS you spout in AGW denial.
The right to have guns is not there to stay, it can get removed. EXISTENCE of guns does not equal the right to own them.
"Not every person in a militia is trying to overthrow the government"
What the actual fuck?
No, millitias aren't formed solely to overthrow the government, you fucking moron. They don't stop existing if nobody wants to start an insurrection.
So this is yet another bullshit whine from someone whose brainstem left their carcass years ago, bored with the inactivity.
Millitas are ONLY of any use whatsoever in a constitutional argument for their use in overthrowing government. NO OTHER REASON FOR THEIR EXISTENCE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
It says it right there in the frigging document, douchetanker.
There is no point to them unless they either entirely replace the US standing army, that federal army being therefore disbanded, or to overthrow government.
They don't have any right to exist if there's a federal army and they have no purpose if it's not to defend the state against the federal government.
Wow #35 says "You have to show an exigent NEED for guns. Not a use for them."
It is you who are wrong. Maybe it is because you are British and you just don't understand the USA system.
The 2nd amendment IS - it exists. The burden of proof and action is on those who want to change it (or take it away). Absent that, guns are here to stay. And changing or getting rid of the 2nd amendment is a monumentally difficult task in the United States, one which I think impossible.
Once again you are completely wrong (as is so often the case).
The constitution doesn't say anything about the purpose of militias being to overthrow the government. In fact, it speaks to the necessity of militias in the 2nd amendment (and of course needing to bring your own gun).
The constitution also says Congress has the power to raise armies - but says nothing about getting rid of militias after there is a standing army.
You are totally wrong - as is usually the case.
"Wow #35 says “You have to show an exigent NEED for guns. Not a use for them.”
It is you who are wrong."
No I am not.
"I wanna sweetie!!!!" is not a reason to have sweeties in the fucking constitution.
"You are totally wrong – as is usually the case."
The constutution does not allow a standing army. AT ALL. This is why the DoD defense budget is put forward every three (?) years: because like the "not actually infinity" indefinitely extended US copyrights, an automatically renewed budget proposal for the federal army is not aginst the strict weasel interpretation of the constututions explicit forbidding of their acts.
AGAIN you claim I'm wrong when it's your sorry arse that is completely in fantasy la la land, Dick.
A car is far more useful for every day than a gun, but is there a constitutional right to have a car or drive? Hell, today internet is far far more necessary for life today and, given its ability to route round censorship be, for example, government interference, that its free availability and lack of barrier to entry is MORE necessary to a free and independent state than some fucking small arms, yet there is no constitutional right to internet, nor constitutional right enshrined to forbid control over the content viewed.
Guns are pointless for its use described in the constitution, therefore its inclusion as an amendment to the rights in the constitution is pointless. It makes LESS sense than the prohibition. Despite at the time "prohibition is here, get over it" 'arguments' for it, it was removed.
And guns do not exist merely because it's in the 2nd. Places with no constitution at all do not cause guns to evaporate.
And removing it as a constitutional right is not going to make guns disappear. Therefore "but we have guns and we won't get rid of them all" is meaningless in an 'argument' about how they are a right. That you resort to it shows how shallow the "thinking" is for the gun nuts on the subject, and how little defence they have for it.
"Wow" is such a sweet yet incredibly ignorant and special kind of idiot lady. Here "she" states...
"Millitas are ONLY of any use whatsoever in a constitutional argument for their use in overthrowing government. NO OTHER REASON FOR THEIR EXISTENCE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
It says it right there in the frigging document, douchetanker."
So charming in "her" stupidity and insistence.
Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment as ratified...
"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."
Now, where, anywhere, is there mention of use of said militia in "overthrowing" anything, much less government? After all, "Wow" says it's "in the document." But where? Must be a hidden assumption of some sort. Hell, the text itself doesn't even state they can only be used as part of a militia, only that is the reason why they must be allowed. Just in case said militia is needed. But those are just facts. And the fetching Miss (Mrs?) "Wow" has no use for those. Further "in the document" (Article IV, section 2) it even states that "overthrowing the government" would be a form of Treason so it's, the usual, complete contradiction that establishment of militias, allowed and encouraged, would be for that purpose, neither allowed nor encouraged. "Wow" loves those.
Idiocy, thy name is "Wow."
Hard to make stupidity like what "Wow" says here up really...
"Guns are pointless for its use described in the constitution, therefore its inclusion as an amendment to the rights in the constitution is pointless."
Let's check the tape...
“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.”
Would seem the "point" is that they "...are necessary to the security of a free state..." as written by the Founding Fathers. Since one really can't have a "well regulated militia" without being armed by definition...
militia--a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
But you, of course, know much better.
Article I, Section 8, sections 12 and 13:
The Congress shall have power . . .
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Seems like a standing army (or navy) to me. The army is not disbanded every year (or two). The money for the army (and navy) is appropriated every year (or two).
But we have a standing army now and also a national guard AND private citizens have a bunch of guns.
There is no constitutional provision related to cars (or manscaping).
But there is a constitutional provision related to guns.
Have you ever heard the daying that driving is a privilege and not a right? That is why you need a license from the state you live in to drive a car. It is not a constitution right - given by the Federal government.
Contrast that with the free speech right, or the right to practice whatever religion you please, or the right to keep and bear arms. These are preserved by the 10 amendments to the constitution and are not provided by the States. In fact, the Federal constitution prevents states from making laws which take away those rights (through the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine).
Wow - you have no idea what you are talking about.
Which makes sense - since you are a Brit and know nothing about America.
Wow #41 said "Places with no constitution at all do not cause guns to evaporate."
I agree with this.
However, places with no constitution can pass laws restricting gun ownership.
Take the United Kingdom for example.
Are not you Brits very proud of your laws restricting gun ownership?
The bobbies carry nightsticks and not guns - and so forth.
Although, it seems this is changing, because there seemed to be a lot of police with guns in London recently.
Laws restricting gun ownership are not allowed in the USA -because of the constitution.
This provision is an amendment to the constitution because the British tried to take all the guns away in our little squabble 241 or so years ago.
“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.”
Now, where, anywhere, is there mention of use of said militia in “overthrowing” anything, "
In the bit it says
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
What? The federal government has an army for defence of the USA as a whole. So what the fuck necessary security would a militia have for a state if not against the federal power????
"But there is a constitutional provision related to guns."
But that can be removed. And there's no reason for it, therefore it should not be in there, crackerass.
"Wow – you have no idea what you are talking about."
No, I do.
You're the clueless fuckwit who hasn't got a clue what EITHER of us are talking about.
So do you think each States national guard unit is specifically for overthrowing the Federal government?
Do you even know what the national guard is, how it is formed and what it does?
Do you know how it is different than the army, navy, air force and marines?
It seems you have no idea what you are talking about (as usual).
"However, places with no constitution can pass laws restricting gun ownership."
So can places with a constitution.
"Take the United Kingdom for example."
No, they have laws restricting gun ownership. There's a constitutional right to life, liberty and happiness AND IT IS NOT AN AMENDMENT.
Oddly enough the USA has a higher incarceration rate than any other country.
"Although, it seems this is changing, because there seemed to be a lot of police with guns in London recently."
Yes, proving that removing a constitutional right for guns won't stop there being guns in the USA, dumbass. And why is bringing this up in any way important? I've seen police with guns three times in total in my life. Two on the same day.
Guess what? Our criminals don't generally have guns at all. Seems like the claims you morons have "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" was a load of rancid bullshit. 'cos they don't.
"Laws restricting gun ownership are not allowed in the USA -because of the constitution."
Yes they are, retard.
Moreover, SO WHAT?
So what if they could not restrict gun ownership (which is already done) because of the constitution?
It no longer deserves to be a protected right, since its declaration for its use is gone. It's only killing people now.
So stop whining "But it's IIIIIINNNNN the constitution".
No fucker is arguing it isn't.
Because if all you have is "But it's INNNNNN!", then you have nothing, and you, we and everyone knows it.
Wow #47 says that the constitutional provisional related to guns can be removed.
True - but so what?
We are talking about what IS - not what could be.
We could amend the constitution so each citizen could have their very own nuclear bomb. So what?
The constitution has not been amended to remove the 2nd amendment - and until it is changed or removed, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Get over it.
"So do you think each States national guard unit is specifically for overthrowing the Federal government?"
So you're saying that millitias can only be gathered like a posse commitatus when the state decides the government is to be overthrown?
Tell me, is the army only there to fight wars for the USA? If so, how come they still exist given there's no war going on?
Is the fire department only there to put out fires, therefore if there isn't one, they should not be employed?
Or are you a fucking idiot?
Oh, I get it, it's the latter, innit, dick.
"We are talking about what IS – not what could be."
Talking about what should be.
What IS is that the 2nd amendment is pointless and should not be in the constitution.
"There is no constitutional provision related to cars (or manscaping)."
Then there should be. Because that's wanted for many reasons.
YOU think that is sufficient reason for something to be a constitutional right. It's all you've given, anyway. And if you had more, why would you play your Z game and keep your A game hidden?
Wow #49 says "It no longer deserves to be a protected right, since its declaration for its use is gone. It’s only killing people now."
That is your opinion and you are free to have your own opinion.
But that is not reality.
The reality is that whether you think it is deserved or not - the right to keep and bear arms is protected. It will remain protected until it is amended or removed. It doesn't matter how many people are killed by guns, because that is not relevant to the issue of the right to keep and bear arms.
The very fact that so many people are killed by other people with guns (usually criminals) fuels the additional purchase of guns.
Soon every citizen will have at least one (or feel left out).
"Would seem the “point” is that they “…are necessary to the security of a free state…”"
But they can't deal with the federal army, they are totally outgunned and outclassed.
Therefore it would NOT secure the freedom of a state. therefore it is no longer necessary for the security of a free state to have a well regulated militia. Because it cannot manage that task.
Not that any of you gun porn idiots were well regulated. You just stroked your gun leathers and wore camo slacks. So no militia either. And none of you want the RESPONSIBILITY of being well regulated and LOATHE the idea of regulation, so by every metric your sorry ass has no right to any arms, same as any criminal.
"Wow #49 says “It no longer deserves to be a protected right, since its declaration for its use is gone. It’s only killing people now.”
That is your opinion"
No, it's my conclusion. And I can support that.
Your claims are not even opinion, they're grafted on talking points you've been programmed with. And that's why you have no support for it because you were never told why to have that belief, only told you had to believe it.
"But that is not reality."
Yes it is. You know, evidence is evidence of what is reality.
It is meaningless today, that is a FACT, and therefore is redundant and should be removed.
"The reality is that whether you think it is deserved or not "
The reality is that it is meaningless and should not be a right in the constitution, just like slaves are no longer a right.
You are confusing yourself.
It was you who argued that there was no need for a militia because of the standing army.
I never said there was no standing army.
I never said there was no militia.
I never said there was no national guard.
I never said that the national guard had to be disbanded because of the standing army.
I never said any of that.
That was your confused and incorrect argument.
There is a standing army.
There is an organized militia (the national guard).
There is an unorganized militia (everybody else between certain ages).
Just because there is a standing army doesn't mean there is no right to keep and bear arms.
Just because there is an organized militia doesn't mean there is no right to keep and bear arms.
Just because there is an unorganized militia doesn't mean there is no right to keep and bear arms.
The right exists because it was preserved in the constitution by the 2nd amendment and that is that.
Why even if the army was stood down, the national guard dissolved, the right to keep and bear arms would still exist.
The right is independent of the army, the national guard or anything else (except amendment or removal by amendment).
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You are just wishing a mighty wish that things were different than they are.
To bad - so sad.
The reality is that the 2nd nearly killed several R politicians DESPITE highly trained police officers nearby and it is ONLY their eminence and power that allow them to live today.
And if you are for the 2nd you must applaud the shooter for trying to uphold their right as you see it under the 2nd amendment.
Slavery is no longer a right because of the 13th amendment.
Check back with me about the 2nd amendment once it also is changed or removed by a future amendment.
Until then, we have the right to keep and bear arms - and laws which try to take that away will be struck down as unconstitutional.
"It was you who argued that there was no need for a militia because of the standing army."
Are you claiming otherwise?
Oh, and glad you brought up your assertion that there is no standing army. Because when YOU whine "you don't know what you're talking about", that whine right there shows SPECIFICALLY and CLEARLY that you're fucking clueless about the entire conversation thread. You clearly demonstrate that reality doesn't matter to you, as long as you get your snowflake complaints out, even if they relate to nothing outside your own paranoid delusions.
So when you complain about reality, you clearly do not know or care what reality is.
Oh, there is no standing army, there is a federal one.
You know, another lie you made up because you don't know what is in reality, dick.
"Slavery is no longer a right "
Come back when you have a reason for the 2nd to remain, dick.
Otherwise the 2nd is meaningless, destructive and criminal and should not be a right.
I do not applaud criminals who use guns to carry out their crimes.
I expect them to be caught and prosecuted.
The fact that people can buy a gun legally and then use it to carry out a crime is not relevant to the right of other people to buy a gun legally and not use it to carry out a crime - but use it for a lawful purpose (self-protection, hunting, sport shooting, etc.). Only the convicted felon loses their right to keep and bear arms.
Your argument is getting very very weak if you need to argue that I am in favor of criminals just because I support the right of people to keep and bear arms.
Yes - keep and bear arms - that is my right - but not to use those arms to commit crimes.
That is against the law and has always been against the law.
An executive order making it illegal to carry guns outside a firing range for any other than law enforcement and enrolled military would still let you have the right to bear arms.
In exactly the same way as the 1st was not broken with shrub's free speech zones.
"I do not applaud citizens who use guns to carry out their 2nd amendment rights."
You are confused again.
There is a standing army in the United States.
An army of full-time professional soldiers who are not disbanded in times of peace.
Please tell me when was the last time the United States had no army?
You are very very confused.
"Yes – keep and bear arms – that is my right"
And you have no reason to have that right.
PS, I'll fix that for you again:
"Yes - keep and bear arms to carry out my crimes with a gun - that is my right as a criminal"
"You are confused again."
Yes, that's you living inside your paranoid fantasies again, dick.
"There is a standing army in the United States."
No there isn't. That is SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN.
No standing army in the USA. Just a perpetually renewed temporary armed force.
Wow - I will catch up with you on Monday.
I am off to the cabin for the weekend.
Not a legal theory, goatse guy.
Ah, so you can't find a reason so you're going to ask daddy for some help with the uppy person who has reasons and not merely opinions.
1 A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
2 mass noun The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.
1 A set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or belief.
1cBased on or in accordance with reason or logic.
1.1 Able to think sensibly or logically.
1 Not logical or reasonable.
1.1 Not endowed with the power of reason.
1 view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Some reading for you in your "cabin", dick.
Madam "Wow" when asked where "overthrowing" is mentioned opines with this piece of deranged idiocy...
"In the bit it says
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
Really? I don't see "overthrow" or any derivative of that word. This must be another of your magical "hidden meanings." For said militia to "overthrow" would be treasonous. Which would be not only criminal but unconstitutional. Lord you're the King of the Idiots. You signed that bit appropriately with your second name. Wow Fucknuckle. Has a ring to it I must admit. I will use it going forward.
Then this gem...
"You clearly demonstrate that reality doesn’t matter to you, as long as you get your snowflake complaints out, even if they relate to nothing outside your own paranoid delusions."
Again, the irony. Asshole, the only one complaining here is you. The only one "whinging" here, is you. The amendment exists, but you, an anonymous idiot, thinks it shouldn't. Tough. Nobody cares what you think about it. You know why? You're BRITISH. You don't live here. You have no say. Your opinion is moot. Useless. Pathetic in its passion. M.E.A.N.I.N.G.L.E.S.S.
You're angry. Nobody cares. If you were American you would still be a flat out idiot, but at the very least you would have that to stand on. It would be your right. As it is, you have nothing. Just like always. Just you and your keyboard and what is very clearly a pathetic and sad life.
And, FWIW, everyone in MN goes to, or has, a cabin dumbass. It's part of the culture there. Lot of lakes and the like. Maybe you've heard? No need for the scare quotes.
Personally, I'm going to a "baseball game" and will no doubt be entertained by more of your delusional ramblings--more entertained by the fact that you can't seem to help yourself than the ramblings themselves which are more than a bit disturbing--tomorrow.
Goodnight Madam "Wow" Fucknuckle.
"12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Seems like a standing army"
Nope, that sounds like a raising of an army for an existent need for a temporary time.
Not a standing army.
Note the no longer than two years.
Yes. You waste of sperm.
" I don’t see “overthrow”"
Nor do you see firearms. Or guns. Or home ownership.
You also refuse to see "a well regulated militia". If you're not in one, you have no right to have arms, let alone guns.
And tell me you dribbling gibbon's rectum, where does it say that arms are for anyone not in the militia? Where does it say what security it would secure? Afraid that without a militia your ground will lift up and slosh about???
Hell, where does it say that you can have the guns not available in those days, such as rimfire or centerfire cartrigde based rifled guns holding clips or otherwise? If they don't say you can have anything other than "arms", and muskets are no longer on the market, then you have the right to bear arms, just not the ability to find anyone selling them.
And that isn't the fault of government infringing on your rights, it's the lack of any manufacturer being forced to make muskets.
"And, FWIW, everyone in MN goes to, or has, a cabin dumbass"
Ah, yes, we call it "A toilet" in the civilised world. But then again, we now have most of them indoors rather than a standalone buildingette in the garden.
"the only one complaining here is you. "
Really? Then why the text in your posts, bum-gravy drinker? They're complaints. Oodles of complaining.
Yes, your idiotic and childish tantrums are meaningless when adults with actual working thoughts and a rational brain able to think logically and coherently are discussing reality and what is true.
And what is true is that you have no rationale for your desire for gun owning.
Therefore any rational being would be against the 2nd and want it removed.
Irrational children such as yourself don't care, though, you love you some gun porn.
"Have you ever heard the daying that driving is a privilege and not a right? That is why you need a license from the state you live in to drive a car. It is not a constitution right – given by the Federal government."
Was just passing through and thought that, you know, good point to throw onto that being it's a privilege because there's a lot of 'middle ground usage' between driving like a twat and wrapping yourself around a tree and going around the block. You have to prove you can handle the inbetweens. With a gun, if it's out, you're either shooting at a person, animal, or plinking soda cans. Or to put it another way... Rights are for things which should not be Nuanced. You can't "half-own" a slave to skirt around that one. You can't have your property half-seized. It's either yours or it ain't. But driving offers a range of possibilities from running out of gas and becoming a roadblock to running your errands to getting food for the family at the supermarket to mowing down Miss Penny while she's out walking her Schnauzer. Licenses are about proof of handling situational variety.
