Politics

Details

If you let a "liberal" (vs an actual liberal) talk long enough, eventually their racism comes out.

If you let a proponent of "reasonable" gun control talk long enough, eventually they start to admit they want a ban.

As we will see below, first they talk about how the magic cure is to repeal one of our founding amendments.

They still couch it in terms that they just need that as a tool for "reasonable" restrictions, not a ban. They want it to be a privilege.

But let's look at that: they'll allow guns for "legitimate" purposes--that means collecting, target shooting, and MAYBE hunting.  IOW, recreational uses, not defensive or political uses.

So, it comes down to, "These items are so dangerous they should only be allowed as toys!"

Hell of a logic there. 

Heller and McDonald have really thrown them into a tizzy.  They've been trying anger and denial, and it hasn't been working. They're now onto bargaining, and their first salvo is so angry it's cute:

~~~~

http://quietmike.org/2013/09/23/one-way-stop-gun-violence-in-america/

~~~~

My reply:  

We need reasonable speech control.  Right here, we see an example that endangers the Constitution.
Other "speech" exploits children.  Certainly the Founder never foresaw the internet.  They meant actual speech, and block-printed papers.
Give the risk child predators offer to children, there is simply no reason most people need internet in their home.  They can go to the library, properly supervised, and their access can be logged.  No one is saying you can't express yourself.  We just need reasonable limits on it. Certainly we can't consider there to be a "right" to describe how to violate the law.
Ultimately we'll need to consider whether the First Amendment still applies in the modern world.  This is not what the founders had in mind at all.
~~~~
Do you drink alcohol?  Alcohol serves no purpose except to reduce awareness, hinder decision making, reduce inhibitions and impair motor control.  There is absolutely no moral justification for alcohol.  There is a common factor in 90% of the avoidable deaths in America--alcohol.
The common factor in every alcohol-related incident is alcohol (recursive tautological statement for posters like the one above me, who clearly failed not only Logic 101, but likely 7th grade arithmetic).
Go ahead, explain to me why you drink and support Big Alcohol. Why aren't you moving to ban that?
HINT:  Banning guns will be about as effective. Guns are a 13th century technology.  You can build AK47s in a garage:  
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/politics-The%20Steampunk%20AK47.html
You can't possibly have the intellect to grasp this, but since I actually do know what I'm talking about, I'll say it, and you can double check anywhere you like (which you won't, because you don't want a rational debate):  The easiest guns to make are like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Submachine_gun_Bechowiec.jpg
Much like moonshiners were producing cheap, dangerous liquor, illegal gun builders will produce cheap submachine guns.  These won't be subject to any of the 20,000 regulations the US has, and will be as common as meth.
Your proposal will be no more effective than Prohibition. If you think it's bad now (it's not), wait until it's illegal.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."
- See more at: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/why-the-assault-weapon-ban-failed-and-a-new-one-would-too#sthash.fa8oH0Su.dpuf
~~~~
Part 2:
Do you really think you're going to get Congress, the President and 3/4 of the states to sign off o such an amendment?  If so, put the crack pipe down.
If it did happen, how exactly do you plan to take my guns away?  Ask nicely?  How about, "no?"  Are you going to try to take them from me?  Unlikely.  You're a pussy.  Are you going to demand the police and military do it?  Retired military here--again, go fuck yourself.
But that opens up the next problem.  How are you going to do so when I have a right against unreasonable search and seizure?  Are you going to repeal the 4th Amendment too? (Again, retired military, with an oath to defend the Constitution.  That would be grounds for me to kill the parties involved.  Yes, that means civil war.  Yes, you'll find a lot of vets agree with me (if you don't prove you're a total pussy by blocking this because a little language hurts your feewings).  And you might want to consider which side has the guns.
What about the requirement that private property not be taken for public use without due process?  The Courts have repeatedly upheld that any laws cannot be ex post facto.  You'll have to grandfather everything, or pay "fair market value," which, 300 million guns X $500 average value is $150 billion.  Plus implementation costs.
Canada's mere "registration" scheme, estimated at a cost of a few million, ballooned into $2 billion, with 1/10th our population.  So a good first order estimate is that you're going to drop a couple of trillion dollars on this scheme.
So what you're saying is, "I want to destroy the country and start a civil war because I'm totally ignorant of how our system works, selfish, whiny, and have an irrational fear of weapons and a misplaced ignorant assessment of what they do."
So here's what's going to actually happen:
You're not going to leave America, because you know you have it better here than anywhere else.  If you didn't, you'd move (Which being an immigrant, I did, from a lesser society). Leaving would take fortitude, which you don't have, because you're a pussy.
You're not going to change the Constitution.  You're just going to use your First Amendment rights to whine about the Second Amendment on the internet (because you're a pussy).
You're not actually going to try to take anyone's guns, because you're a pussy.
And you're probably going to block this "angry" dissent, because you're a pussy.
You're not going to actually study the law, political science, or weapons so you actually have a clue what you're talking about, because you're a lazy whiner in a very comfortable spot, enjoying your white male privilege and deathly afraid of losing it.
But you waaaaant it!  It's not faaaaaiiiirrrr!