#49 Why yes. Yes it does. Because of a DEMOCRATIC President and the Three Strikes law. Nice try, sucker, but some people actually remember past 4 year cycles!
I believe in the second amendment but in thinking of the current State of our Police Officers our guns will not do much. They alone have military tanks just like the military does. We would not win the battle unless we had bombs I guess. I don't know this country is screwed imo. Scary as hell I am glad I am 60 years old.
Well, home from the "baseball game" which I suppose has toilets but is certainly not one...
M'lady "Wow" Fucknuckle, you are good. You got me. I am in a militia. I actually am, based in Wyoming. But here's the thing. I don't own a gun. Not a requirement. But I know how rules work. And the rules say you can have one here. In the US. And I do have access to them through said militia. Pretty scary isn't it?
Ms. (?) Fucknuckle states, so ladylike...
"Yes. You waste of sperm.
” I don’t see “overthrow””
Nor do you see firearms. Or guns. Or home ownership."
You're right. One is assumed and the other is, well, completely in your imagination however disturbed that may be. And it strikes me as pretty disturbed.
Mrs. (Again, if you could clarify your marital status that would be helpful) Fucknuckle rants...
"And tell me you dribbling gibbon’s rectum, where does it say that arms are for anyone not in the militia? Where does it say what security it would secure? Afraid that without a militia your ground will lift up and slosh about???
Hell, where does it say that you can have the guns not available in those days, such as rimfire or centerfire cartrigde based rifled guns holding clips or otherwise? If they don’t say you can have anything other than “arms”, and muskets are no longer on the market, then you have the right to bear arms, just not the ability to find anyone selling them.
And that isn’t the fault of government infringing on your rights, it’s the lack of any manufacturer being forced to make muskets."
Madam Fucknuckle, All I can say is, "Wow!" Never have more unhinged words been written. Again, we have rules. Everything you mention falls within those rules whether you, or I, like it or not. But, and here's the thing, I can do something about it, in theory, but you cannot, you being a furriner and all. So fuck you.
More from The Good Lady Fucknuckle...
"Yes, your idiotic and childish tantrums are meaningless when adults with actual working thoughts and a rational brain able to think logically and coherently are discussing reality and what is true.
And what is true is that you have no rationale for your desire for gun owning.
Therefore any rational being would be against the 2nd and want it removed.
Irrational children such as yourself don’t care, though, you love you some gun porn."
And here we have the money shot. See, there have been no "tantrums" from me, only you. Anyone with eyes can see that. I have not once stated a "desire for gun owning" only that to own one is not illegal (assuming you aren't a felon). I may even be against our free rights to have them. But they are our rights. So again, fuck you. I don't know what "gun porn" is and have no wish so see such. But I am calm. Simply pointing out your insanity for the 10-12* people reading this.
*Not a researched or accurate number. Only a guess. I'm hoping more but one never knows.
One last Fucknuckle nugget...
"“And, FWIW, everyone in MN goes to, or has, a cabin dumbass”
Ah, yes, we call it “A toilet” in the civilised world. But then again, we now have most of them indoors rather than a standalone buildingette in the garden."
I will leave this one to the good folks from MN, such as Greg, to address. Assuming they find themselves "civilised" and all. I, for one, wouldn't insult a man's cabin up that way "Wow", you might get yourself shot! Seriously. And justifiably.
I took my son to a ball game tonight--home team in CO won--then came home. Great night, great game. What did you do "Wow?"
You bitched and cried.
"You got me. I am in a militia"
Of course you are. And Forrest Gump is a real life story based on you.
"Never have more unhinged words been written. Again, we have rules. "
Yes, those words are unhinged, dingobollocks. Has fuck all to do with the conversation, but all you have is rage that you might lose your sex toys and penis replacements.
Come back and talk to the adults when you have a reason for the 2nd amendment remaning.
PS How do you figure I'm female? Should I call you lady dingonuts every five words as you appear to have to like some sort of myscogynist tourettes? Most morons assume a gender and put it in once or twice because "he" or "she" is at least normally used, even if it's unfounded in assertion. but you have to slap gendering in every five seconds of vitriol spew.
Those who call me "him" do so clearly because they assume my gender based on personal bias or preference. Your overcompensation is celarly the result of some deeper psychological need to berate women specifically, and calls into question whether you'd bother at all if you thought I was male.
And to reiterate, come back when either of you fucknucle morons have a REASON for the 2nd.
Saddam obeyed the law, but he was removed by violent action and executed for his not-at-all-a-crime-in-his-country. Because those murdering him had REASON to do so.
Just for the record...Wow is not a woman, he just identifies as a woman, which of course means he is a woman.
I hope that clears it up.
Maybe because you whine so much when people say 'he' they assumed you were a 'she'.
I've read somewhere that although the wording of the 2nd Amendment seems to link gun ownership to membership in a militia, the courts have ruled that the militia part of the Amendment is just an example not a requirement. That seems strange to me but I'd be interested in learning the rationale for that conclusion.
Another question I have is: Who gets to sanction a militia as an official body (rather than a gang or club etc.)? Common sense suggests it would be the elected officials of a community but, again, a court my have a different opinion.
Modern gun rights advocates seem to be against restrictions on ownership but also against any restriction whatever on carrying guns. This is strange considering that in America's otherwise revered frontier history restrictions on gun carrying were enforced in frontier communities as soon as they became populated by families rather than just men.
Yes, but activist judges and revision of the constitution can decide otherwise in the future. Not forgetting that the ones screaming most for how they gotta have their steel penises are originalists who insist that the original wording is 100% inerrant like the holy bibble.
And the point here is that there is no use or point to it being a right in the constitution and if all those insisting it has to be have is "But it currently is" are admitting they have no reason whatsoever why it should be.
And, as I said earlier, all they have to do is making carrying a gun illegal then you're a criminal with a gun and you can be brought to justice and not one of the republicans will care to worry about it.
You can own a gun all you want. You can keep it at the gun club or in your barracks like the Finns do, a country with a higher household gun ownership than the USA but a much lower death rate,
"Who gets to sanction a militia as an official body "
The state and the federal government, since the militia are brought up in times of war for the protection of all states.
Indeed this way the states have absolutely no worry that the federal government will be a danger because they have no ability to force by arms other states into doing what is demanded.
"That seems strange to me but I’d be interested in learning the rationale for that conclusion. "
#88 re: "The states and the federal government ..."
It may be that the National Guards are the descendants of the militias of colonial days. Each governor can call out his/her state's National Guard, but control can be taken by the Federal government under certain conditions.
“A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.”
The court case that supposedly ruled the second amendment limited gun rights to militias has been misunderstood. The defendant was not a member of a militia, yet the Supreme Court did not use that to decide the case. Instead, they ruled the weapon in question had no military use.
The national guard is militia. Heck, the state level can be the only level at which armies can form,and the role of the federal government is to train them in the use of such modern warfare equipment. There may then be two levels of enrolment, the first with training in modern warfare and anther who are reservists who get taught enough for basics. Gun handling, fitness, etc, that makes it possible to use them in war.
There's nothing stopping the states having a standing army and the federal government could be given the right to coordinate them for the protection of the USA as a whole.
This still makes the 2nd pointless.and necessary for the cornerstone of the constitutional right to life, liberty and happiness to remove.
#93: In the U. S., anyone completing his/her term of active service becomes a member of the inactive reserve. The active reserve has a pool of already trained individuals which can be called up in case of need. There is an age limit on membership in the inactive reserve but that also can be changed in case of need.
Addenda to #94: #94 is how I understood the situation when I was separated from the Army. The Wikipedia article on the National Guard refers to and partly describes a more complex situation. The relevant legal basis is referenced.
The National Guard is part of but not the whole of the reserve and is under dual control in that it can be activated by order of the President. Therefore, it would not be an automatic nor reliable counter to a rogue Federal government. Any such situation would involve the same sort of difficult individual choice by those in the Guard as the secession of several states in 1860 forced on the individuals on active military duty then. Some joined the Confederacy and some stayed with the Union.
>The national guard is militia.
But the militia is not national guard.
"#93: In the U. S., anyone completing his/her term of active service becomes a member of the inactive reserve"
This appears to be completely disconnected as to the abolishment of the 2nd, nor is it pertinent to any disclaim of the states should produce a militia and disband the federal government.
That you have not made any of these claims as the point of your post is rather my point.
What IS the point of your post?
"The National Guard is part of but not the whole of the reserve and is under dual control in that it can be activated by order of the President. "
That would make them a force that needs a state militia because only an armed force can secure the right of a free state against the federal army and the political control of it by the president.
Make them raised by the state and organised by the state and the president (or rather the military chain of command that ends in the president as CiC) only the director of the operations of the military. Any state can decide to disband their army or call it back at any time, ensuring that the federal government could not use their temporary control of the state forces to suppress the freedom of that state.
"Therefore, it would not be an automatic nor reliable counter to a rogue Federal government."
It would if the banding or disbanding was the sole prerogative of the state's elected representative body. Kinda hard to smack down the state when the state just tells the dudes being told to march on them to disband.
And if it is a collection of states whose forces are being used, these states can decide to disband their forces being marched on another state.
Pointless trying to wage an army as the CiC when you're the only one on the battlefield when all the others have been told they are to go home and look after their families. No generals or military leaders today will war if they're having to stand at the front and, well, LEAD.
And if several states agree that the action is right and correct and allows the federal government to do this, then in what sense is this a FEDERAL government issue and not that of an extreme disagreement between sovereign states? I'm fucking certain that Saddam would quite like to have been able to tell everyone in NATO to fuck off his country and go home. His status vis-a-vis the allied forces against him is no different in any way whatsoever to the above last scenario.,
So, yeah, the federal government can order the men to march to battle and engage the enemy, but they can be ordered by the state to go home and disband, leaving the president felling like his trousers have been yanked down to his ankles in public on the battlefield.
And, to reiterate, nothing here about why the 2nd should exist at all.
#98: "Any state can decide to disband their army or call it back at any time, ensuring that the federal government could not use their temporary control of the state forces to suppress the freedom of that state."
I do not believe that this is the case now unless you have a reference to the contrary. Even if this statement were true, the situation would still be as I said with reference to the members of the armed forces of the U. S. when the Southern states seceded. Some members stayed true to their oaths and some didn't; some went with their states and some didn't. The result was a weakened but not crippled Federal army and navy. For several reasons I think it likely that people's loyalty to their state is even weaker compared to their loyalty to their country now. then.
The point of my recent posts, including this one, was/is to comment on what you and others have posted. Sometimes this just involves what I believe to be a correction, addition, or question rather than a new or separate point.
#99: I've read enough U. S. history to be sure that the 2nd Amendment was in fact put into the Constitution because of an understandable fear of tyranny at the time. You think it is now irrelevant. You may be right but does it matter? None of the Bill of Rights is in any danger of being repealed -- circumvented in various ways but not repealed.
"I do not believe that this is the case now"
OK.,so since I have never even implied it is, why the fuck are you telling anyone this? Care to retract your head from your echo chamber and partake of the external reality here?
"the situation would still be as I said with reference to the members of the armed forces of the U. S. when the Southern states seceded"
Same as what? You never said shit. Moreover, still makes fuck all difference.
"The point of my recent posts, including this one, was/is to comment on what you and others have posted"
Then go ahead and start talking about what myself and others have posted and ignore whatever internal hallucination has driven you to regurgitate as a stream of foetid brown slurry your disconnected proclamations of what you have never said in response to a claim never made.
Or continue with your own version of what you want to talk about and stop dribbling out brain extreta trying to make your outpourings the fault of anyone other than yourself.
Just refrain from mixing blame for your own thoughts on other people. It's at the very least insulting and quite capable of also being dishonest.
As to my discussion of your commenting, apart from the already stated, there has been bugger all provided that creates anything to discuss with regards to disbanding any and all standing armies and providing the 2nd amendment nullification due to its inactivity by virtue of being unnecessary wasted prohibition.
"You may be right but does it matter?"
Yes. It's deadly and moronic.
Back from the cabin.
And I see the 2nd amendment still exists.
And I see Wow wishes it didn't.
Keep wishing Wow.
If Dems cared for the Second Amendment, we'd have no President Bush the sequel, we'd have no war in Iraq, no ISIS. Their support for Brady Bill and 'assault weapons' ban cost them Congress, and their later push after Columbine cost them a whole bunch of states that Clinton won twice, with West Virginia won even by Dukakis. Any one and the Florida recount is irrelevant.
104 comments on the Second Amendment and nary a mention of the theory that the militias are a reference to those in the southern states to keep the slave population under control. Slaves out numbered whites in several states (not hard to guess which ones, even after 225+ years), and participation in these militias was often mandatory. Slavery was a significant issue in the creation of the Constitution, so I find it reasonable that the southern states would have embraced this intent of the Second Amendment, along with others.
The right wing use of the Second Amendment as a tool to intimidate the left via 'exercising Second Amendment rights' cuts both ways. It's common sentiment on right wing radio, including Alex Jones, and pundits such as Ann Coulter. A number of conservative politicians including Trump and Kentucky governor Matt Bevin have used it to incite their followers. At face value they are of the opinion that taking a shot at a (liberal) politician whose policies you don't like is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, angry and unstable individuals with guns can occupy any part of the political spectrum. To this point the vast majority who have a political agenda have been on the right, but now that an alleged Democrat has come unhinged the right is all a-twitter.
Given the Republican urge to screw as many Americans out of affordable health care as possible, they need to be careful. At the Republican debates in 2011, some in the audience cheered a line of questions to Ron Paul, that ended with 'should society just let him die?' . Many on the right are comfortable letting people die who cannot afford health care. Are they comfortable with those who lose a loved one because they cannot afford quality health care exercising their Second Amendment rights?
So still no reason only irrationality from dick. I guess he'll not be arguing that it should remain, because he doesn't care if it does or not.
Nothing from "mike" either. Only some BS partisan bollocks that makes out that the people in the opposing party are bad people because they're not his party.
"this is strange.."
As has been pointed out here ad nauseam, the 2nd Amendment only makes sense (based on the historical context) as protecting the ability of States to form militias.
Why did States need militias?
1. Because in the case of slave rebellion or conflict with Native Americans, there could be a rapid response by an organized and trained military force. "Bearing arms" refers to that training.
2. Because the idea of States being sovereign was an issue in the context of abandoning the Articles of Confederation, and while no individual State was in a position to oppose the Federal government on its own, it made people feel better.
But nowhere in US history was there any question that local jurisdictions could impose restrictions on firearms, particularly in creating zones of exclusion for carrying. (Note again: Carrying is not the same as "Bearing Arms".)
There has never been an interest by the Federal government in restricting individual ownership or legitimate use-- there was no ATF in colonial times snooping around to keep people from going hunting, or defending their homes, just as there isn't today. It was always left to local communities to decide that carrying guns in town were a bad idea what with the drinking and brawling that might occur.
Federal restrictions, whether you like them or not, are justified by the same arguments as federal drug laws, which is the interstate commerce provision. So, "The Constitution" is an argument for certain types of gun laws.
I've pointed out in the past that preventing trafficking is a legitimate compelling interest for the Federal government.
I hope mike washed his hands after his day squeezing out his reality in his "cabin". Me? I can afford a house nice enough to actually live in.
dick, mike, they're interchangeable....
Those espousing liberal dogma may wish to revisit the history of pre MLK America and oppressed communities relationship to RKBA.
Gun Control is racist...read yer histery.
Free people retain weapons.
Lone gunmen like James T. Hodgkinson aren't going to change the culture. Dedicated groups, backed by arms, have always changed history. Pray that their cause is just. (Not that the secular humanist has any basis for justice or standard for morality)
Still bugger all there about why the 2nd should be in the constitution, ron. And your attempt to pretend it's liberals therefore automatically wrong merely cemends the fact you have fuck all to go on other than dogma, political partisanship and BS.
Removing the 2nd won't change merkin culture either. But they'll not be shooting themselves and others dead because they have a gun fetish and no common sense about guns.
"Free people retain weapons."
Weak willed pants-wetting wusses retain weapons because the world is terrifyng to their tiny little minds. And this is why there are so many gun deaths: all you terrified little pisspants are terrified and shoot dead someone for obeying the demand to get your ID out ("papieren, bitte") because they could be getting a gun.
Gun nuts merely display their terrified life in their asinine demand for perma-arms.
"Dedicated groups, backed by arms, have always changed history."
But if you're told that it's leftie liberals doing it, you whine about how violent they are and want them jailed and convicted or killed as criminals....
To you, irony is what your noggin is made out of, isn't it, ron.
110...wanna talk about killing themselves? Here's a story from China where a man blew up a school ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/suspect-identified-chinese-k… ) No guns available in China...yet violence continues against their countrymen.
There aren't a lot of direct or open government suppression schemes going on these days. You can simply refute anything I say with ad hominem name calling (111), testifying to the void of coherent reasoning in your argument.
I'm all for groups of men and women, backed by arms, standing up for and demanding government respect the rights that have been historically recognized.
Let's talk RKBA: When the government no longer plays it's proper role, what shall correct that matter? 2A
If the government wants to retain legitimacy, it won't directly attack its citizens. See the Bundy saga (it doesn't happen today?) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-oregon-standoff-feder…
Yeah, wanna talk about death toll, I-ronny? Get rid of the guns, less dead people.
FFS, your whine "Oh, but people can die other ways!!!" is bollocks, because the same claim can be made for your gunnuttery fetish over the 2nd: even an armed populace has fallen to an organised governmental military. You know, like most of the Middle East for the past 50 years.
Therefore no point having guns. They've not stopped every case of government take over.
Oh, and i-ronny, the abuse i hurl at you isn't an argument against the bilge you spout, it's deserved by it. ut you righwingnutjob snowflake epsilon-males just cant handle criticism and it's all you see. There's also refutation of the limp dick of a non-argument you've given there too. But you don't see past insults because you're so thin-skinned.
Cuck cuck cuckoo!
"what shall correct that matter? 2A"
yeah, right, be a criminal and shot dead by a massive armed police force.
And taking a pistol to an APC fight?!?? What a fucking retard. But don't expect to get put in for a Darwin Award.
114...is that why schools are now targets, because they've removed guns? Is that why Illinois and California are devoid of crime, because of their great gun control policies?
116..."fucking retard"? Are we talking about James T. Hodgkinson again, who was stopped by pistols, even though he had higher powered weapons? All accounts say he fired 50+ times. Rifles and shotguns aren't so easily concealed, but if you've got a bundle of middle-aged men carrying bat bags around a parking lot, it is a bit easier.
Does ANY reality penetrate your mind? Or do you just hear obscenities and reach for your bottles of pills and booze?
Bundy? The criminal who used government resources without paying for them, then joined his kids in setting a fire to burn said government land, then claimed he was a victim?
That's what has become of the right: their heroes are criminals. Add to that the repeatedly stupid argument that civilians with guns would be able to stand up to a rogue government and its military - you get ron and others like him. Clueless and ignorant.
How long does "moderation" last?
Wow is the only one talking about "should" the second amendment be in the constitution.
I am pointing out that it doesn't matter whether it "should" be in the constitution or not, it IS.
If people want to ban guns, either federally or in a state (now that the 2nd amendment has been incorporated to apply to the states via the 14th amendment), they need to amend the constitution.
The burden of proof is on Wow (and others like him) and he isn't even close to meeting it.
All wow is doing is whining about how the second amendment doesn't make sense to him (or her).
It is going to take a lot more than whining to achieve an amendment which changes or eliminates something from the bill of rights.
Good luck Wow.
zebra #106 says "As has been pointed out here ad nauseam, the 2nd Amendment only makes sense (based on the historical context) as protecting the ability of States to form militias."
This was true, but was mooted by Heller and the line of cases which have now incorporated by the second amendment and now apply it to State laws.
The 2nd amendment has been held to be an individual right, to apply to laws written by states and the federal government and therefore the right to keep and bear arms precludes any locality or state from passing a law simply banning guns.
They will have to be more clever than that.
Perhaps limiting bullets in a clip.
Perhaps some other new ideas.
By the way - do you have a cite for your statement that "bearing" is different than carrying?
I have not seen that in the caselaw, and wonder where you are getting this from.
RickA, Rights, including RKBA, come not from paper, but from our humanity. We should uphold them, not because they were written down on an official document, but for the same reason they were written down initially, in the cause of Liberty. We want our posterity to prosper in freedom, not under the rule of lawless people.
There are plenty of "legal" or accepted concepts currently that aren't just or proper. Simply giving legal license to something doesn't make that thing just or good for future generations.
Perhaps - although there are a lot of countries with laws against the right to keep and bear arms.
So I will stick with the 2nd amendment for now and just point out that no matter what Wow thinks - that is the current state of things in America.
It matters not a bit that Wow thinks it is stupid.
Yes, other nations not having RKBA is unjust, according to the American Philosophy http://tinyurl.com/jjazflf
This Philosophy/Worldview is what set America apart, the diffusing of power and dissent being legally possible on many levels (check out the doctrine of the lesser magistrate http://tinyurl.com/y93an477 ) along with this declaration that the common citizen was endowed with Rights that sprang not from government, but from humanity.
The Secular Humanist will end up saying that societies declare what is right and wrong, good and evil for themselves. That there is no transcendent moral authority, no objective moral standard outside their own government authorities. Your line of argumentation agrees with this worldview and leads not to freedom/Liberty but to government as God.
So, let's uphold RKBA as a universal human right based on freedom and Liberty for mankind, not based on #'Merica's Laws or legal rulings (which are fraught with peril).
RickA, you have misstated Heller. As I said above, the previous case did not limit gun rights to state organized militia.
When local cops are standing down in the wake of 'antifa' violence, then having guns for defense is important. Only problem is they tend to get involved when the fascist 'antifa' are the ones getting beat up.
"114…is that why schools are now targets, because they’ve removed guns? "
No. The schools were always targets, so quite why you claim "now" is likewise a mystery.
"Wow is the only one talking about “should” the second amendment be in the constitution."
No,dick, everyone is talking about how pointless the 2nd amendment is and have no argument for why it should remain, but there are plenty of reasons to remove it.
"When local cops are standing down in the wake of ‘antifa’ violence"
Yeah, right. Cowards manufacturing terror. Still no reason. Only fear and terror.
"That’s what has become of the right: their heroes are criminals"
But anyone not of the right colour or political party are criminals, not heroes using their 2nd amendment rights. Hell, even antifa, who I have not heard claiming responsibility for any deaths, are not allowed to use the 2nd. Indeed the federal government has to be more powerful than they or the snowflakes are terrified of being in the USA.
"is that why schools are now targets, because they’ve removed guns? ”
Ignorant comment. There have been shootings at schools in this country since 1764.
And more insanity from irony in 132. Pity you have no morality yourself.
Zebra's rational makes sense, but was mooted by Heller.
I agree that the Supreme court caselaw never limited the 2nd amendment to militias.
In fact, the case before Heller (Miller) just said that a sawed off shotgun could be banned, because it was not standard issue for a soldier. The implication being that if a weapon (or arm) is standard issue, than it is an arm which everyone is free to keep and bear. I believe that was 1939 ish.
Than Heller merely said the 2nd amendment was personal and not just a state militia right (an I think incorporated it, although it may have been the case after Heller which explicitly incorporated the 2nd amendment).
And still no reason for the 2nd to exist is given. Because there is none.
After all, dick, someone using their 2nd amendment rights is, to you, a criminal. Sure they could carry their guns, but the police shot him dead and you applaud it.
So it's the same right as the one to vote for your candidate in stalinist russia. Sure you could. But you'll be fucked over y the state if you do.
"zebra #106 says “As has been pointed out here ad nauseam, the 2nd Amendment only makes sense (based on the historical context) as protecting the ability of States to form militias.”
This was true, but was mooted by Heller and the line of cases which have now incorporated by the second amendment and now apply it to State laws.
The 2nd amendment has been held to be an individual right, to apply to laws written by states and the federal government and therefore the right to keep and bear arms precludes any locality or state from passing a law simply banning guns.
So you would agree that those decisions do not represent the original intent of the framers, and are an example of judicial activism and "legislating from the bench".
Excellent Rick, there may be hope for you yet!
Not forgetting they are "based on #’Merica’s Laws or legal rulings (which are fraught with peril)" and makes it the rule of "government as God" and makes it a right that springs from government not humanity...
I'll give you one, Sow (because it's original to change the first letter): For the protection of property (including self). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Nope, there's a police force for that.
And without guns, you don't need guns to protect yourself or your property.
HOW cowardly ARE you irony?
No - I wouldn't go that far.
I just see how you came up with your rational.
But the caselaw never supported it.
In my personal opinion, the framers intent was that the soldiers needed to bring their own weapons - so all they meant was that there had to be a miltia, and the miltiamen would bring their own guns, so the right to keep and bear arms wasn't to be infringed.
That is how I see it.
Almost every household had a weapon, for hunting, self-defense and possibly for the miltia (if called).
You are correct though that the 2nd amendment was originally only referring to federal laws - and that got extended to state laws after the 14th amendment was passed (that is called the incorporation doctrine). By today, almost all the 10 amendments in the bill of rights are incorporated via the 14th amendment and are now applied to the states (even where it says congress shall pass no law . . .).
Hope that helps.
You are making no sense (once again).
I never said using your 2nd amendment rights makes you a criminal.
A gun is a tool.
Many lawabiding people use their guns legally.
Some criminals use their guns to commit crimes.
Just like some criminals use baseball bats to commit assault and battery.
The baseball bat is neutral - it is how it is used that governs whether it is a weapon or not (used in a crime I mean) (some people use baseball bats to play baseball).
If a group of people break into your house to kill you and your family, being armed (assuming they are not armed) is very helpful to enable you to protect yourself and your family.
Call the cops, and wait 3 to 30 minutes, you and your family are dead.
You cannot rely on the police to protect you - they just try to find the bad guys after the crime is committed.
That has to be true even in the UK - right?
Or is every murder prevented by the bobbies?
I don't think so.
Your ideas of police protection are pretty warped Wow (in my opinion).
You don't need soldiers, though, and they could do nothing to secure the state. They'll get curbstomped.
Yes, you did say using your 2nd amendment right makes you a criminal. Post #70, retard.
"Or is every murder prevented by the bobbies?"
Is every murder prevented by your gun ownership?
I don’t think so.
Your "ideas" of "self protection" are entirely fictitious, dick. Real life doesn't obey your whims no matter how hard you believe them.
Thinking about it some more - I see Miller as the ultimate 2nd amendment case.
It stood for the proposition that whatever a soldier is issued is an arm.
Since soldiers in 1939 where not normally issued a sawed off shotgun, it was ok to pass a law against it.
Since soldiers are normally issued a handgun and a rifle, it would not be ok to pass a law against them.
Heller was just confirming that the 2nd amendment applies to every citizen (was a personal right like the 4th amendment, the 5th amendment, the sixth amendment, the 1st amendment, and so on) and confirmed that no - a state cannot ban handguns (or render them useless as a handgun).
So Heller is in line with Miller and I think both in line with the original intent of the Framer's (no banning weapons the grunt militiaman would need - handgun, long gun, sword, knife and so on).
"If a group of people break into your house to kill you and your family"
And if you're so chicken that you're going to obsess over being raided, being armed is just going to make you more of a danger to innocent people because you're clearly unhinged, dick.
"Is every murder prevented by your gun ownership?"
No, of course not.
That is why you cannot argue that the police make you safe so you don't need a firearm.
The police do prevent some murders, but not the vast majority.
It is up to you to protect yourself - that is the reality of the situation.
You can call the police, but the action will be over before they can respond.
"It stood for the proposition that whatever a soldier is issued is an arm."
And it's why the militia is pointless and the 2nd likewise completely pointless, as evidence by nobody having any reason for it to be in the constitution.
Since you can't have military hardware, you can't ensure a free state, and the entire point of the 2nd is null and void.
Maybe so - but in America that is my right.
And none of your whining is going to change that (which is a relief to me).
"That is why you cannot argue that the police make you safe "
No, I can, because I am safer because of the police, moron. Absolute safety is not possible at all, so demanding it merely highlights how limp your case is and how terrified of reality you are. And THAT shows how dangerous you are if you have a gun, because you can't be trusted not to go postal with it.
Guns make you LESS safe.
"Maybe so – but in America that is my right."
So you agree that you have no reason for it being a right. See? We;re both agreeing that the 2nd is pointless.
No argument for the 2nd and plenty of reason to throw it out. Therefore everyone can agree that the only rational option is to remove it.
Wow - you are wrong again.
Handguns and rifles are standard issue military weapons and I am allowed to "have" them.
I cannot buy a grenade (yet), but that may come with future caselaw.
No, I'm right, but you can't handle reality. And the reality is that the only rational choice is to throw the 2nd out.
Your gun porn fetish and crippling insecurity and fears do not make a reason.
I don't need a reason to keep it - it is already written and part of the constitution.
It is you who need a reason to get rid of it. A reason which will convince the congress and 3/4 of the states. You don't have a good reason yet.
You have not met your burden.
I don't have a burden at all.
Yes you do, moron. Without any reason for it and the only reasons being to remove it, the only rational choice is to drop the 2nd amendment.
Want your gun porn? Join the armed forces instead of hiding in the shed stroking it.
Wow said: "why the fuck are you telling anyone this?"
Just to point out that your hypothetical restructuring of the relationship between the National Guards and the Federal government would not have the results you think it would.
RickA said: "I cannot buy a grenade (yet), but that may come with future caselaw."
Are you under the impression that this will make you safer? A grenade is basically a clumsy offensive weapon dangerous to both user and target at close quarters. Are you visualizing a heroic stand against the troops of a tyrannical government?
"Just to point out that your hypothetical restructuring of the relationship between the National Guards and the Federal government would not have the results you think it would"
How did it do that? Where do you say that in your post? And what IS your thought on what I think it would do?
Because I cannot see anything that connects anything in your post to anything in any of mine that could even theoretically and with much squinting be considered as being in some small way able to proceed, never mind complete, to that connection.
And just to start the ball rolling, you said
I do not believe that this is the case now
To this quote from my post at #98
Any state can decide to disband their army or call it back at any time, ensuring that the federal government could not use their temporary control of the state forces to suppress the freedom of that state.
So my query was why are you telling me that it is not currently the case that the standing army of the USA is disbanded and that all militia forces are created by the state body and whose existence is at the behest of that body. Telling me had appeared to be absolutely dependent on my having stated that this was the current case.
Yet now you claim that you told me that because you wanted to show how the result would not be as I wish.
Yet there is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY ZERO conection between telling me it isn't currently the case that the federal standing army is nonexistent and the only armed force is one raised by the state bodies and telling me that it would not have the effect I suppose.
NOR is there anything in that quote from me saying what effect I suppose it would have.
Therefore there is absolutely positively no coherency behind ANY of your claims. this then demands I ask again WHY THE FUCK are you telling ANYONE this? Are you deliberately trying to show yourself up as a moron to generate attention? Or is your mental state deeply hallucinatory? Or are you blathering out half-regurgitated thought where everyone else is supposed to intuit for you what you could not be arsed to write out and instead blatted out a quote that was actually irrelevant to your addition to it?
Though that 98 has moved to 105 because of post-hoc additions to the thread contents.
And with the rightwingnutjobs in power, they say everyone has the right to healthcare by virtue of not making a law saying you can be refused it. However, they don't ensure you can afford any insurance. Making the right to healthcare moot.
So you can retain your right to a thing as long as it is theoretically possible. Doesn't matter how practically impossible it is, just as long as it is technically possible for anyone to get it who is allowed it.
Make bullets illegal.
I am merely visualizing what a normal soldier is issued, and noting that Fragmentation grenade are standard issue (as are smoke grenades). Based on my reading of the case law, these are "arms" and are available for citizens to keep and bear. Along with all the other standard issue stuff soldiers routinely get.
Whether it is a good weapon or a clumsy weapon is not relevant. Is it an "arm" as used in the 2nd amendment - that is all that is relevant.
See - now that is some creative thinking - "Make bullets illegal.".
It won't work, but nice try.
Nope - that law (should it be enacted) would be struck down.
It would make guns useless, and therefore would infringe upon 2nd amendment rights.
Much like making typing illegal, or writing illegal - those laws would be struck down as well, as infringing on the 1st amendment.
But at least you are trying to think of something other than an outright ban on guns - which would never work in America.
And a normal soldier is all an army is, isn't it dick. No tanks, no light support, no mortars, no AA no missiles, no ships, no aircraft.
That the standing army has them is why the 2nd is meaningless.
That your and your ilk's delusional terror will lead you to shoot people dead based on your fear of others is why the 2nd is dangerous.
Make bullets illegal will work, and as evidence I cite the lack of support for your claim otherwise.
Make states ban guns or heavily regulate them (for a state level militia).
Make selling guns illegal.
Make buying guns illegal.
Make walking in public armed illegal.
None of them stop you owning a firearm by federal statute.
Remove the 2nd. It's not merely meaningless it;s suicidally dangerous and only aids and abets criminals, same as with the prohibition act.
Note that the number of people sick and fed up with gun ownership morons is rising rapidly and more guns are being owned by fewer people.
Not forgetting that WASPies like yourself only allow rightwingers the right to flail around with guns. A black man will be summarily shot for waving something about that is sort of gun shaped. If you think they're liberals, they are criminals for (rightly or wrongly) using their 2nd amendment rights to fight government that is patently the most corrupt US government in its entire history. So the right is already "restricted", it just doesn't affect you personally yet.
"See – now that is some creative thinking – “Make bullets illegal.”."
Glad to see you accept that removing the 2nd amendment is a patently obvious idea.
144...here's your vaunted police force, letting convicts escape, only to be captured by an armed homeowner:
Here's a homeowner repelling armed robbers with a simple machete (a non-firearm "arm") :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDfg3b35PIY
The government CANNOT keep you safe...you can't carry a cop in your pocket...so carry a weapon and the knowledge of how to safely use it.
>So you would agree that those decisions do not represent the original intent of the framers, and are an example of judicial activism and “legislating from the bench”.
Only if you think overturning a state law restricting free speech is 'legislating from the bench', or requiring that state courts must throw out convictions gotten with evidence taken without a warrant.
Please connect the dots there "mike", because that appears to be a complete ass-pull there from you.
Oh, and irony, still lacking in argument your claims are still the irrational bleating of the mentally deranged. You're just petrified of life and that makes you the least safe person to allow to be armed.
Your guns can't keep you safe, irony. Therefore you should not bother with guns.
174... "allow to be armed"? See...the starting point is not applying to the government to pretty please allow me to do something that's already considered legal.
Look, if you want to live in fairy-tale land where criminals don't rape and pillage on a daily basis, you can do that, right up until you or someone you love come in contact with a reality I don't desire for anyone. Wishing that the grass were navy blue and that 7+7 = 99 simply doesn't make it so. Color your hair, pierce your skin, enjoy your bottles, but reality remains unchanged.
Some of us are willing to be responsible for our own actions , some of us don't want to have to call for help that is likely 5+minutes away. I'm not petrified of life, I'm willing to see the risks of life, and prepare to survive them, for myself, and my family who depends on me in some way or another (more responsibility taking).
I agree, my guns don't keep me safe. There's lots of guns out there, and I have but a few. My hands can only hold so many at a time. I keep me safe. My awareness, my willingness to recognize a threat and my training, keep me safe. And you can take that all away from me as easily as you can take the guns away.
"allow to be armed”
Yeah, so what? You have to ask pretty please if you can drive, yet driving a car is legal. You are not merely mentally unstable but also intellectually deficient.
"if you want to live in fairy-tale land "
Has no bearing on whether the 2nd is pointless and actually demonstrably harmful to life, moron.
"Some of us are willing to be responsible for our own actions"
Nope, some of you get sexually aroused at the thought of killing someone.
" I’m not petrified of life"
Yes you are.
"I’m willing to see the risks of life"
Except you live in terrified horror at the idea you could be invaded by someone intent on just killing you. Which is why I can say as proven fact that you're terrified of life and unwilling to risk living.
"I agree, my guns don’t keep me safe"
They make you both dangerous to innocents and endanger you. They provide NEGATIVE safety.
Your derangement is thereby also proven.
Fuck of you fantasist.
"And you can take that all away from me as easily as you can take the guns away."
Since they're already absent from you, yes, that can either be impossible (since there's no way to change it by taking it away more) or easy (since there's no effort needed in arriving at the end point posited), depending on how you define "effort".
"fairy-tale land where criminals don’t rape and pillage on a daily basis"
Does not ride well with the asinine claim:
” I’m not petrified of life”
And just a whole lot of insanity (And more misogyny) from the current septic retard.
Because there's no fucking point to the 2nd and a whole heap of reasons to eject it.
Stop trying to insist you have a right to buy a 30 calibre pocket penis substitute to make up for the lack of any masculine objects in your pants, ironny.
You have the freedom to but your little boy's bang-stick whether there's a right to do it or not.
And can I ask again why you insist I'm female? Is that because your real reason here is not to "fight for your right to steel peen", but to trash talk a woman on the internet with no consequence?
"Wow" the hermaphrodite asks...
"And can I ask again why you insist I’m female? Is that because your real reason here is not to “fight for your right to steel peen”, but to trash talk a woman on the internet with no consequence?"