We need reasonable speech control.  Right here, we see an example that endangers the Constitution.


Other "speech" exploits children.  Certainly the Founder never foresaw the internet.  They meant actual speech, and block-printed papers.

Give the risk child predators offer to children, there is simply no reason most people need internet in their home.  They can go to the library, properly supervised, and their access can be logged.  No one is saying you can't express yourself.  We just need reasonable limits on it. Certainly we can't consider there to be a "right" to describe how to violate the law.

Ultimately we'll need to consider whether the First Amendment still applies in the modern world.  This is not what the founders had in mind at all.

~~~~

Do you drink alcohol?  Alcohol serves no purpose except to reduce awareness, hinder decision making, reduce inhibitions and impair motor control.  There is absolutely no moral justification for alcohol.  There is a common factor in 90% of the avoidable deaths in America--alcohol.

The common factor in every alcohol-related incident is alcohol (recursive tautological statement for posters like the one above me, who clearly failed not only Logic 101, but likely 7th grade arithmetic).

Go ahead, explain to me why you drink and support Big Alcohol. Why aren't you moving to ban that?

HINT:  Banning guns will be about as effective. Guns are a 13th century technology.  You can build AK47s in a garage:  

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/politics-The%20Steampunk%20AK47.html

You can't possibly have the intellect to grasp this, but since I actually do know what I'm talking about, I'll say it, and you can double check anywhere you like (which you won't, because you don't want a rational debate):  The easiest guns to make are like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Submachine_gun_Bechowiec.jpg

Much like moonshiners were producing cheap, dangerous liquor, illegal gun builders will produce cheap submachine guns.  These won't be subject to any of the 20,000 regulations the US has, and will be as common as meth.
Your proposal will be no more effective than Prohibition. If you think it's bad now (it's not), wait until it's illegal.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."
- See more at: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/why-the-assault-weapon-ban-failed-and-a-new-one-would-too#sthash.fa8oH0Su.dpuf

~~~~

Part 2:

Do you really think you're going to get Congress, the President and 3/4 of the states to sign off o such an amendment?  If so, put the crack pipe down.

If it did happen, how exactly do you plan to take my guns away?  Ask nicely?  How about, "no?"  Are you going to try to take them from me?  Unlikely.  You're a pussy.  Are you going to demand the police and military do it?  Retired military here--again, go fuck yourself.

But that opens up the next problem.  How are you going to do so when I have a right against unreasonable search and seizure?  Are you going to repeal the 4th Amendment too? (Again, retired military, with an oath to defend the Constitution.  That would be grounds for me to kill the parties involved.  Yes, that means civil war.  Yes, you'll find a lot of vets agree with me (if you don't prove you're a total pussy by blocking this because a little language hurts your feewings).  And you might want to consider which side has the guns.