Dickhead, nobody gives a flying fuck what you are. You're an asshole either way. Male? Female? Both? Makes no difference. But when someone calls you "him" you complain. Someone calls you "her" you complain. You may or may not have a pussy but you sure as shit are one. How 'bout this. Just tell the world you're a man. Or a woman. That way you don't get you precious feelings hurt anymore.
Responding to a post earlier up the thread and a few days later due to, well, the fact that I have a life, Wow Fucknuckle says...
"Yes, those words are unhinged, dingobollocks. Has fuck all to do with the conversation, but all you have is rage that you might lose your sex toys and penis replacements."
Glad you agree your own words are those of a complete nutter. Again, where is the rage? Not angry in the least. Just telling you your concern for our laws is laughable since you don't live here. So you should fuck off with said concern--see all the way below. Nobody cares what you think. You're an idiot. People usually dismiss idiots which is why no one considers anything you write to be of value. It's an observation, though admittedly, an obvious one. PS, what is your obsession with sex toys and porn and pedophilia? Very troubling. Especially the last. I would suggest you seek counselling lest you act out on these feelings provided you haven't already.
More from the resident dual-sex jackass...
"“...fairy-tale land where criminals don’t rape and pillage on a daily basis”
Does not ride well with the asinine claim:
” I’m not petrified of life”
Uh, stating a fact--that violent crimes happen--doesn't logically equate to being afraid of them. So, as usual, the moron is you. I would think after all this time you would have grown tired of being the biggest idiot in every discussion. But I suppose it's all you have, so I'm not surprised.
And yet more stupidity and senselessness...
"And just a whole lot of insanity (And more misogyny) from the current septic retard.
Because there’s no fucking point to the 2nd and a whole heap of reasons to eject it."
First, referring to you as "her" is not misogyny. It's a pronoun. Nothing more. That you don't like it is your problem. As for your incessant hammering on about the 2nd, perhaps one reason because it provides--and has done so for a long time--citizens of this nation a freedom--one which you don't like and that's a real shame. For you. Or perhaps because repealing it would do absolutely nothing to prevent gun use by criminals since only criminals would use guns. They aren't going away after all unless you're so stupid to think that confiscation is viable. It isn't. It's the same reason decriminalizing drugs would benefit society. See Portugal as an example. A nation with prisons full of marijuana users is not particularly useful, but we have lots of those. I guess adding hunters and sport shooters would make things better. No I don't. I guess I think you're a complete fool.
Finally, to reiterate, you don't live here, and have no say, so yours is nothing more than concern trolling. To that I, ironically, quote you of all people...
"Real life doesn’t obey your whims no matter how hard you believe them."
Possibly the only intelligent thing you've written in tens of thousands of words of useless dribble.
Nope, patmcgroin, a human. Something you have yet to prove you are a member of.
Indeed not, referring to someone as "her" is not misogyny, but certainly other words can indeed be produced by a blinkered angry bigotry and if it's addressed to someone referred to them by "her" it's misogyny, while addressed to "him" it's misandry.
While referring to you as an ignorant wankstain is just accuracy in language.
And nothing requires I "live here". Reality is reality wherever you reside and the reality is that there's a list as long as main street on how dangerous or at least stupid the 2nd amendment is and even their staunchest frotters have no list for why it should be a part of the constitution and therefore there's absolutely no reason for it remaining and damn good reasons for removing it, therefore it should be removed.
No matter where I or you live, that is reality.
The 2nd is a dangerous piece of bullshit even its defenders can't justify existing.
This is truth no matter where anyone lives.
And whining "You don't live here!" is merely cementing the factuality of it in place.
As usual, you keep waffling and backtracking and not really dealing with the question.
The wording of the 2nd Amendment, unlike any of the other "rights" ones, is actually ambiguous in the use of the term "the people".
You agree that the initial intent had to do with militias, and it can be argued that "the people" refers (collectively) to the citizens of a State. So, "the people" would have the right to establish a militia and store the weapons in an armory, an approach for which we have multiple examples.
Now, this doesn't preclude your interpretation, but you use words like "confirm" with respect to Heller, which doesn't make sense-- it may "confirm" your opinion for you, but not for me.
I see it as a ruling that is based on 9th Amendment, where there is a right inferred by custom and only tangentially related to the 2nd.
That's for the reasons I gave initially:
It has never been the case historically that ownership of firearms for hunting or home protection has been called into question. (It obviously wasn't the case when the Constitution was written, because ownership was the norm.)
It has always been up to local jurisdictions to establish regulations for public safety.
So, aside from slippery-slope paranoia intended to profit the industry, nothing much has changed. There is no scenario where the federal government would attempt to confiscate all guns. If there were an armed insurrection by traitorous militias or States, the feds would want an armed loyal population to help put down the rebellion-- see US Civil War, as one example.
Sow Cow, I thought you had the thick skin enough and the courage to accept what you're slinging. No? Awww...precious snowflake....your keyboard is as filthy as Dennis Hastert's, but you can't handle the heat you bring upon yourself.
People try to reason with you using sound logic, all you've got is 2nd grade name-calling in response. Grow a spine.
So moron, you didn't actually use your brain for your "thinking", only your paranoiac personality disorder. You are the one whining and whinging and stamping your tiny feet in frustration and hate.
I'm just asking what the fuck you're talking about.
Which has you screaming even louder, like a two-year-old finding out that candy is not a magic trick that appears by going "SWEETIES!".
Nobody has tried to reason with sound logic. Not one.
"But it's in the constitution" has no logical significance in the discussion about whether the 2nd should be in it.
"COW!!!!!!" is also illogical moron-spew.
"Good luck getting the constitution changed!" is yet more irrelevance so far as logical argument against the 2nd being a pointless entry and dangerous right that should be removed.
Neither has any of the other shit spewed by you righty-whity morons so terrified of life that you cannot help yourself in believing that you live in a world where you are going to be killed by a random criminal and that only the fear of facing guns stops that happening.
So your whining there is yet more asinine assertion dragged from your anus and past your ears.
"So, “the people” would have the right to establish a militia and store the weapons in an armory, an approach for which we have multiple examples. "
Moreover, for those paranoiacs who insist that whenever the left-of-them get in power, doubly so if it's female or black minority, that the government will round them up and oppress them, such a military storehouse for the militia would allow something rather more effective in war than semi-automatic carbines.
And, again, if the regular military run by the federal government were disbanded summarily, it would be 100% impossible for the federal government to force a state to its bidding, it would have to get a plurality of states to support it first.
The real question is:
What exactly would the federal government do that would get people to take up arms?
The whiny narrative now is that the "liberal coasts" don't care about "flyover country", and the Dems have given up on much of the South.
Well, yes. If you wiped out these backwards and rural areas that suck up far more tax dollars than they contribute, the productive members of society in California and NY and so on would be a lot better off.
Why would we want to "invade" Kansas and take away the guns?? For example, if Kansas stopped paying federal taxes, we would just stop sending money to Kansas, and that would mean a net profit for the feds.
Any suggestions from the Defenders Of Freedom? What "freedom" would you be defending with your guns??
I'm with you on this one zebra...aside from the previous Bundy ranch example given...gun owners have been far too disorganized and not "down for the struggle" so to speak.
Our property rights have been trampled for decades and there's often wide ranging agreement from the lesser magistrates all the way up the chain...targeting the lesser magistrate seems foolish because they didn't create the law, but they uphold it...the larger "federal" powers will not back down, (see Waco and the Branch Davidians)....so there's often a disagreement that this offense or another cannot be absorbed, and who should we take up arms against. We seem to agree that if we can just vote in the right people...but we're dumbing down the populace, not training Liberty minded individuals to fight for proper justice.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But 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." http://www.crfcelebrateamerica.org/index.php/documents/63-declaration-o… Todays list of offenses could go on for a long time...
Specifically, what "list of offenses"?
Laws against child sexual abuse?
"What exactly would the federal government do that would get people to take up arms?"
Or, give the hypothetical of there being no federal army, just state militias ceded to federal authority at their convenience, what would a state do that would get several other states up in arms and asking that the federal government smack them down?
"Why would we want to “invade” Kansas and take away the guns??"
And how? It's not like removing the 2nd means you can't get guns or it means guns are illegal. You may have to justify in law WHY you should get guns, you may have to explain to the state level legislators what makes sense in your state as to how easy or hard it is to prove you can be trusted with a deadly weapon. But all removing the 2nd does is mean you can't "respond" to a request to prove you're not a maniac and lunatic with "BUT MUH RYTS!!!!!".
"aside from the previous Bundy ranch example given"
So again with the rightwinnutjob ideology: only rightwingnutjobs are allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, everyone else is just a criminal when doing it.
And know WHY you nutballs are disorganised? Because you find it easier and safer to complain than try to organise and become, well, a militia. That, after all, could put you in harms way.
"Specifically, what “list of offenses”?
Laws against child sexual abuse?"
Given his proposition of Bundy, I have to wonder too if this is what he's "thinking" of....
"Our property rights have been trampled for decades"
"Waco" -- the loons who let their leaders set fire to their compound rather than leave?
The stupidity and outright false nature of your examples really work against your tired argument of government run amok.
No, Waco is the reference I meant-- with Bundy I think it might be cow abuse, although I am not that familiar with the man's personal history.
"Bundy I think it might be cow abuse, although I am not that familiar with the man’s personal history."
Bundy roamed his cattle on government property for years without the proper paperwork, lied about it (and how long his family had been in the cattle business), then he and some others in his family set a fire to burn a good part of the government land and lied about that.
The fact that they were taken to court for that makes them "patriots" in the eyes of folks like ron, rickA, mikeN, etc -- the fact that they were all white also helped. Had they not been the three just mentioned would have been calling for their execution.
Sure, not to bring up a sore subject, but there are thousands of unconstitutional laws on the books regarding RKBA. Aside from that, the 4th Amendment is under constant assault (Snowden files), There are all sorts of 5th Amendment due process violations that go on daily (See civil forfeiture). This idea that nobody can own land without paying property taxes in perpetuity...the current monetary system is unconstitutional (http://tinyurl.com/mmkhrss)
These are meta level problems...not to speak of the general corruption and graft that has woven itself into the American culture (subprime loans / foreclosures) . (See that, I didn't even mention the hot-button polarizing distractions of SSM and Abortion!)
Any of these are reason enough to throw all the bums out at once. But JFK and Reagan were shot as soon as they got serious about taking on the Federal Reserve.
An actor such as Obama can't disarm the populace because he's instantly identified as a threat to RIghts. You need the actor like Trump to get on gun-owners good side, gain their trust, and then flip on them while their guard is down and they're not stockpiling ammo/weapons in fear. So while the Democrats continue to lose elections, you should cheer, because the elites (no difference betwixt the two parties) are gaining the public's confidence.
Not only that, but a guy like Trump is going to use Weiner's laptop and his NSA 4th amendment destroying contacts to take down all the child abusers like Denny Hastert and John Boehner....the Republican party, who will have won SO many elections, will be a vapor, with one press release. Having drained the swamp and gained the confidence of the people, an actor like Trump will be able to do what he wishes in the next crisis (which he'll likely create). Actors like Trump can be easily bought by people like Soros...the price is high, but they're all prostitutes.
I'd really enjoy seeing a list of taxes in America.
Furthermore, one can't commercially cut hair. legally, without a license. I'd enjoy seeing a list of all the available licenses in #Merica.
They're hassling kids for lemonade stands. http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/11/politics/lemonade-stand-shut-down-texas/
Is that freedom?
"But JFK and Reagan were shot as soon as they got serious about taking on the Federal Reserve."
Wow -- in addition to just being an idiot ron is a conspiracy fool. There's something we should have seen coming.
196 is nit picking, a bit...but it demonstrates how "free" we are as we sing Lee Greenwood and watch fireworks.
How granular our daily existence in tax filled and asking pretty please to make a living...which is then stolen at the point of the State's gun (no more debtors prisons, but owe the court a nickel and it'll throw you in jail).
" although I am not that familiar with the man’s personal history."
There's a saying "As well hung for a sheep as a lamb". The problem is, see, that when sex is an abomination in the eyes of the lord (tm), there's no difference between buggering kids as any fornication between adults, the religiously fundamentalist sees them as both equally bad.
You will also notice that the cesspit of a moron decided not to answer twice again.
I have to leave the discussion to you at this point.
I am immediately flying to Zurich to warn my fellow Elders Of Zion that our "Donald Trump As Trojan Horse For George Soros" plan has been discovered.
As with all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, when they were first passed, they were all about precluding Federal laws.
So I agree that in 1789 the 2nd amendment would prevent the Federal government from passing a law banning guns (but not a state).
Where I part ways with your ideas is that after the civil war, we passed the 13th and 14th amendments.
Then after that, a body of case law developed that took the bill of rights (amendments 1-10) and began finding that they applied to the States (and not just the Federal government), through the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
This is called the incorporation doctrine.
The 2nd amendment was just recently incorporated, and is now interpreted as applying to the Federal government and the State governments.
So originally there were a few states with a state religion (no longer), but now - no can do - because the 1st amendment was incorporated and now applies to the states. Ditto for the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and so on - each amendment was individually incorporated with the 2nd amendment being the latest (2010).
So my reading is that the Federal government was saying (when the 2nd amendment was first passed) that states need a militia, and assumed that the people would need to keep arms for their state militia. This is consistent with all the laws of the 10 colonies, which have a list of stuff each militiaman was to bring with them, when called up - namely a gun and ammo).
Then the 2nd amendment was incorporated and now applies to every State, the District of Columbia and the Federal Government.
No laws banning guns.
Until the 2nd amendment is amended, revoked or enough justices are appointed to read it differently than it has been since Heller.
"our “Donald Trump As Trojan Horse For George Soros” plan has been discovered."
Sheeiiit! You just HAD to let the goddamned cat out of the bag!
Well, at least they still don't know about our long term sleeper cell plan in the republican senatorship to make sure trump gets to stay long enough to enact our plan.
A good response, but it isn't a response to my points.
I'm not arguing that States and local governments can prevent you from owning a firearm. That follows from either your or my interpretation of Heller, and from incorporation.
So, I haven't heard any real disagreement from you so far.
"they were all about precluding Federal laws."
They had reasons.
The absence of that reason and they should not be there any more.
And, since you have no reason, and have given no reason and are still whining about removing the 2nd being somehow not allowed, clearly you are irrational and deluded.
Moreover, there's no law against regulating bullets. Or stopping the sale of guns by nonlicensed salesmen. Nor with making the states just flat out ban guns.
Indeed, as zebra pointed out, the Wild West had LOTS of gun free zones in town. Your firearms were only for out in the wilderness. Not forgetting gun ownership was MASSIVELY lower yet the need for them MASSIVELY higher.
But it's all buying dick replacements, isn't it.
And there's been nothing to counter these facts from you so far.
Here's one list http://tinyurl.com/oqjx7zu
#1 Air Transportation Taxes (just look at how much you were charged the last time you flew)
#2 Biodiesel Fuel Taxes
#3 Building Permit Taxes
#4 Business Registration Fees
#5 Capital Gains Taxes
#6 Cigarette Taxes
#7 Court Fines (indirect taxes)
#8 Disposal Fees
#9 Dog License Taxes
#10 Drivers License Fees (another form of taxation)
#11 Employer Health Insurance Mandate Tax
#12 Employer Medicare Taxes
#13 Employer Social Security Taxes
#14 Environmental Fees
#15 Estate Taxes
#16 Excise Taxes On Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
#17 Federal Corporate Taxes
#18 Federal Income Taxes
#19 Federal Unemployment Taxes
#20 Fishing License Taxes
#21 Flush Taxes (yes, this actually exists in some areas)
#22 Food And Beverage License Fees
#23 Franchise Business Taxes
#24 Garbage Taxes
#25 Gasoline Taxes
#26 Gift Taxes
#27 Gun Ownership Permits
#28 Hazardous Material Disposal Fees
#29 Highway Access Fees
#30 Hotel Taxes (these are becoming quite large in some areas)
#31 Hunting License Taxes
#32 Import Taxes
#33 Individual Health Insurance Mandate Taxes
#34 Inheritance Taxes
#35 Insect Control Hazardous Materials Licenses
#36 Inspection Fees
#37 Insurance Premium Taxes
#38 Interstate User Diesel Fuel Taxes
#39 Inventory Taxes
#40 IRA Early Withdrawal Taxes
#41 IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
#42 IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
#43 Library Taxes
#44 License Plate Fees
#45 Liquor Taxes
#46 Local Corporate Taxes
#47 Local Income Taxes
#48 Local School Taxes
#49 Local Unemployment Taxes
#50 Luxury Taxes
#51 Marriage License Taxes
#52 Medicare Taxes
#53 Medicare Tax Surcharge On High Earning Americans Under Obamacare
#54 Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (if you don't buy "qualifying" health insurance under Obamacare you will have to pay an additional tax)
#55 Obamacare Surtax On Investment Income (a new 3.8% surtax on investment income)
#56 Parking Meters
#57 Passport Fees
#58 Professional Licenses And Fees (another form of taxation)
#59 Property Taxes
#60 Real Estate Taxes
#61 Recreational Vehicle Taxes
#62 Registration Fees For New Businesses
#63 Toll Booth Taxes
#64 Sales Taxes
#65 Self-Employment Taxes
#66 Sewer & Water Taxes
#67 School Taxes
#68 Septic Permit Taxes
#69 Service Charge Taxes
#70 Social Security Taxes
#71 Special Assessments For Road Repairs Or Construction
#72 Sports Stadium Taxes
#73 State Corporate Taxes
#74 State Income Taxes
#75 State Park Entrance Fees
#76 State Unemployment Taxes (SUTA)
#77 Tanning Taxes (a new Obamacare tax on tanning services)
#78 Telephone 911 Service Taxes
#79 Telephone Federal Excise Taxes
#80 Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Taxes
#81 Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Taxes
#82 Telephone State And Local Taxes
#83 Telephone Universal Access Taxes
#84 The Alternative Minimum Tax
#85 Tire Recycling Fees
#86 Tire Taxes
#87 Tolls (another form of taxation)
#88 Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
#89 Use Taxes (Out of state purchases, etc.)
#90 Utility Taxes
#91 Vehicle Registration Taxes
#92 Waste Management Taxes
#93 Water Rights Fees
#94 Watercraft Registration & Licensing Fees
#95 Well Permit Fees
#96 Workers Compensation Taxes
#97 Zoning Permit Fees
Remembering that the 18th Century revolution was sparked by taxes...do you think that this list is sufficient?
Ron, do you have a meaningful point or are just one of the "taxation is theft" idiots?
Yeah, that's a list.
So is this one:
1) The number one
2) The number two
3) The number three
This too is as much a response to the query "What list of offences" that you proposed existed in post 190.
Still doesn't actually fucking answer the question, but it is at least coherent unlike your brain turd you pushed out of your keyboard there.
You're forgetting all the State Constitutions and RKBA being declared therein. http://tinyurl.com/ydf2ml3j
In the original colonies, these would have predated the federal constitution..
So go back to the situation 200 years ago, then. At that point it may make sense, but you have a shitload more regulation of carrying firearms than you get today.
DO you want the same regulation now as then? Then you're more anti-gun than most liberals.
207 RickA and Zebra are having some kind of esoteric conversation about the origins of the RKBA in American History. I'm not adding commentary to it, simply asking for a more full view of the moment and it's legal underpinnings.
To suggest that there were less freedoms when the Constitutions were written is ludicrous, but that's your wheelhouse, wow.
Again, RKBA is about self-ownership and being responsible to protect oneself / loved ones who aren't able to. It's an absolute right and current laws that prohibit it in any sense are unconstitutional.
You realize that not all that long ago, one could purchase dynamite freely and that today, gasoline is sold at many corner stores. These explosives can do much more damage than personal firearms. Yet, nobody is calling for special license to buy all the gasoline they want (tanks and tanks full)
No, dick is avoiding answering what zebra is asking. YOU Are the only one, and I mean ONLY ONE talking about some nutjob whackos labelling themselves RKBA.
Yet more proof of the contention you are an insane deluded moron with absolutely no fucking clue of what you're spewing.
"Yet more proof of the contention you are an insane deluded moron with absolutely no fucking clue of what you’re spewing"
[WARNING: Wow, watch your language.]
>Why would we want to “invade” Kansas and take away the guns??
Ask the liberals pushing for national gun bans.
And since national gun bans doesn't mean invading kansas, care you actually answer the question posed, moron?
"Ask the liberals pushing for national gun bans."
Yes, because there is such a universal push for that.
Oh, no, there isn't. Just more paranoia.
"To suggest that there were less freedoms when the Constitutions were written is ludicrous, but that’s your wheelhouse, wow."
Suggesting that you have essentially no freedoms now is even more ludicrous, yet some people still do it.
zebra #205 said "I’m not arguing that States and local governments can prevent you from owning a firearm. That follows from either your or my interpretation of Heller, and from incorporation."
Maybe we don't disagree - I cannot be sure.
I originally disagreed with your statement in #114 that "As has been pointed out here ad nauseam, the 2nd Amendment only makes sense (based on the historical context) as protecting the ability of States to form militias."
I don't agree with this.
I see the 2nd amendment as making sense as protecting an individuals right to keep and bear arms BECAUSE state militias need individuals to bring their guns with them when they are called up.
That is how Heller and the recent 2nd amendment law reads it - the 2nd amendment right is a personal right (just like the right to free speech and free practice of religion). NOT a militia right.
Perhaps you could clarify the point you think I am not responding to.
"I don’t agree with this."
Reality neither requires not relies upon your agreement with it.
"BECAUSE state militias need individuals to bring their guns with them when they are called up."
Nope. The militias can have the guns.
"the 2nd amendment right is a personal right "
It's meaningless. Bring a pistol to an MBT fight, dumbass. Ask about Tianemen Square. If he'd had a gun, the government would have had a SHITLOAD less trouble from the incident.
I note that the list of offences or reasons to invade states is the null set.
"and free practice of religion"
How about the right to liberty?
This is what can happen when you;re armed legally.
This is what can happen when you;re armed legally.
"I don't want you to get shooted. Keep the handcuffs on."
I'm not backing Yanez on this one. I think that notifying police of a concealed weapon is unconstitional/inappropriate.It's also not prudent because we've given cops this ability to shoot people on site without ramification (Yanez is actually going to get a golden parachute deal).
Yanez's crime doesn't negate RKBA, however.
There was no crime.It negates the BS claim of the 2nd amendment.
And, again with the psychosis you have. 2nd Amendment != RKBA. Guns != RKBA. Letter A !=RKBA. Bullets !=RKBA. The only retard blowing steaming chunks of rancid goat hide about RKBA here is you.
I neither know nor care who the fuck RKBA is or if it's an acronym for "Republicans Kill Black Angels" or anything. Nobody other than you is discussing it.
As well as showing the lie about the 2nd being protection for the citizen, your post gives the lie to the idea that you 2nd amendment fetishists give a single flying fuck about doing anything with it other than scream like a toddler with their dummy taken away from them if it's discussed about and someone, anyone, says something about putting some limits on guns.
After all, even though you claim it's a crime, that you don't support it, you think it is wrong to even be required to state you have a gun and a permit for it (what happens when you open the glove compartment and the gun in there can be seen? BANGBANGBANGBANG!!!!), and even though you claim that this will end with a golden parachute from officialdom, what are YOU doign with your guns about this?
Like with the free speech quote of Voltair you lot fantasise over, the rhetoric is great while it's in potentia. When it comes to putting the ass on the street and DOING stuff, it's just not really a thing you bother with.
When you whine and complain about how much more protest-y the left are, one reason is that when the left get angry about something, THEY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. While you morons sit on your ass and make shit up. And mostly today this is because even when "the left" is in power, you still get your way without much complaint or resistance, so you don't HAVE to get real about your complaints. And also why your complaints are so detatched from reality or sanity (much like extreme third-wave feminism), your problems are so hard to find that you have to really REALLY twist reality to make believe there's still something for you to be persecuted from. "War on Christmas"???? "War on guns"???? FEMA camps/ Death Panels/ Coming fer er guns/ muslimfacistcommunistsocialistobamabirthplace?
And go watch the youtube vid, retard. A FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD knows better than you what the 2nd amendment rights do for you if the government establishment is against you. SHE knows that you have to keep the handcuffs on or they'll kill you.
For the many times when "subconscious privilege" is abused as a meme, this is a case where you display PRECISELY how and where it exists. For all your BS about how you're persecuted, this is only based on your toddler tantrum level of comprehension. If you can't have what you want, you're persecuted. Actually, sounds more like a spoiled bratty teenager persecution screed: toddlers aren't so opinionated. But that child KNOWS what it means because she actually lives under it and has had to have first hand experience of its effects.
The 2nd doesn't work if you're persecuted, and if you aren't persecuted, the 2nd doesn't have anything to protect.
That child knows what it means because she has more experience of the world than some lunatic RWNJ blithering about some moron club they want to promote even if they have to imagine anyone else is talking about it.
If those fetishising the 2nd meant anything, they should be driving down to extract that police officer and stringing them up on the nearest lamppost, along with the duty sergeant and their captain, the latter two as indication of why it is in THEIR best interest to ensure ALL their officers are competent for the job or taken off active duty BEFORE they fuck it up and kill someone.
Then they should seriously consider whether they need to join them up there on the wire for letting it get this bad before doing something about it.
"And go watch the youtube vid, retard"
[WARNING: Wow, watch your language.]
Wow, I appreciate your outrage and I share most of it. I'm all for officer gun control (not what you're discussing).
Try to follow me here...what is the proper role of government? Is it not to exact justice on evil-doers? Do we want individual citizens (or small groups) violently settling scores when they feel slighted by the "judicial" system? Is that a civil society? Is this a model that can be upheld for future generations?
On the one hand, your calling for broad disarmament of people who have done nothing wrong, then an injustice occurs and you call on them to be the bringers of justice using the means you intend to disarm them of.
Pick one. Broad disarmament based on the myth of "public safety" or using RKBA (Right to Keep & Bear Arms) as a vigilante strike force anytime the government doesn't color inside the lines. Can't have it both ways.
I'll agree with you that NRA members if not leadership, ought to be red flagging this case as discrimination and death towards gun owners (not just black people). There ought to be a notice put out that these PDs are on notice...however, think past this one event. Set your jaw against the cops at your own peril. They aren't going to help you if you're speaking out against them constantly, the mafia protection racket is over, so your posse better be dedicated and well funded (you're all quitting your day jobs).
Further, if you saw a bundle of NRA members doing what you suggested in #228. what would you and the host of Anti-RKBA people support? Those who went and used their guns to exact justice, or a corrupt government that now seeks to disarm the populace to protect those on their payroll?
In essence, how does your ranting and raving against law abiding gun owners encourage people to bring justice to Yanez and uphold a higher standard for cops?
Ron, David French at National Review has been arguing that this was the shooting of someone who was following police instructions. Anyone with a concealed carry permit is generally required to notify police during a traffic stop, presumably because they will find out about it anyways when looking up your details. Failure to do so could escalate things.
232 That's right....in Minnesota, there is actually NOT a positive duty given to the citizen to notify the officer, but the culture of concealed carriers has suggested that it would be better to do so, putting the officer at ease because the citizen is willing to reveal that he has no malicious intent at the outset of the traffic stop. No surprises, "Mr. Officer, let's just do what needs to be done, here, and part amicably (please take my money, please may I survive, Mr. Officer, sir, please)."
This was a fully innocent man and nobody really has said otherwise (SOP for cops is to blame the deceased for being a pot smoker or ex-con or something, simply to justify their fear and criminal behavior). He was doing everything he could to prostrate himself to the power of the State and the State still upholds his execution.
So this isn't good for cops. If the citizenry believes, with some justification, that there is no amount of submission that can slake the State's thirst for blood, you're going to have more people who take defensive measures against the State...been a long time comin, and well earned.
"Is it not to exact justice on evil-doers?"
1) Government should not decide evil. Only illegal.
2) Government should do a shitload more.
" I appreciate your outrage and I share most of it."
My point is that you don't do anything about it, despite you being 100% behind the idea of being armed to combat this shit. At least I have the reason that I don't think shooting the shit out of bad people for fucking up badly is a good and moral thing.
YOUR INACTION proves the 2nd is pointless. Being armed worthless.
Their death proves the armed populace is not protected at all, and the difference between what's said in this case (with citizens) and the case greg made this entire discussion about show EXACTLY how pointless your frotting over the 2nd is.
And in both cases it shows how an armed population is a fucking deadly thing, killing innocents.
I tried to reply a couple of times in the last few days which didn't go through, but I now seem to be connected, so:
If you read back over my comments, I have explained my position, and, more important, I have explained the reasoning behind it.
This is something you obviously don't feel the need to do; you first agree, and then change your position a couple of times, and seem to believe that just stating "your opinion" is sufficient. That is a characteristic of Authoritarian Personality, of course, so coming from your side it is not surprising.
Here's a question (for anyone):
If the Second Amendment was intended to establish an individual right, why didn't they just say so? Every other Right is unambiguous in that respect-- there's no real question of how to interpret them. The second could have said:
(1) "No individual shall be prevented from possessing firearms and lawfully employing them."
Pretty much covers self-defense, hunting, and... it meets Rick's condition that these individuals can bring their arms to use in the militia. No need to mention militia at all.
But instead it says:
(2) "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."
This makes sense only if the intent is to establish a collective right for the citizens of that State to have a militia. That's the right to either "keep" their weapons at home, or at an armory, and the right to train so as to be an effective fighting force ("bear arms").
So, all you constitutional scholars: Why is it (2) instead of (1)?
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” gives an individual the right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.
"So, all you constitutional scholars: Why is it (2) instead of (1)?"
Because it wasn't supposed to be an individual right. But RWNJs LIKE that answer (but not Roe vs Wade) so they want to pretend that this should be the right interpretation and that there is no way or need to interpret it a different way for guns, but they DO want to overturn the interpretation for Roe vs Wade, so insist that this is unelected back-room interference in the inerrant veracity of the Holy Word of Constitution.
"and seem to believe that just stating “your opinion” is sufficient."
Moreover seems to want to leave opinion the same as reasoned conclusion. When they are not.
The Hypocrisy Of Wow:
"It’s a nonsequitur here"
"S̶o̶,̶ ̶n̶o̶,̶ ̶I̶’̶m̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶s̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶m̶a̶k̶e̶s̶ ̶h̶i̶m̶ ̶b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶A̶C̶E̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶l̶o̶w̶e̶r̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶m̶a̶k̶e̶s̶ ̶h̶i̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶’̶s̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶e̶v̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶c̶u̶s̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶N̶O̶T̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶A̶C̶E̶?̶" ̶
So, what makes Wow think that it’s relevant to bring up Roe vs Wade in a discussion NOT about Roe vs wade?
Hmmm....that was ..
Wow - "So, no, I’m not asking what makes him believe that ACE is lower, but what makes him think that it’s relevant to bring it up in a discussion NOT about ACE?"
Heller: SCOTUS interpretation of a right not explicitly enumerated.
Roe: SCOTUS interpretation of a right not explicitly enumerated.
I think it would be more accurate to say that they didn't think it was necessary to articulate an individual right because it was custom at the time for people to have guns in their homes.
And, throughout US history, including the present, this has been the case-- as we have both pointed out, cowboys herding cattle all had guns, but the local sheriff could have them check the guns when they came into town to keep the drunken brawls at the fistfight level.
Nobody suggested cowboys herding cattle should go unarmed when they were on the trail!
Nobody, including the liberal coastal elites gives a crap if someone in Montana or rural Georgia is driving around with a gun rack in the pickup truck.
So, Heller would be a perfectly reasonable decision to resolve issues that arise within the "sheriff" context if, like Roe, it is based on custom. But, another characteristic of Authoritarian Personality is... greed.
I've not argued from or about SCOTUS rulings. I disagree with major parts of both Roe and Heller. (Roe justifies pre-born murder and Heller doesn't go far enough in recognizing RKBA)
There are what, 7.5 BILLION people on the planet, so your "opinion" has a value of 1/7,500,000,000.
Likewise Rick's "opinion", or betula's "opinion", absent any logically sound justification.
But Zebra'a opinion, now there's something the world cares about...
"or betula’s “opinion”, absent any logically sound justification"
Right, because there is no "logically sound justification" for mentioning the Supreme Court Ruling on the subject...correct?
Or is that just your "opinion"?
Correct-- there is no logically sound justification for answering my question:
"Why did the Framers use #2 instead of #1?"
With: "Because SCOTUS in 2008..."
Two for two for Betula.
"because it was custom at the time for people to have guns in their homes."
Know what else was custom at the time?
A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, “Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check.”
A check? That’s right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange.
It was NOT custom to walk around the urban centers with guns, concealed or not.
The gun nuts don't know what they're talking about, they only know what the talking point they hear from the media (while also claiming it all liberal commie fake media).
I thought that was exactly what I said.
"It was NOT custom to walk around the urban centers with guns, concealed or not"
It still isn't....unless you follow the law. Just for the record, we have laws...
No, not really. You just commented on owning a gun. 249 was about where you could carry it and how the town was quite willing to arrest you for walking around with a gun.
If you want to call on common practice then, you can't pick only bits you want to keep and ignore the bits you'd rather not be beholden to.
The other thing is that at the time there was a requirement to answer the call by the police to join a possee, and also you could be called up to help fight. And the military was armed little better than the commoner.
And before that period, as you recalled earlier, the guns were held for use in the militias, not as personal home arms unless you were out of the urban confines, and there was no police presence or army to protect you against natives a little pissed off at having their homes stolen.
Because the natives didn't have rights.
Nor did the slaves.
Zebra - "Why did the Framers use #2 instead of #1?”
You're asking for an interpretation of the constitution. It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution...
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” gives an individual the right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.
When you are selected for the Supreme Court zebra, your "opinion" may mean something, until then.... "nobody cares".
My number 243:
"And, throughout US history, including the present, this has been the case– as we have both pointed out, cowboys herding cattle all had guns, but the local sheriff could have them check the guns when they came into town to keep the drunken brawls at the fistfight level.
Nobody suggested cowboys herding cattle should go unarmed when they were on the trail!"
Looks like you just read the first sentence of the comment.
So you were countering the case of "common usage" in those days too. In which case, yes, we're both saying the same thing.
You can then just take it as an addition of a link to someone who looked at the history.
"you're asking for an interpretation of the Constitution"
No, I am asking a question about the specific language used by the Framers.
SCOTUS can decide that there is a right even if the language is not explicit. This was also the case in Roe v Wade.
It is possible to establish a right based on inference and custom, which is really what they did in both cases.
My question has nothing to do with that fact-- I can be completely correct about the reasons for choosing #2 v #1, and SCOTUS can still arrive at the conclusion that "a right" exists.
By your reasoning, if there had been one different Justice, that would change the answer to my question about what the Framers were thinking, because the case would have been decided 5-4 in the opposite direction? That's just silly.
If there is to be no interpretation, then the term militia is essential to the entire 2nd, and the only reason for a militia is to secure the freedom of a state. So the mere existence of the DoD armed forces makes the 2nd null and void. Either you have to defend against the federal forces, in which case firearms are impotent, or you have to cede the militia and the role of arms TO the federal government's forces to defend all states against external threats.
Without interpreting what they said, the militia securing the freedom of the state is the ONLY REASON for people to be armed.
And since that reason is now defunct, there is no reason for people to be armed.
Anything else requires you interpret. Which batshit doesn't want to do, because the interpretation they prefer has no support for it.
"Anything else requires you interpret. Which batshit doesn’t want to do"
Strange, I thought I said "It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution" ..... I must have meant something else.
Please Wow, tell me what your imagination is telling you I meant to say...
Zebra, your alternative language needs work. 'lawfully'?
'People have the right to lawful free speech', destroys the whole.
Then maybe you should finish the
You can commit murder with your bare hands. That is unlawful.
What is different if you use a gun? Are you saying the Second Amendment makes that lawful?
This must be one of your drinking days.
Zebra, by saying you have the right to lawful things, you are giving the government to ability to take away your rights, by declaring them illegal.
How is that incorrect?
It is obvious that these people are trying to change the subject because they can't deal with the question:
Why #2 and not #!?
All these genius experts on US History and the Constitution and Law, and they can't give a direct response.
RickA agreed for a short time, but backtracked when he realized it would make him an apostate.
They know what they've been told, not why it's true.
Notice they did not answer what case the state would have to defend itself against invasion from the federal government would be, either.
They've been told it might be needed,
But if a case comes up where it would, they could be told that this is not a case for revolt and they would accept it. See Dick's calling of the shooter (he didn't actually kill anyone yet, the senator is now off critical) a criminal.
If the only difference between someone using their legitimate 2nd amendment rights and a criminal is what the federal government calls them, you never use the 2nd and it's only there to make you believe that you accept the federal corruption.
Hell, even a "wrong" reason for your claims at least leads to discussion and a synthesis of some better understanding. No reason leads to nothing.
"Hell, even a “wrong” reason for your claims at least leads to discussion and a synthesis of some better understanding. No reason leads to nothing."
Which brings us back to the Authoritarian Personality diagnosis:
"Because I say so!"
"That's my opinion!"
For those on the AP spectrum, a real debate causes great discomfort and perhaps even terror.