What about the requirement that private property not be taken for public use without due process?  The Courts have repeatedly upheld that any laws cannot be ex post facto.  You'll have to grandfather everything, or pay "fair market value," which, 300 million guns X $500 average value is $150 billion.  Plus implementation costs.

Canada's mere "registration" scheme, estimated at a cost of a few million, ballooned into $2 billion, with 1/10th our population.  So a good first order estimate is that you're going to drop a couple of trillion dollars on this scheme.
So what you're saying is, "I want to destroy the country and start a civil war because I'm totally ignorant of how our system works, selfish, whiny, and have an irrational fear of weapons and a misplaced ignorant assessment of what they do."

So here's what's going to actually happen:

You're not going to leave America, because you know you have it better here than anywhere else.  If you didn't, you'd move (Which being an immigrant, I did, from a lesser society). Leaving would take fortitude, which you don't have, because you're a pussy.

You're not going to change the Constitution.  You're just going to use your First Amendment rights to whine about the Second Amendment on the internet (because you're a pussy).

You're not actually going to try to take anyone's guns, because you're a pussy.

And you're probably going to block this "angry" dissent, because you're a pussy.

You're not going to actually study the law, political science, or weapons so you actually have a clue what you're talking about, because you're a lazy whiner in a very comfortable spot, enjoying your white male privilege and deathly afraid of losing it.

But you waaaaant it!  It's not faaaaaiiiirrrr!

Details

At some point in a debate on "gun control," the anti will run out of any logical argument. ("Logical" by their precepts.)  None of their arguments can be supported by any objective criteria, and eventually, they'll be forced to face this.  Since facing reality is anathema to the truly insane, they will then inevitably resort to name calling, ad hominem, and childish insults:

Responses to allegations that gun owners have small penises:

Is it "liberal" to mock someone's physical traits?

Do you believe all police, federal agents and soldiers have small penises? What is the statistical likelihood of this hypothesis?

Given that Asians have smaller penises than those with African ancestry, how does your hypothesis match the relevant firearm crime rates between the two groups?

Women don't generally have penises. What are females compensating for?

If someone were compensating for a small penis, would that be relevant, if they were not committing any harm?

You seem to spend a lot of time worrying about penises. Is there anything you'd like to tell us?

Are you completely out of logical arguments, so dick jokes are your only retort?

My penis satisfies me completely.  And I can't imagine wanting sex with a gun.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/penis-map_n_3953318.html Perhaps it's American liberals who are worried about their penis size.  Quite seriously. I thought I was high average, at the top of mean, but apparently I just barely break into the second deviation above the mean. Thanks for that confirmation.  I feel more awesome than ever.

Kafkatrap.  If I respond with proof or attempt to argue, you'll accuse me of being worried about my penis.  If I ignore you, you'll childishly continue with the dick jokes until you get a response. 

So, if your house is invaded, you plan to fuck the intruder to death?

I have a ruler, a camera, and $50.  Would you actually like to take this bet?  Or does the sour grapes metaphor apply here?

I'm sorry about your sexism, bigotry, prejudice against people, and your small penis.  Three of those aren't very liberal.

Details

This is why it's impossible to have a rational debate with someone irrational:

Mark Underwood

Shared publicly Sep 17, 2013

 

Can we have guns sensibly regulated this time?...or are the electorate going to keep letting the NRA push their redneck buttons and persuade them that they have a constitutional right to be senselessly massacred by the next total whacko fruitcake who has easy access to a gun?

 

No?...OK just let more innocent people die senselessly then right?...what a good idea :-/

 

John Underwood

Sep 17, 2013

 

You waste your time on expressing yourself to a nation hell bent on selfdestruction. American's may have many talents but selfless introspection is not amongst them.

 

Brandon Jamison

Sep 17, 2013

 

I would like to hear what sensibly controls would have prevented this shooting. And please let's focus on controls surrounding the actual guns.