Zebra, you describe murder as unlawful, and thus should not be a right. However, if you draw the line at whatever the government bans, then you do not have any right. Freedom to engage in lawful speech, well the government can declare that speech criticizing the government is illegal, and the amendment would say well that is not lawful speech so you do not have a right to it.
I'm not arguing for or against your position yet, because I think you mean to say something a little different.
zebra: #265, #267
MikeN: "I’m not arguing for or against your position"
If you don't draw it at whatever the government bans, you can't accept murder is wrong, because that is whatever the government bans.
And how can you be not arguing for or against the position "What is the reason for the federal government to invade your state" or for or against the position "Why does it not say option 1 rather than option 2"?
THOSE ARE NOT POSITIONS.
"But just to be quite clear, especially for those who believe that the power of the federal government is limited to those powers explicitly granted and enumerated in the Constitution: The Constitution contains no statement that a statute passed by Congress and signed by the president can be invalidated, abolished or modified by the Supreme Court. If the Framers had such a power clearly in mind, those who believe in “enumerated powers” must dearly wish they had said so in the document. Except they don’t bother dearly wishing it. They just go ahead and pretend it’s there, when it isn’t."
"In 1804, Jefferson wrote: “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
His own view was that: "Nothing in the Constitution has given [the judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them."
Later, in retirement in1819, he wrote that: “[T]he Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
“If this opinion [he wrote in the same 1819 letter] be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation.”
Well, it’s only Jefferson, but he’s entitled to his opinion."
Well that was meaningless ironny. Nothing whatsoever to connect that to the thread you posted it into.
Tell me, are you a fan of the YT site "Spirit Science"?
Yes he is ron, but it is opinion, not the law of the land.
You really don't have any support for your arguments do you?
I don't know why the founders framed the 2nd amendment as #2 instead of your proposed #1.
What I do know is that the bill of rights was meant to protect citizens against Federal laws, until the 14th amendment was passed. Then the 2nd amendment transitioned to be protection against Federal laws and State laws.
So in 1789 ish the 2nd amendment meant that no federal laws banning guns. Why - because states need the people to have guns so they could bring them when the state militia was called up.
Now today - no state can ban guns because the 2nd amendment was incorporated via the 14th amendment. And of course the Federal government is still prohitibed from banning guns.
I would also quibble with your definition of "bear arms" - which you seem to think only means when they are carrying for the militia.
I think "bear" just means "carry" - so keep and bear arms just means (in my opinion) a person can own a gun, keep it and carry it. That is how the case law is developing also.
Recall that rules against not being able to carry at Federal parks were struck down as violating the 2nd amendment. And because of the incorporation doctrine - I expect the "bear" aspect to be further litigated and clarified for years to come.
[WARNING: RickA, watch your opinion.]
273...is that question intended to bolster your "point" that what was said in 271 &272 is irrelevant, or did you intentionally miss what you had just said?
"What I do know is that the bill of rights was meant to protect citizens against Federal laws"
It protects the rights of citizens against all laws. Not just federal ones. Moreover, it was considered a BAD idea to list them because it made it look like it was a limit, not an example.
"Now today – no state can ban guns because the 2nd amendment "
1) 2nd isn't in the bill of rights.
2) States can. The amendment only concerns federal laws.
And still the complaint is just that it is in there. Since you have no reason for it being in there, if it is removed, you will have to say "Well, it's no longer in the constitution" and accept it.
" Why – because states need the people to have guns so they could bring them when the state militia was called up."
This is no loner the case. Moreover, the reason for the militia being armed is nonexistent now, either void or unusable because of the federal standing army.
Given the use of it is no longer extant, the amendment should be thrown out.
If it is considered that there should be another gun right enumerated, one that does not claim a militia, go ahead and ask for one when the 2nd is gone.
"I would also quibble with your definition of “bear arms” – which you seem to think only means when they are carrying for the militia."
That is the only meaning that can be read from the 2nd. Your opinion is not worth jack shit.
"I think “bear” just means “carry”"
So not "shoot" or "load" or "kill with"? Fair enough, remove all bullets and block the barrel.
"so keep and bear arms just means (in my opinion) a person can own a gun, keep it and carry it"
Then they should not have used the words they did. How does your person owning, keeping and carrying a gun aid the freedom of the state? It doesn't.
re 276, no, it was to point out that nothing was said in your two posts, ironny. It was pointless and without reason.
Wow - "Then they should not have used the words they did"
That's your opinion, which means less than squat. Though I'm sure the founding fathers would have had a field day with you...
But hey, you know who's opinion carries a little weight? The Supreme Court...
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” gives an individual the right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.
Now Wow, why don't you worry about your own country and just go back to collecting your corrupt distribution from the evil capitalists at Westmill Solar...
"that's how the case law is developing also"
From the California case for which SCOTUS just denied cert:
“Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources,” the court concluded that “the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.”
And, the Supreme Court has also upheld laws in Maryland and New Jersey that impose such restrictions on concealed-carry permits.
So, that would mean that "bear arms" means exactly what I say it means, right?
280 to the case Peruta v. California:
SCOTUS needs only 4 votes to grant cert.
So, even though there are thought to be 4 rock ribbed constitutional/conservative humans on the bench today, somebody didn't want to take this case...
So, while the antis implode about TRUMP and SCOTUS appointments, just know...there aren't even 4 who wanted this overturned.
Arguing pro-RKBA by using SCOTUS is a losing proposition.
If the president signs an order that says you can only own guns if you're registered with the state militia (by whatever method the state decides to enable one), then there are several things here:
1) Nobody is denied the owning of a gun
2) No infringement is being done by the federal government if there is no way to join a militia
3) The SC would HAVE to rule on this
4) It would have to explicitly rule that the 2nd has to be changed to then argue the law was unconstitutional and remove the bit about militia, or rule that it must be interpreted as if it were nonexistent. Which would open up a whole shitload of cans of worms, since most of the constitution gives limitations on the federal government, all of which have loopholes that allow some use of the power, and when some of it can be read as if it was not there as a scope of the right, it can be expanded by reading out the limitations of the scope.
But to reiterate on the nonarguments for the right to bear arms, the problem is that if someone puts forward a motion to have it removed, you have to just accept the result and remain mute, since you have no argument as to WHY it must be there in the constitution. "It's in the constitution" is why it can be removed, not why it cannot.
ron, still meaningless dribble. SCOTUS handle extremely few cases and they have been overwhelmed with requests to rule. Not ruling only leaves it up to the lower courts decisions to rule, it does not make it a decision by the SCOTUS. You're making no claim, only insinuating one which can be read in several different ways.
You probably hope this means that the unformed "argument" you made is therefore unassailable, since any counter would have to insert the rest of the argument to counter, but all it really means is there was no argument to counter to begin with.
Hell, you may be agreeing with zebra. Or agreeing with some and disagreeing or trying to counter other things. But you have so little actual direction and conclusion in your posts recently whatever extra is added can sum up to any damn thing imaginable.
Try posting one conclusion per post for a while and put the entire support for that conclusion in that one post until you get the idea of including an argument in a post. And end with that one conclusion.
I am impressed.
I had no idea what you were talking about and then saw the Peruta v. California denial of cert.
You are on the ball!
Yes - as to California, the Supreme Court is deciding that the 2nd amendment does not trump California conceal carry law.
It would probably be different if California didn't allow any type of conceal carry (or permit to carry).
But I admit that is pure speculation.
I see from the dissent that Heller said "As
we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “‘wear,
bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a
pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive
or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
And the refusal to take up this case does not overturn that definition - which is at odds with your definition of "bear".
I suspect that the Supreme Court will ultimately come down on the side of permitting states reasonable regulation of firearms - like conceal carry. But not regulation which bans weapons. I guess we will have to wait for that court case to be decided.
So my guess is that laws which say when transporting a rifle for hunting purposes, that you have to have it cased and unloaded will not be found to violate the 2nd amendment.
Laws which say you are not allowed to carry a firearm when over a certain blood alcohol level will not be found to violate the 2nd amendment.
On the other hand, laws which ban handguns, or rifles or shotguns, in a state, county or city, will probably be found to violate the 2nd amendment.
Of course, that is just my opinion.
We will have to wait and see.
So to recap, still no reason why the 2nd is there, and no reason to keep it. Plenty of good reason to remove it.
" But not regulation which bans weapons"
Fully automatics; Banned. Rockets: Banned. Machine guns: Banned.
Wow - "So to recap, still no reason why the 2nd is there, and no reason to keep it"
You're imagination is stuck in a continuous loop...
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” gives an individual the right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense
I appreciate the positive response.
As I understand it, SCOTUS has already upheld similar laws, which is probably why they denied cert. So it would seem that the this is pretty much settled. The "sheriff" still gets to have some control over the cowboys and their guns, metaphorically.
However, the problem remains about "opinions". As I said earlier, if the Court had an opposite 5-4 ruling on Heller, with different majority opinions, does that mean we can conclude that the Framers thought people should only own guns if they were in the militia, or even that militia weapons should just be held in an armory? I don't think either way the current split Court votes tells us anything; you have to look at the available evidence for yourself.
Since this purports to be a science blog, I would say again that "opinions" are irrelevant unless you can make a rational, evidence-based argument for your claim. So far, I am the only one who has done that, and there has been no counterargument or refutation.
Dick has a problem with reasons. He prefers opinions, because in tht case he doesn't have to accept he's wrong, it's "just his opinion".
Hence the list of definitions I gave him before he went on his epic constipation jaunt at post #80.
And as alluded to, if the courts decide some time later to be of a different opinion and that "militia" is definitely a requirement before getting the right to "bare arms", because the gun fluffers have no actual reason for it being a right at the level of the constitution, they would just have to suck on it.
IF they had an argument and presented it, they could maybe inform people of a reason for it. Without a reasoned argument available, the floor is ceded to the "remove it" people.
Oddly similar to the AGW "debate": RWNJs are so ignorantly in denial of reality, they cede the floor for what to do about it that they get, quite rationally and acceptably, ignored.
Note: I do not include you in the "not making an evidence-based argument for your claim".
And for those claiming a flat tax, this would only be fair and equal IF:
1) Sales and other such taxes were tax deductible for everyone. You get to remove the tax for all food, rent, power, heating, cars, petrol, etc.
2) The tax free limit was set to what the average USian should aspire to spend, so that "normal, moderate" spending was not unfairly penalised and people "forced" to spend less to avoid taxes
3) No exemptions. Churches get taxed. Charities get taxed. Everyone gets taxed. If you don't get taxed, are exempt from tax, you get nothing from the state. No representation without taxation. The poor who get less than the minimum tax bracket are no different from the poor charity who gets less than the minimum tax bracket, but the rich church getting millions a year is no different from the billionaire getting millions a year.
4) Everyone is on the same scale. Corporations get taxed the same rate. Investment income gets taxed the same. Dividends or cashing in gets taxed the same. You DID say it was a flat tax.
5) Estate taxes are at the same rate. It's supposed to be a flat tax, remember. Any cash you get is taxed at the same rate no matter who you are or how you got it. Otherwise it isn't flat, is it.
And if the shareholders are told the corporation is doing well, but the tax man is told it's not even breaking even, then they're evidently lying to someone and that's a crime. Either fraud or tax evasion.
By making the tax free allowance a normal US expected level of wealth, EVERYONE can avoid taxes just by achieving the expected level of wealth. Which is no privation unless you set the tax free level at "privation". Anyone with more than that can evidently afford to spend SOME of that cash, since they freely accept the extra money when they did not have to, but they wanted a better than average car, a better than average home, a better than average school for their kids. All freely accepted.
And rather than a budget of "X million for department Y", make the budget "X% for department Y". If there's no tax revenue to afford the military spending, then tough. But if people accept 20% of the taxes going to the police, 20% to the military, 20% to healthcare, then each of those get the amount people agree to pay in the proportion they agree to fund it. And they may decide that if push comes to shove, 40% for police and 0% for military is acceptable for the tax they are willing to pay. Or they may accept that if they want all the things they benefit from they have to pay a higher tax rate, or a lower "standard of living" by reducing the tax free limit.
Taxation is just the way you pay for the benefits the government supply. No different from any other supplier. Except you get mandatory choice of supplier every 4 years.
re 290, yeah, I know.
Even if you had, I would have come back with some rational argument based on evidence of what I supplied that I considered to be an evidentially supported rationale.
That's the thing about actually supporting your claims with something with rigour: either you're right or not, but all the evidence that brought you to the conclusion is there for others to peruse, even if they do not agree it justifies the conclusion. It's not "opinion", it's a conclusion reasoned from evidence, even if it's flawed. Flaws can be fixed. Nonexistence remains nonexistence. And the only rational way to deal with that is Hitchen's razor.
Another aside occurs.
AGW is denied on an argument that we only have 100 years of temperature records, which is tiny compared to the age of the earth, about 4 billion years.
However, we only have 300 years of records of "things falling down", a miniscule span of time where things existed, about 12 billion years. And most of that time we've not had ANY scientific paper showing how the "things falling down" measures prove gravity. Yet I don't see anyone disputing gravity because we have so little scientific measurement of it. Take a leap of faith: throw a really heavy hard object as high as you can straight up and watch it stay up there because "gravity is only a theory".
Then recall that pain is all in your mind and that faith healing works. Honest.
291...since this is a science blog...how does the concept of morality come from science? How does the study of physical properties observed in nature have anything to do with what a society ought and ought not allow? How does Francis Bacon's process for comprehending the world assign value to life?
How can societal philosophy flow from Dawkins view through his lenses of science... "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."?
Let's observe that the "science" minded on this site are advocating for a certain moral position: that populations on earth should be disarmed, or unarmed, regardless of current legal construct. Yet they deny that there is a moral ought to society.
That's almost a clear rational comment.. you must have taken Wow's advice!
First of all, I have no moral position, and I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything that could be interpreted as such.
As I said somewhere above, I certainly, and I'm pretty sure most of the "coastal liberal elites" you guys complain about, don't give a crap if someone in Montana or rural Georgia rides around in a pickup truck with a full gun rack. Nor do I (we) care if someone keeps a handgun in the house, or has a collection of 20 different firearms mounted on the wall.
(The fact that you can quote some individual saying something to the contrary doesn't change that reality, so don't bother.)
However, I do care if someone wants to bring guns into public spaces, where their use can lead to collateral damage.
I also care if someone buys 20 identical handguns and claims to be a "collector" when we all know he is trafficking to criminals and gang members.
I also care if there is no gun restriction on people who exhibit violence and irrational behavior, ranging from wife-beaters to paranoid schizophrenics.
This is not a "moral" position at all. It is based on scientific thinking: I would prefer to live in a society where the consequences of certain violent behaviors are reduced.
It's simply a matter of risk-benefit. There is no benefit to the population in general from not having regulations to address the concerns listed.
"The fact that you can quote some individual saying something to the contrary doesn’t change that reality, so don’t bother"
It also means the standard police forces are 100% capable of protecting you from that one person, even more so if carrying weapons in public was limited to coshes and table legs. If you're scared of that one person, you really can't claim to be not afraid of life.
"How can societal philosophy flow from Dawkins view through his lenses of science"
The same way any social animal has developed social norms and actions and even policed them, despite having neither a god nor language to elucidate them.
" certain moral position: that populations on earth should be disarmed, or unarmed, "
298...I appreciate that you would allow more freedom to rural peoples (are you not generous?). I'm not aware of the population density metric that increases penalties or changes the legality of an act, but it certainly is a novel legal standard to forward.
While rejecting a "moral" position for a legal ought, you do express care and preferences for certain risks to be taken away from society. Different from a beverage or dessert preference, why should the preferences you posit carry the force of law or be a threat to a person's freedom? Why would it be"just" to use the power of the State to these ends?
Restating the question you seem to be distracted from: How do your preferences relate to the study of physical properties in the Universe? How do we arrive at non-physical declarations against certain behaviors or acts via science? From what physical properties does the concept of justice arise?
Risk-benefit for whom? And why is that person's/group's benefit of greater value than the desires of another?
301 Is lying wrong? Why or how is lying wrong? It seems that you're assuming a standard of morality that truth should be valued above non-truth. Why is that? How does that follow from our observations of solids, liquids and gasses on Earth?
You're not saying that people should be disarmed/unarmed/weaponless? Just firearm-less? Are knives acceptable (the UK is banning them)? Slingshots? baseball bats? What about people who have martial arts training, how do you take that away?
Well, now you are starting to ramble again. But let's see if we can get you back on track. One thing at a time:
1. I said "I have no moral position". Do you not understand those simple words? Why are you asking me about "justice"??
2. As to "physical properties", science and reason are not restricted to physics and chemistry. I am talking about evidence-based and logic-based analysis when I talk about how I would prefer society to be structured.
"Why or how is lying wrong?"
Goodness. Weren't you the one going on about morals earlier? Yet here you are asking why is it wrong to lie. I guess you realised that you couldn't refute the charge so decided to deny the problem.
I will take your BS questioning as invalid rhetorical bollocks and therefore admission you know you lied.
"You’re not saying that people should be disarmed/unarmed/weaponless? Just firearm-less? "
Nope. Someone with a reading age above their shoe size would have been able to work out what has been said, but not apparently you.
" why should the preferences you posit carry the force of law or be a threat to a person’s freedom"
The point you've been assiduously avoiding is why should yours? Especially since there is actual real life (and death) evidence for the current status of gun ownership in the USA and the fetish for guns you have being a threat to someone's life, liberty and happiness. Yet no evidence that removing the 2nd amendment would be any threat to someone's freedom.
Remember, you were asked, multiple times, why would some liberal coast city dweller want to invade kansas and steal your guns? No argument for there being ANY threat to someone's freedom.
"And why is that person’s/group’s benefit of greater value than the desires of another?"
Why is it of less value than the desires of another?
Goodness, indeed. What is good? Who/what defines good/evil? You seem to believe in an objective moral truth, but refuse to define it and explain its origins.
BTW, did you see this recent article about a guy with 3000 weapons? http://tinyurl.com/y6u2ftzr
Why should society smack this guy down (he's got machine guns and tanks!)?
306 I'm not espousing my own simple preferences. I'm forwarding a philosophy of liberty and freedom derived not from my own original thinking, but from the potter who created the clay. I'm giving you a definition of justice that originates outside humanity for the benefit of humanity. That's where my "ought" comes from...yours is no greater than a preference for an automobile, an ice cream flavor, or a musical genre. It is indifferent to moral matters, there's simply no reason to benefit anyone, since life has no purpose.
304 Do you want to stop avoiding the question here and bring your definition of justice and how it comes from a place like this: " 'The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.'"...then tie that to "science"? How do guns matter other than some great physics project?
"What is good? Who/what defines good/evil?"
Yeah, more avoidance.
Given that you have so brazenly displayed that you do not want reality and do not care to have anything to do with it, I'll just rip the shit out of the rest of your post for the rancid yak shite it is.