 

Mark Underwood

Sep 18, 2013

 

+Brandon Jamison

All firearms except for hunting rifles that are registered to an active farm or gun club are made illegal.

 

For 2 years we then impose very large fines on anyone found with a gun, we use the revenue raised from these fines to buy back firearms from those who voluntarily hand them in.

 

For another year we increase the fines and continue buyback and reward informants who assist in the collection of illegal firearms.

 

After this initial period of legal grace anyone found with a gun goes to jail for life.

 

This gets rid of the guns and also any crazy or criminal people who still have guns after the three year period of grace.

 

Also you now no longer have the hassle of proving cases against criminals...if they have a gun they are criminals by definition...so getting the bad guys off the streets suddenly becomes much more efficient.

 

Result a much much safer country.

 

Brandon Jamison

Sep 18, 2013

 

I said sensible and would have prevented this shooting. Fails on both points.

 

Mark Underwood

Sep 18, 2013

 

+Brandon Jamison the sad thing is in a country where guns have been allowed to become as ubiquitous as they are ...this is the only sensible alternative. We just need to face the reality that the evening news confronts us with most nights of the week...or continue to delude ourselves that there is some "safe" way to allow our fellow citizens to walk around carrying murder weapons.

 

Your conclusion that what i suggest is crazy is causing innocent people to die every day if we do not take the appropriate level of action.

 

This is not a constitutional debate it is quite simply a state of emergency, it needs to be recognized as such and treated as such by any rational society.

 

...the question is "are we a rational society?"

 

Brandon Jamison

Sep 18, 2013

 

When one wack job shuts down, our nations capital, congress, countless schools and a naval base with a freaking shotgun, the answer is no. So freaking timid...

 

Are you volunteering to do the first door to door search and seizure? I do not think sensible means what you think it means.

 

Mark Underwood

Sep 18, 2013

 

+Brandon Jamison but what is the alternative Brandon ? I have really tried to come up with some watered down alternative but you/I/wee have to face the reality that as long as we accept guns in our society many innocent lives will be lost because of them.

 

I think you are still not appreciating the seriousness of the situation. Perhaps because it seems normal to you (if you grew up in the States?).

 

If you did not then your opinion is highly unusual. The only way Americas situation can be seen as anything but sheer insanity is if you have drunk the 2nd amendment coolaid. This was an amendment made for cowboys and indians not modern people packed together like sardines ruled over by a government with drones and cluster bombs.

 

There is absolutely no justification for arming your electorate except to protect yourself from your fellow armed citizens, which i am sure you would agree is just a ridiculous situation for a rational society to put themselves in.

 

Brandon Jamison

Sep 18, 2013

 

Okay a few things before we proceed.

Not a constitutional discussion? You are talking about laws correct? Is not the constitution the highest law in the land?

 

Cowboys and Indians? Do you mean the Indians who were here before us and not citizens of the US?

 

Your point made about drones and cluster bombs is exactly why we should not give power over to the government. All other rights are forfeited at that point. The sort of security you talk about already sounds like prison so why would that be a deterrent to possessing weapons?

 

Mark Underwood

Sep 18, 2013

 

+Brandon Jamison NO...absolutely no, the constitution is nowhere near as valuable as a persons common sense. The constitution was written by people not gods...even the new pope sees the possibility that god was fallible...so the idea that people hundreds of years ago would have the answers to all our problem for eternity is not reasonable...of course the constitution should be balanced against the common sense of the people.

 

The constitution is now in direct opposition to my and many other peoples common sense...maybe one day yours too if you trust your own judgement.

 

You have a choice: honour a small passage in a document written a long time ago by people from a different period and allow people to die on mass...or use your common sense and realize this amendment needs amending.