" I’m not espousing my own simple preferences."
Yes you are buttmuncher.
" bring your definition of justice "
Nope, because you're a fucking goatfucking idiot who has no desire to learn because you don't like what reality brings you.
"That’s where my “ought” comes from"
Your ARSEHOLE? Sure it's the only bit doing the thinking and talking.
But lets just reflect that whatever some random book you're introduced to defines all your "morality", and the book has acts that would have you in jail or swinging from a rope in any country in the world if you followed it. The only thing stopping your insane raging on sane society is the fact that secular society with a morality that can be defended forces you to refrain from your one-man-terror-show.
And THAT is why you want guns. So that you can engage in your antihuman atrocities.
"bring your definition of justice"
I have no definition of "justice" outside of a societal structure. Social structures and laws must precede those kinds of terms, like "rights", which only exist within a legal system.
The universe is indeed indifferent, as your quote says. What's not to like about that?
(Unless you are on the extreme end of the Authoritarian Personality Spectrum, and are too terrified to make any decisions for yourself.)
I am not arguing for or against the 2nd amendment.
Because the second amendment already exists, in order to change or get rid of it, you have the burden of getting rid of it (not me). You would have to convince Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with you. Even if you won your argument here, it wouldn't matter, the 2nd amendment would still exist.
That is why I leave the field to you on this issue - it is not my fight, but yours. I wish you good luck.
However, zebra and I are debating how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted (but not whether it should exist).
I think we both agree that reasonable regulation can exist and I gave examples of such regulation. But no outright ban will survive the 2nd amendment (in my opinion).
Obviously each state has different laws - some have open carry, some permitted carry and so forth.
In Minnesota, we have permits to carry. But even without a permit, we can transport a rifle in a car (as long as the rifle is cased and not loaded). In Minnesota we are also allowed to take a gun to and from work (a holdover from the days of lots of cash business) - and no permit is necessary for this.
There are no laws against having a gun in your own home (in Minnesota).
So it will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with "reasonable regulation" laws of the different states - as each state tries something a bit different.
I have a permit to carry in Minnesota - but cannot carry into a business which says bans guns. On the other hand I can carry to all Federal parks and I am not sure about the status of state parks.
A permit to carry (as far as I know) does not limit what type of gun or the number of guns I could carry. So in theory, I could carry a handgun and a rifle, in public and be perfectly legal (again as far as I know).
I am sure we will have a lot to discuss in future years, as states pass different laws and they get challenged and ruled on in court.
"I am not arguing for or against the 2nd amendment."
Because you have no argument for it and do not want it to be removed, hence will refuse for ideological reasons to argue for it to be removed, despite the death and destruction it causes.
So, like I've said many times before: you cede the floor to the reasons why it should be removed, there being no counter.
There could be nothing valid in the remainder of your post, so you should have stopped there. If you're not arguing about whether the 2nd should stay or go, then there is nothing more to discuss on the 2nd amendment and it's removal.
And if your only assertion is to remain with "but it's the law, so suck it", then when it is proposed to remove it, remain silent child and let adults with reasons for or against it discuss.
"“bring your definition of justice”
I have no definition of “justice” outside of a societal structure."
It is, moreover, 100% irrelevant.
If ironny doesn't know what good or justice or anything is defined as, then so what? The discussion is not about that.
1) Why would some lefty city state invade some backwater hick state to steal their guns?
2) Why did the framers use the terms militia and free state when talking about the right to bear arms rather than individual right to own and carry around town weapons?
Neither of which rest on monsterron being told what humans do to be civilised. He's clearly still at the tribal goatfucker^Wherder stage of social development. He'll become civilised somewhere around 3000 years from now.
No definition of justice outside of a societal structure?
So, if one people group legally seizes power over a society and decides to eliminate/enslave another people group...you have no concern about this? That's their justice....leave it alone?
You men like the Israelites and the Caananites?
Or the USA immigrants vs the American Indians?
Or the UK immigrants vs the Aboriginies?
Or indeed the USA/UK and Iraq more recently. Seem to remember lots of cheers and whooping when Saddam was killed.
But it's yet more distraction from the fact that you're at the goat fucking stage of civilisation, 3000 years from what we consider civilised.
And since you don't know what justice or good is, and you have never complained about the idea of hostile invasions and ethnic cleansing, you don't care about it at all. Clearly making your post purely projection.
"Justice" within a legal system occurs when the legal system operates as intended-- the laws are executed without error, or bias, or corruption, and so on. "Justice is done, and seen to be done."
What does that have to do with my "concern" about how people in the society may be suffering? The two things are completely independent.
Human suffering causes me discomfort, whether it is the result of a legal system operating as intended, or of the act of an individual.
315 If I may, I will denounce ethnic cleansing. Here's a list of genocides in recent history http://tinyurl.com/85ysz9r
I denounce these as being objectively unjust, regardless of the legality of the governments actions. Why? Because human life reflects the image of the Creator and is valuable because of this fact.
316Human suffering causes you discomfort because you know and understand, to some degree, how justice is to be upheld. What entity causes more human suffering than governments? More kids die every year from pool accidents, car accidents, yet no outcry and no hand wringing over suffering...
Yeah, it's a bit late, now, ironny. Not to mention also irrelevant. Because you don't know what good or justice or morals are, else you would not be asking what they mean.
So you clearly have no objective method to make your claims. All you have is the BS of your fairy tales telling you that for some reason a being without need to eat or excrete or breathe or born from another mammal is nevertheless what you are magically poofed into existence to look like.
Given that this creator has in your mythology ethnically cleansed, IIRC, over a dozen races of also mankind, that mythology also doesn't give you any reason to dislike ethnic cleansing and your claims that it is objectively bad is your own opinion indirect contravention of your sky fairy's opinion.
And who are YOU to judge god and find it wanting?
"What entity causes more human suffering than governments?"
318 God isn't judged by me. I say that God is the standard of justice and may slay whom He desires. (Not me judging God but agreeing with Him.) I listed other genocides that I find objectively unjust as government is to be a blessing to its people, not a curse (again, based on my agreement with , not judgement of, a tenant that wasn't original to me).
Again, you fail to forward a theory of justice that holds any reasoning but you insist that the standard I am advocating is inappropriate. All based on some preference for a non-belief system that holds no moral positions.
(Cue the vitriol)
"More kids die every year from pool accidents"
From 2005-2014, there were an average of 3,536 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day
In 2013, more than 32,000 people died on U.S. roads, roughly 90 fatalities a day, according to the CDC. The U.S. has seen a 31% reduction in its motor vehicle death rate per capita over the past 13 years
All shootings: Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.
And suicide by gun:
When Americans think about deaths from guns, we tend to focus on homicides. But the problem of gun suicide is inescapable: More than 60 percent of people in this country who die from guns die by suicide.
So, no. Far fewer pool deaths than gun death, and very close but probably more gun deaths than cars too.
If you inlcude the suicide-by-cop figures, then it's no contest: guns "win" out.
"318 God isn’t judged by me"
Liar. You think ethnic cleansing wrong, but god exhorts it and lauds it and even gets super pissed off when it's not carried out far enough.
If you aren't judging it, then you are all for ethnic cleansing.
"I say that God is the standard of justice "
Therefore there is no objective definition of justice according to you.
"(Cue the vitriol)"
No, the vitriol was from you in that post, moron.
Hey, I guess you're fine with ISIS, since they're doing what god tells them to, and according to you, whatever god says is right, is right.
321 Look up cop killings: http://www.killedbypolice.net/ (doesn't distinguish between justified killing and unjustified killing)
So...math is integral to science, yes?
And on a global scale...car accidents are huge: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98055567
Suicide isn't an accident. We're comparing apples (car / pool accidents) to oranges (intentional acts)
Again, no hand wringing on cars or pools...no political movement to ban pools...not incremental ban on cars (even though these things have no constitutionally explicit mandate)
Don't give me this "public safety" excuse when you're not at all concerned or troubled or distressed or outraged by pools or cars.
"And on a global scale"
Guns aren't available to the public. So all your stat is doing there is proving that your 2nd amendment is killing a shitload of people.
Maths isn't your thing, is it. Not that anything is, mind.
"doesn’t distinguish between justified killing and unjustified killing"
Which would be killings done that the government justify (what did you say about governments earlier?) and killings that the government say is not justified.
But, no, your claim was asinine. Pool deaths a tiny fraction of gun deaths and even car deaths notably smaller than gun deaths when you claimed far more people were killed by either than guns.
And as your bait-and-switch to the global count shows, the USA is mostly that way and that would be the gun culture and 2nd amendment aiding and abetting those deaths.
"Don’t give me this “public safety” excuse when you’re not at all concerned or troubled or distressed or outraged by pools or cars."
Don't try that stupid tactic, retatrd, it doesn't work.
Your allowance of some people to use the term "retard" but to admonish others is offensive. Your allowance of it at all is doubly so.
Start your own blog, then.
I could come up with a half-dozen GOOD reasons for it, and another few about how your scenario is a shibboleth of the same morons trying to SJW for the rightwing and not actually the case.
For example of the latter, batshit lies. REALLY lies. Frequently and often and volubly. So half of your story comes from some fuckwitted moron.
And whining about it really doesn't do jack or shit. Whining just says you're butthurt and whining. Which nobody is in the business of caring about.
If you were actually honest in wanting to know what was going on you'd have ASKED for clarification. But you don't want that, you want vengeance, pain, suffering, silence, aquiescence, YOUR WAY.
Hence "Go start your own blog". You get to do all that there.
You're a disturbed individual. There is no reason to use that term. Period. I'd love to explain that to you face to face. There is no excuse. You're an asshole. That Greg allows you to use that word is equal to using the word 'Nig*ar." Unacceptable. And that you respond in less than 10 mins shows your obsession. You have an issue. I suggest addressing it.
I don't need my own blog to point out your offensiveness. Douche.
Wow - "For example of the latter, batshit lies. REALLY lies"
Yet, you don't provide examples....interesting.
Meanwhile, the hypocrite who says "profit" is a result of corruption, continues to collect his distribution from the "corrupt profits" of Westmill Solar..
You see what I just did there, I called Wow a hypocrite while providing an example....one he can't counter, so chooses to ignore.
And on that note, the same can be said for Greg, since I "ASKED for clarification" of what appears to be bias and hypocrisy....only to be ignored.
"You’re a disturbed individual."
You are a meaningless individual. Therefore your proscription on me is as meaningless as it is unsupported.
"since I “ASKED for clarification”"
Pat McGroin did not.
"I don’t need my own blog to point out your offensiveness."
I never said you did. But if you want your feelings to be of any point, for you to get your own way, to get the vengeance you demand, you do need your own blog.
And I do not care if you find me offensive. You do not find people who lie and bullshit and deliberately troll when they're rightwingnutjobs. Therefore your offence is not due to my wording but to the political stance you do not wish to hear.
Which is why I said I "“ASKED for clarification””.....you know, I being me.
Is this too tough for the hypocrite?
Nobody has to care what you want. And only when you were a minor did your parents or officially appointed guardian needed to care either. So there's nothing anyone else needs to do if all you want to do is whinge.
You COULD just not post or read this blog. Then you would not be so butthurt by things on this blog. You could instead continue to whine and whinge. As can patmcgroin.
But nobody needs to bother with it. Either reading or responding or even caring. Hell, they could be summarily deleted just because it's a waste of electrons. And still nobody would care, nor have to.
I HAVE responded because you might, theoretically, at least to a non-absolutely-zero-chance, have read and learned from the responses given.
But if you haven't and do not wish to, then I too don't have to bother reading your bilge or care what you say or try to either address your butthurt or advise.
So fuck off. Or keep whining. But I don't care and that's as far as I can be arsed to go on this bullshit whinge-fest you have.
Hey Wow, I have an idea, maybe you should get your own blog so we can point out your hypocrisies and offenses there!
Think of all the traffic you would get with people calling you a hypocrite and retarded and such...
Oh, and don't worry Greg, I've got this one:
[WARNING: Watch My Language]
"You are a meaningless individual. Therefore your proscription on me is as meaningless as it is unsupported."
Unsupported? Anyone reading knows that what I write is fully supported. And sadly for you, nobody is more "meaningless" than yourself given that you're entire world appears to be commenting here. I had baseball practice with my son since last comment. You?
“I don’t need my own blog to point out your offensiveness.
"I never said you did. But if you want your feelings to be of any point, for you to get your own way, to get the vengeance you demand, you do need your own blog."
Yes you did. Clearly. I need no "vengeance" but what I would like is some consistency from the blog host. Why does he allow you to offend, but disallows others? Not a question for you to answer, nor was it the first time.
"You do not find people who lie and bullshit and deliberately troll when they’re rightwingnutjobs. Therefore your offence is not due to my wording but to the political stance you do not wish to hear"
I don't? Care to provide an example? No? Didn't think so. You are as transparent as glass. Fucking idiot. And apparently supported by our host. Which makes him, well...
" Then you would not be so butthurt by things on this blog. You could instead continue to whine and whinge. As can patmcgroin."
Again with the "patmcroin?" And "butthurt?" how about writing like an adult? Idiot.
Greg, nice blog...
If you came here for reasoned argument with people who admit their mistakes instead of endlessly repeating them ad nauseam, then you will need to learn to filter out anything posted by the guy who has a capital W tattooed on each of his arse cheeks.
I have to admit I come here less often than I'd like (this is a good post) because of the lack of varied voices and nonstop insultfest in the comments.**
I particularly appreciate people able to like Bernie - and his positions on the issues - and be annoyed with his oppositional tactics at the same time. In his life - and again the main article points this out - he has had the opportunity to ignore the normal process of government which requires making deals with the "enemy".
I am sick and tired of the circular firing squad on my side. As Greg points out, the only way anything is going to happen is if we overcome the vote cheating - and that's a big if, keeping minority rule is a science (Koch, Buchanan,* et al.)
** Did a search on "Wow" which said "over 100 ..." While on the issues I often agree with him/her, the phrase "get a life" does come to mind. The ability to distribute insults and publish nonstop comments is not going to change a single mind.
Damn! That link is interesting but irrelevant (Bill McKibben on solar power in Africa). This is the one I meant, on the organized takeover by Kochtopus and all:
I don't think Greg goes through every word submitted-- certainly not by Wow-- to look for offensive terms. He may read comments from less prolific individuals more thoroughly. I also don't know if he has control over any automatic screening that may be available. So your level of indignation is a bit much.
That said: Wow, cut it out!
You have a more than sufficient vocabulary of insults, and that particular term does go beyond acceptable norms. It isn't the N-word, by any means, but it carries too much baggage for you to be using it.
Oh dear, craigiepoo, still butthurt at the drubbing you got elsewhere? Because despite the fact I agreed with you on some things you only care about the times people disagreed with you.
You are, and always were, a virulently toxic retard with no compassion or intelligence and only accidentally got things very VERY occasionally right.
And you wear C&A pants so that you can tell when you're wearing them the right way round.
See, I can make blank assertion claims too, moron.
Have you noticed how Wow seems to be obsessed with the word "butthurt"?
The Wow doth butthurt too much, me thinks.
"That said: Wow, cut it out! "
"You have a more than sufficient vocabulary of insults"
Yes. But some morons are not worth the effort of the mot juste being sought . Moreover, unlike batshit betty and retardo flamingo (pattie cakes there), I comprehend that retard is a description of someone's actions, not a diagnosis.
"It isn’t the N-word, by any means"
You see, this is the sort of BS that goes round. All you are doing there is making me and everyone else say in our heads "nigger".
When Pickles says "that uppity nigger" in Blazing saddles, it was a lampoon of the sort of retard (see that word again? because the use of that phrase IN THAT MEANING is retarded, this is a fact and dancing round it does not change any fucking thing).
And, again, it all comes down to people who "know" that "the N word" is bad, but have fuck all clue WHY, just obeying.
Your stupidity and authoritarianism here (yes, you are guilty of it too, zebra) just open up the gates for other retards (see that word again, again it's conditional on the actions done, not a permanent state of physical affliction) to whine about "Why is it OK when Chris Rock says 'nigger'???? That's RACIST!!!!".
Saying "Nigger" to someone to call them nigger is something a racist would do. Since we have no method to determine your internal mental state we need other clues. We can concede that one black man calling other black men niggers is not racism, or at least not likely to be racist in intent. We have in the USA ample proof that when a white person says it that they are doing it for racist reasons.
So understanding that is sufficient explanation to say why YOU saying "n-word" is better (though stupid) and Chris Rock saying "nigger" is fine. Because the balance of probabilities is that you would be a racist calling someone a nigger, while Chris would not. Of course EITHER of you calling someone Jewish a kike could just as equally be antisemitism. Jewish calling either of you Goyim is not, because the use of that word has never been associated in western society in that way.
If someone is talking about SOMEONE ELSE calling some black man a nigger, they're not likely to be doing it for racist means, unless the usage appears to be supportive of that other person's claim and therefore saying-by-proxy.
So knowing why "nigger" is to be censored to "the n word" is necessary, and adherence to censoring it permanently as by dictact "bad" is just as ignorant and moronic as any other censorship or wordplay stupidity.
Lastly someone can be racist and not use "nigger". Hell, they can use "the n-word" too and still be 100% racist in what they're actually saying. Because saying "the n-word" instead of "nigger" is no less actually using a racial epithet than saying "Darn" or "Heck" is not blasphemy. Just fiddling with the letters used does not change what the words MEAN or the meaning you put to them.
For all the assholishness of Scott Adams when he ventures out of cartooning and tries to opine outside his experience, he's right when he points out that stupidity is not a full time occupation and that we slip in and out of that state many times a day, because the world is so complex and we have so little time to reflect that stupidity is just one of those things we engage in to get through the day.
Likewise I understand that "retard" is a state that people can slip in and out. Batshit and patmcgroin intend and insist on residing full time in that state because they're fucking trollish morons who have absolutely no chance of getting what they want through valid argumentation, therefore they spout retarded bullshit in order to derail or troll the shit out of a thread to silence any and all avenues of contrary thought and argument that their blinkered and idiotic ideology cannot handle.
Batshit, on the other hand, called Obama a retard with ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS TO ASCRIBE THAT STATE TO. Hell, Greg could just be offended that the POTUS, even this orange moron in clownshoes and a shredded wheat topper, was called a retard. He's already posted one thread where he said he didn't like the shitgibbon being called names, even if it was so that he'd be personally attached to the abhorrent actions that he undertook in power.
But batshit just hates, like (practically) all visible and noisy repiblicans today, hate Obama, not merely because he's a Democrat (they went apeshit over Bill, but they never ran on a platform of "make the president powerless" and refuse to pass anything), but because he was an "uppity nigger in the whitehous". And when batshit called Obama a retard, he MEANT "retard nigger who should never have gotten above his station and pretend to be the boss of us white folks". And he did not need to say nigger to do it.