 

Living is safety does not sound like a prison to me, living in fear is restrictive but safety = freedom

 

Brandon Jamison

Sep 18, 2013

 

+Louis Stell

 

Louis Stell

Sep 18, 2013

 

As +Mike Williamson   stated so eloquently, alcoholic beverages are responsible for a helluva lot more deaths annually than firearms including THE CHILDREN. If ya'll gun grabbers are so concerned, why not ban and prohibit alcohol, it does no one any good, is not needed, purely a recreational thing responsible for tens of thousands of deaths every year ..................... wait, that didn't work out so well.

 

As far as confiscation goes, better let that simmer on the backburner for another 30 years or so, still a generation away from the full benefit of the programming.

 

Or buy a lot more backhoes.

 

Sheesh.

 

Brandon Jamison

Sep 18, 2013

 

The new pope bit was classic!

 

Mike Williamson

Sep 18, 2013

 

How about we "sensibly regulate" the internet to reduce the risk of child predators?  Professionals, such as me, with background checks, can have internet access at home.  Non-professionals can access the internet from libraries.  It's not a violation of the First Amendment--we're not telling you what you can say or look at.  We're just regulating where you look at it, and logging your browser history to help tackle crime.

 

Are you reasonable, or are you a free speech nut who supports pedophiles?

 

Mark Underwood

Yesterday 10:11 AM

 

If I buy a bottle of wine there is no intention to cause future harm.

 

If I buy a gun it is the deliberate purchase of a lethal weapon that has been carefully and specifically designed to kill people. It is disingenuous in the extreme to compare things that may cause death accidentally with the use of muder weapons to deliberately slaughter innocent people.

 

So far this year we have had a mass shooting (more than 4 dead/injured at a time) for 250 out of 261 days!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/mass-shootings-us_n_3935978.html

 

Whilst drinking wine "may" cause unintended injury and death and certainly do, injury and death are not implicit in their use. They also can be demonstrated to to have many positive effects within society, even drinking brings millions of people happiness even though it also brings great sadness.

 

A gun simply brings death and destruction.

 

Once you take a loaded gun out of a drawer your purpose is to cause injury and death whether it is self defence or not. You don't take a gun out at a party and watch people smile or laugh...you take out a gun to kill.

 

If you take out another weapon (a knife?) the purpose may be the same, but it is harder (by a huge order of magnitude) to kill someone with a knife. In fact it is very hard to kill a person with anything except a gun, a gun just takes an imperceptible squeeze from an "emotional removed" distance...and a human being is lost to those who love them forever.

 

a 4 year old shot his sister in July !...a four year old!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/4-year-old-shoots-6-year-old-kentucky-loaded-gun_n_3529486.html

Details

http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/navy-yard-shows-fallacy-of-nra-s-more-guns-solution-20130917

About the Washington Naval Yard:

The Navy Yard shooting exposes a fallacy in that argument. A military facility, the Navy Yard had plenty of good guys with weapons who were nonetheless were unable to stop Aaron Alexis, the alleged shooter, from killing a dozen innocent persons. In the coming weeks, we'll learn more about Navy Yard security and how Alexis was able to thwart it. (We'll also learn more about how he obtained his arms, but let's leave that aside for now.)

True, the Navy Yard is not a heavily armed facility. It's not like, say, walking into a military base in the U.S. let alone onto a war zone. But neither was it the kind of gun-free school zone that the NRA has described as an inviting target for crazed shooters. It was at least as heavily armed as we can expect any elementary school could ever be under the National School Shield program. And yet, carnage.

You note it's "not heavily armed."

So, let us consider: Should we disarm the few guards they have, or have more guards? Which is likely to stop a shooter? Please explain your answer.

"You weapon experts need to help us! We've tried nothing, and it hasn't worked, and we're all out of ideas!"

"Get more weapons, better dispersed."

"What? Are you some kind of NRA nutjob? How is more violence the answer?"

 ~~~

Before an answer can work, the person asking the question must be willing to abandon their prejudices.

  1. Reasonable Regulation
  2. Coward or Idiot? What About Both?
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • Politics