I wonder if Greg realizes that Wow is taking his blog to the same place he took Deltoid?
Just a matter of time folks...
"While on the issues I often agree with him/her, the phrase “get a life” does come to mind."
I have one, thanks. And not one where searching and counting a websearch on your name would be a useful and relatively entertaining passtime.
So "Try getting one for yourself" comes to mind.
"I am sick and tired of the circular firing squad on my side. "
And you're failing for the same reason partisan shitheads like dick, "mike", batshit and pat do.
Those people "on [your] side" are on it for some things and not for others. So when they're not on your side, they shoot you because they're not on your side. That they were another time does not make them beholden to be on your side every time or not blow up your arguments or position if they do not agree to it.
And by pretending to such partisan BS you merely join in on the blinkered idiocy you see on those who are not on your side and "never" were but "think" you are a better person than that.
On a few occasions, either dick or "mike" have posted a "I'm afraid I'm gonna have to agree with Wow on this one". My annoyance at that is not that there's someone I do not want to be associated with because of their multitude of abhorrent (to me) attitudes and actions agreeing with me, but because "Huh. I guess you're right here" should be so normal and rational a thing that it should not be necessary to point it out. If someone posted "I guess I have to agree with Wow that food is good", everyone would be wondering WTF is going on. And the entire point of discussion is to find out what people think and their REASONS for their thoughts so that those reasons can be synthesised into agreement.
After all, reality is what we can all agree is real when we look at it, and actual insanity is when that cannot be attained by the insane. We all agree that the table we sit at is a table. And if someone insists that they are Napoleon, we all agree that this is nuts, because we all agree Napoleon is long dead.
So "I agree with them" ought to be the state so normal that it is unremarkable.
It can only be remarkable if you think that someone of a different mindset is incapable of being right and therefore you are amazed if they turn out to be "right" (as in you agree with them on its rightness). And the problem there isn't the one being painted as incapable of being right, but in the blinkered bigoted preconceptions of the one making that assertion and displaying that idea in their statement of amazement.
"and publish nonstop comments is not going to change a single mind."
Tell me how not posting reasons will change minds.
Wow - "Batshit, on the other hand, called Obama a retard with ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS TO ASCRIBE THAT STATE TO."
Since this thread has turned into a WOW intervention, I thought I would add my voice to the chorus.
WOW - stop the name calling.
It is hindering constructive dialog.
While your comment raises valid issues, what you fail to acknowledge is that establishing societal norms doesn't occur (very often) through logic and reason. A large proportion of the population (perhaps the majority) resides on the less mature end of the Authoritarian spectrum.
Words work, like it or not-- that's why we are deluged with rhetorical/propaganda terms like "rights", "justice", "Creator", "good/bad", and so on-- what Authoritarian parents, schools, churches, political parties, use to create pliable sheep-like followers to be manipulated and exploited.
I read, somewhere, this interesting suggestion:
On the Left (in the US in particular), people are less motivated because they sense that they are part of mainstream thinking among the educated and emotionally developed.
On the Right, they are emotional and angry and defensive because they know they are "wrong"-- meaning that they are indeed in a minority group based on real issues.
In my thinking, while PC language and micro-aggression and all that stuff can become pretty silly, the point about the N-word and the R-word and the K-word is that they are bumper-sticker representations of serious themes. So, if I say "N-word" instead of "nigger" I am hopefully reminding people of those themes.
Note: I am as far from Authoritarian Personality as you can get-- if I have a diagnosis it may be a bit too much the opposite. You have to distinguish between "acting authoritatively", which I do, and the technical term.
"WOW – stop the name calling."
"It is hindering constructive dialog."
Where? And is this the only one? How is "Oh, that's your opinion" and "Oh, well, it's my opinion" or "We'll just have to wait and see" constructive dialogue?
When zebra asked his two questions
Why would some liberal city area invade Kentucky to seize the guns
Why is it worded like #2 rather than #1
where did an constructive dialogue come along?
Where is pat and batshit's whining constructive?
No, your complaints are really just another form of "Shut the fuck up" because you don't like opposition to your stories.
How is your whining constructive? How do you elide all "constructive dialogue" in the last five posts I have given? And if you aren't eliding it, how come there is no constructive dialogue about them rather than pointless whining and demands of silence from you?
"Note: I am as far from Authoritarian Personality as you can get"
Yet you still fall foul of its clutches.
Either you know this or you know that there was no argument or evidence for being free from AP-produced failures of reason in your post.
Wow – “Batshit, on the other hand, called Obama a retard with ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS TO ASCRIBE THAT STATE TO.”
"A large proportion of the population (perhaps the majority) resides on the less mature end of the Authoritarian spectrum."
See, this is another AP-produced failure. This is the more common leftist/liberal/elitist version of the same BS the right does. Paternality. Only Sane Man In The Room.
In essence you're saying that YOU are smart and enlightened enough to break free from the shackles of "common usage" and memes, but that you think it too much to look for others to be as smart, intelligent and resourceful as you to try to break free of those ideological blinkers and it is "condescending" to either want them to or think they can even try. After all, they'll fail, and that will make them feel bad, and you, being a "nice person" do not want them feeling bad, therefore you're proving your niceness by letting them ride and not wanting anyone else to try to ask for some effort from them.
The right does "I know best, I will tell you what to think".
The left does "I know better than you, you need shepherding".
The left looks down. The right punches and kicks down.
The point of view, however, is still down on others.
Zebra - "On the Left (in the US in particular), people are less motivated because they sense that they are part of mainstream thinking among the educated and emotionally developed."
Less motivated to protest? Less motivated to riot? Less motivated like "Black Lives Matter" and "Occupy Wall Street"?
Zebra - "On the Right, they are emotional and angry and defensive because they know they are “wrong”– meaning that they are indeed in a minority group based on real issues"
A minority in the house and Senate? A minority in legislative positions throughout the U.S.? All put there by the minority?
Wow – “Batshit, on the other hand, called Obama a retard with ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS TO ASCRIBE THAT STATE TO.”
352 When a person opposes " terms like “rights”, “justice”, “Creator”, “good/bad”", and refuses to engage in meaningful conversation regarding these concepts, it is difficult to comprehend on what level of conversation there can be effective communication.
Propaganda? I understand the concept of winning the language to win the argument, but crying foul over language that has been common place for decades is divorced from reality, much like the non-standards and non-worldview that cannot be supported.
"A minority...yadda yadda"
Yes, exactly, according to very consistent polling. And, at the Presidential level, the latest election.
The the thing I'm referring to, which I unfortunately can't remember the source, referred to voting.
If "liberals" voted in the same proportion as those on the right, then there would be exactly the opposite dominance in government representation. That might vary some with more local offices, but overall there is plenty of data to support this.
If you throw in the Electoral College and undemocratic arrangement of the Senate and the House, and gerrymandering, it's irrefutable.
Zebra - "Yes, exactly, according to very consistent polling"
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Didn't go thru?
But you are misinterpreting/misunderstanding what I mean by AP. I am not going to try to go into it in detail here, but certain points are salient:
1. Mostly AP refers to "followers". There are "manipulators", who aren't AP but know how to motivate them. There are "true believers", who can lead others and are themselves convinced of the "justness" of the cause, for whatever reason.
2. It manifests in the USA primarily as a phenomenon of the Right rather than the Left, with some exceptions, because the Right message has been tailored to appeal to AP followers.
Think about it-- the Left says "don't exclude people based on immutable characteristics like "race", sexual orientation, gender, and so on. Definitely not appealing to AP, because a simple-to-follow group identity pattern is one of the basic requirements.
3. Lots of current research documents the futility of trying to reason with AP hard-core followers. Come on, can we get any of these people to actually engage in a rational debate?
So, back to your claim that I don't want to challenge people to think-- if you said that to my former students, many of whom suffered from "the subtle bias of low expectations", and colleagues, they would fall down laughing. And I am here putting a lot of effort into exactly that goal, in the hope that some readers find the rational arguments useful.
So why don't you put aside your oppositionality for once, and let the conversation proceed.
So Zebra, where is that "polling" you were talking about?
Is this it.?
Here's an analysis of gun deaths (some of which would be justified/proper/ good, but aren't differentiated) and vehicle deaths (most of which would be accidental, we can agree?).
It's a liberal reporter saying that the two are unrelated, however, when making the "public safety" argument, I think the clear lack of outrage/discomfort/angst about one and great energy expended towards the other continues to be hypocritical (which is bad, but some have no basis for declaring proper/improper good/bad)
"1. Mostly AP refers to “followers”."
AP refers to acceptance without reasoning from an authority. And the only counter is, like with any perception blindness, to admit you are not immune from this. THAT is why the scientific method is there and why it works. It's not "followers", hence the "independent" or libertarians will be high on the AP susceptibility index despite thinking or even actually being of very independent nature.
" because the Right message has been tailored to appeal to AP followers"
More, I think, due to the Southern Strategy, which tailored to "independent minded" "christians" who score highly on AP susceptibility has resulted in tailoring the message to those christians' authoritarian following "reasonng". It is doubly helpful because such messaging is full of simple assertive language that clearly gets a point across.
Remember "you retard"? Simple assertive language, even though I am fully cognizant of how it is a situationally dependent claim based on the evidence of opinion of the claims being made by the one being so labelled. How much easier is it to just say "you retard" rather than the nuanced issue? And how little it actually changes anything to the people "listening". If only because most of them aren't, they're just waiting for evidence to confirm what they already think will be there.
So I think that statement of yours is incorrect by virtue of being a byproduct of the demographic they targeted.
"Definitely not appealing to AP, because a simple-to-follow group identity pattern is one of the basic requirements."
But "Thou shall not use the N-Word which I will not say because Thou and I art together in this" is ALSO appealing to AP, because it's a simple-to-follow-group identity pattern that demarcates based on simple visible characteristics like race or sexuality.
Why do you think I keep asking why some person or other proclaims "him" or "her" when berating? Aside note, "man" is the originally gender neutral term. Wo- being the female and Wer- being male modifiers to man. Hence Werewolf was (male) man-wolf. Kinda obvious what it's supposed to be then, when "were" means bugger all. What happened is the male operator became so commonly used (patrilinial and patriarchal society being what it is) that it was a time saving device to drop Wer and therefore use man for the male gender AS WELL AS GENDER NEUTRAL.
If you have why "the n-word" is wrong (or why "chairMAN" is wrong, or even "rape is wrong") then you know why it's wrong when it's not "technically" wrong by strict reading of the rules. And when it is not wrong when it;s technically so by the strict reading of the rules. And how to change the definition to keep with the social morality that we develop as part of living in a civilisation with each generation building their morality from the basis of what came before.
"3. Lots of current research documents the futility of trying to reason with AP hard-core followers."
If you're only willing to fight when you might win, you're not really willing to fight. If it is not possible to reason with AP hard-core, then you should be 100% OK with just evicting them, since it is pointless to have them: no discussion works when one party in there refuses to treat it as such.
Fighting when you know you'll lose does not remove the rightness of the fight. It doesn't change the reason to fight or the hope of standing up against something if you were never going to win in the first place. "keeping the powder dry" is the democrat's excuse for not doing what their voters want and letting what their donors desire take place. That isn't to say rationally deciding to fight elsewhere is always wrong, but it always indicates how much you're willing to compromise on what you feel is right when you decide to avoid the test of it if you will pay "too high a price" for it.
In short, is it better to win an argument or stand up for your reasoning?
"Here’s an analysis of gun deaths"
Since you "knew" more than 3,000 people dying from pool related accidents were vastly more than ~30,000 people dying from gun shooting, either your analysis proves you wrong or it's bollocks.
"So, back to your claim that I don’t want to challenge people to think"
OK, but since that is an imaginary case, I can also imagine that you admitted this was the case and there were a slew of "former students" who have popped up here to confirm this.
The "polling" I am talking about has to do with positions on issues. That's why I used " 'liberals' " as opposed to "self-identified liberals". Also why I used "those on the right" and not "self-identified conservatives."
For example, a majority in the US approves of marriage equality-- I think it's something like 54%. And "those on the right" consistently call this a "liberal" position. Likewise with many other issues like healthcare (and even regulation of firearms.)
And there are polls-- again, for example, even about firearms, that differentiate between "feel strongly about..." and "somewhat concerned...", or language like that.
More "lIberals" are "somewhat concerned" about doing something about gun violence, compared to those who are "very concerned". On the right, the majority "feels strongly about" gun rights, and the minority "cares somewhat...". Hence the disparity in motivation and turnout.
I realize this is too detailed and nuanced for you, and you really just want to cherry-pick out-of-context non-sequitur statistics, but I like to challenge people to think, contrary to what Wow says.
"contrary to what Wow says."
I would have to have said something contrary to your assertion first.
Zebra - "The “polling” I am talking about has to do with positions on issues. That’s why I used ” ‘liberals’ "
No, the polling you were talking about had to do with "voting"
Zebra - "Yes, exactly, according to very consistent polling. And, at the Presidential level, the latest election."
"The the thing I’m referring to, which I unfortunately can’t remember the source, referred to voting."
"If “liberals” voted in the same proportion as those on the right, then there would be exactly the opposite dominance in government representation."
And the "liberals have been getting destroyed at the voting booth.
Of course, you never mentioned or included "moderates"....not sure why.
Wow – “Batshit, on the other hand, called Obama a retard with ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIONS TO ASCRIBE THAT STATE TO.”
When are you going to back this up Wow?
368 I maintain that pools/accidental drownings account for as many or more deaths than accidental shootings
"The simple fact is that when it comes to accidents that kill children, the heart of the problem lies in cars, water, and fires -- and that when it comes to firearms, the heart of the problem lies in what people do intentionally. Statistically speaking, the issue of kids who die in gun accidents has received far more attention than it should."
"368 I maintain that pools/accidental drownings account for as many or more deaths than accidental shootings"
And you're wrong. Even maths indicates you're off by a factor of ten. Not opinion, facts.
And now you are beginning to gibber and make no sense, which is what always happens because you can't produce a rational argument.
I said that a smaller percentage of "liberals", meaning those who, for example, favor marriage equality, don't vote, compared to the proportion of those on the right who do vote.
The polls tell us what percentage of the population favors, for example, the liberal position on marriage equality, health care, and so on, and how that correlates with voting.
This is elementary stuff really. I can't believe you don't understand this.
And this explains why "liberals" (those who favor liberal positions on marriage equality and healthcare and so on tend to "get destroyed at the voting booth". You can't win if you don't vote.
And you can't win, even if you are the majority, if there are also structural reasons like the Electoral College, unequal representation, and so on, that work against you.
Would you like to address these facts, or keep gibbering on in the usual nonsensical way?
Zebra - You keep talking about polls and facts, yet you haven't produced any...whereas I have.
Would you like to produce something, or "keep gibbering on in the usual nonsensical way?"
I have no interest in randomly exchanging individual polls.
If you would like to be specific about what you want to know, I might put in the effort to go back and find what I am referring to.
So, do you doubt that a majority favors marriage equality, which is clearly identified as a liberal position by those on the Right?
This is referenced in the Gallup poll which you yourself referenced:
So, ask a specific question and I may be able to find the reference.
That poll I referenced also illustrates my main point.
Americans who are opposed to gay marriage (29%) are much more likely than those in favor of it (19%) to say they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views. At the other end of the scale, 22% of gay marriage opponents compared with 32% of gay marriage supporters say it is not a major factor for their vote.
Again, if you have a specific question or disagreement, I will try to find the info.
zebra - "That poll I referenced also illustrates my main point."
No it doesn't. Here is your "main point":
"On the Left (in the US in particular), people are less motivated because they sense that they are part of mainstream thinking among the educated and emotionally developed."
"On the Right, they are emotional and angry and defensive because they know they are “wrong”– meaning that they are indeed in a minority group based on real issues"
So the left is less motivated because they are the majority and more educated, and the right is more motivated because they are the minority and know they are wrong.
Yet the polls show that overall, the right is the majority, unless you cherry pick certain issues, which is what you did.
You see, when you keep losing, you have to justify it by telling everyone how educated and intelligent you are, you just lack the motivation to get off your ass.
[WARNING: Watch My Language]
What polls show that the Right is in the majority?
Did Hillary Clinton get the vote of the Right? That was a majority.
Is the Right in favor of marriage equality? Big majority.
What does "overall" mean? What issues make up "overall"?
1.What polls show that the Right is in the majority?
2. Did Hillary Clinton get the vote of the Right? That was a majority.
The system doesn't work like that. Trump won the majority of electorates. And again, besides the Presidency, they hold the House and Senate. In addition, the Democrats lost 1,042 state and federal posts under Obama's tenure.....the voters have a voice. This is reality.
3. Is the Right in favor of marriage equality? Big majority
4.What does “overall” mean? What issues make up “overall”?
How about including the economy, terrorism and border security to start...
I think each side is angry about "their" issues.
The left is pretty upset about citizens united (corporations are people) and lack of progress on gun control.
The right is pretty upset about abortion, gay marriage (mostly the use of the word for same sex relationships, not so much about equal rights for civil union), and society pretending that a man is a woman and visa versa.
So there is anger on the left and the right.
Since almost 50% of the population doesn't pay any federal income taxes, I think a significant number of the people who pay 100% of the federal personal income taxes are pretty upset about having to support themselves and others as well - for welfare, housing, college loans, health care, medicare, medicaid, social security and so forth.
Perhaps it is possible that the people who pay Federal income taxes are more motivated to vote than the people who do not pay Federal income taxes?
That might also explain part of the disparity in voting between the left and the right as well.
Another possibility is that the left tends to concentrate in urban areas, while the right is more spread out. It doesn't matter how many more people vote blue in California, all their electoral votes are going blue anyways - so all those extra votes are "wasted". It would be better if some of these voters lived in Michigan, or Ohio or some of the other states the democrats lost by a bit.
Because of where people live, Republicans control the majority of state legislators, governorship's, the congress and the presidency. I think that is the only "poll" that counts.
Majority of the population. Remember, Republicans get elected because their voters know that they are a minority, and turn out in greater numbers proportionately. So, more Republican politicians is evidence for my argument.
I mention marriage equality as an example of what would be a specific issue, not as the only issue.
Show us some data on specific economic issues; saying "the economy" doesn't tell us anything. Does the majority favor government spending on infrastructure, for example. Stuff like that.
I said "be specific", and you are being vague.
"The left is pretty upset about citizens united (corporations are people)"
No, most republican voters think that the money the corps put in corrupt politics and want it out. Wolf-pac includes many republican politicians at the state level on "their side".
The left and right are against it.
Only the politicians and corporations are for it. Because they see an "equitable" exchange of value in the bribes.