Toledo Talk

Gun Buy Backs - Just The Beginning of Gun Sanity

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57560898/californians-honor-newtown-victims-by-selling-their-guns/

Finally, folks are coming to their senses.

created by holland on Dec 26, 2012 at 09:14:39 pm     Politics     Comments: 131

source      versions      1 person liked this


Comments ... #

How many of those were illegal and how many gangbangers were unarming themselves?

posted by Linecrosser on Dec 26, 2012 at 09:27:41 pm     #  

""This is part of a much bigger effort," said Villaraigosa, "a comprehensive effort to address gun and gang violence. And like I said, in the city of L.A. the proof is in the pudding."

If the gu. Buyback program is part of a 'much bigger effort', than you can't claim the buyback program is responsible for the decrease in crime like article implies.

The only thing more stupid than selling your guns out of some sympathy-induced motive is telling everyone that reads the paper that you just left yourself defenseless.

posted by MrsArcher on Dec 26, 2012 at 09:39:58 pm     #  

I'm waiting for car buy backs and liquor buy backs since there are about 10,000 alcohol related automobile fatalities per year in the US.

posted by Danneskjold on Dec 26, 2012 at 09:49:15 pm     #  

Hey it's a good chance to get a good deal on a firearm lol. I know plenty of people that go to these and offer around or more than what they usually offer from a buy-back depending on the firearm.

posted by lfrost2125 on Dec 26, 2012 at 09:57:14 pm     #  

Danny, you need to learn something about intent.

posted by JohnnyMac on Dec 26, 2012 at 09:58:51 pm     #   1 person liked this

I wouldn't say that Holland since guns sales have skyrocketed since Obama was re-elected and Sandy Hook.

posted by lfrost2125 on Dec 26, 2012 at 09:58:58 pm     #  

This has worked in Toledo, right?

April 2003 - Toledo Talk - Toledo weapons buyback

posted by jr on Dec 26, 2012 at 10:22:24 pm     #   1 person liked this

Define 'worked':

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/10/pro-gun-group-uses-chicago-firearms-buyback-program-to-fund-nra-shooting-camp/

"Pro-gun group uses Chicago firearms buyback program to fund shooting camp for kids"

I don't think this is the intent of the buy-back programs, but I like it.

posted by MrsArcher on Dec 26, 2012 at 10:45:22 pm     #  

lfrost2125 posted at 08:58:58 PM on Dec 26, 2012:

I wouldn't say that Holland since guns sales have skyrocketed since Obama was re-elected and Sandy Hook.

To paraphrase comments made in another thread: "Guns are an investment! They've doubled in price since Sandy Hook!"

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 26, 2012 at 11:03:49 pm     #  

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=4bb8adad-8b3c-4f4b-8e7e-8844bf30ee08

posted by lfrost2125 on Dec 26, 2012 at 11:17:23 pm     #   1 person liked this

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2048229,00.html

posted by lfrost2125 on Dec 26, 2012 at 11:18:50 pm     #   1 person liked this

A priest in Toledo that came here from The Philippines several years ago told me that America has gone gun crazy. Over there, private citizens are prohibited from having guns.

posted by flinty on Dec 27, 2012 at 12:09:20 am     #  

flinty posted at 11:09:20 PM on Dec 26, 2012:

A priest in Toledo that came here from The Philippines several years ago told me that America has gone gun crazy. Over there, private citizens are prohibited from having guns.

Really? A country that was at one time taken over by a thug dictator prohibits private citizens from owning guns. Imagine that.

I've said it before - the second amendment was not originallly about self defense.

posted by MrsArcher on Dec 27, 2012 at 12:28:26 am     #   1 person liked this

Ah yes, the Philippines. Sounds like a great place to be, since the public is "disarmed". Oh wait, criminals are still armed.

I googled up a few stats that suggest that the USA and the Philippines have similar rates of gun-related deaths. Sounds like that priest has some blinders that he needs to lose.

A good link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

(Granted, there seems to be a dearth of stats on the Philippines, but that alone tells you all you need to know.)

posted by GuestZero on Dec 27, 2012 at 12:38:35 am     #   1 person liked this

I've said it before - the second amendment was not originallly about self defense.

Actually it was for a more rounded principle of defense. The common men of the nation were its militia. And that militia could rise up against the barely-armed government if needed. To defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 27, 2012 at 12:40:31 am     #   1 person liked this

That's something I have pondered Guest Zero. In an era when our Government can put a missile through a keyhole from 40,000 feet in the air it is really interesting that there is so much discussion regarding civilians having too much freedom in terms of firearm selection (specifically in regards to AR's and magazine capacity). The gap between what power a group of citizens can possess in terms of arms and what types of power the government possess seems to be more disproportionate then ever and yet there are voices trying to limit the peoples power even more.

posted by Danneskjold on Dec 27, 2012 at 12:59:52 am     #  

Good point. Gun control advocates are saying the founders never invisioned the weapons we have today when they wrote the second amendment, but they also never imagined the government would have the power (militarily, legislatively or otherwise) that they do today either.

posted by MrsArcher on Dec 27, 2012 at 01:12:36 am     #  

If technological superiority was what wins, then we're having a remarkable problem explaining away all the wars we've lost since WWII. In other words, all of them except Grenada, where a few soldiers on a tiny island with little military hardware and no reinforcements finally fell to the US military. Heck, the Somalians even handed us our heads, largely armed with assault rifles and RPGs.

I don't have to worry about disproportionate abilities since the basic soldier today is almost impossible to dislodge from the land he's defending. The US military can't conquer Iraq; it certainly can't conquer Ohio.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 27, 2012 at 02:46:18 am     #  

Gander Mountain buys back guns the first weekend of every month.
http://www.gandermountain.com/gunsmith/buysell.shtml

But if you have anything really nice, I would be willing to buy it from you.

posted by justread on Dec 27, 2012 at 06:55:48 am     #  

MrsArcher posted at 12:12:36 AM on Dec 27, 2012:

Good point. Gun control advocates are saying the founders never invisioned the weapons we have today when they wrote the second amendment, but they also never imagined the government would have the power (militarily, legislatively or otherwise) that they do today either.

I love that argument.
When they wrote the second amendment, the people and the military had the EXACT same weapons. The only exception would be a very small amount of cannon. Woefully inaccurate cannon, loaded with whatever was handy.

posted by justread on Dec 27, 2012 at 06:59:18 am     #  

When reading the article, it is important to skip this sentence:
"But a 2004 report by the National Academy of Science found that guns likely to be used in crimes were unlikely to be turned in at gun buybacks."

posted by justread on Dec 27, 2012 at 07:01:21 am     #  

anonymouscoward posted at 10:03:49 PM on Dec 26, 2012:
lfrost2125 posted at 08:58:58 PM on Dec 26, 2012:

I wouldn't say that Holland since guns sales have skyrocketed since Obama was re-elected and Sandy Hook.

To paraphrase comments made in another thread: "Guns are an investment! They've doubled in price since Sandy Hook!"

I believe that poster said it was since the harsh rhetoric that followed Sandy Hook and the harsh rhetoric following the election. (Feel free to invent comments and context to fit your need.)

Meanwhile... it is important to note that some have actually tripled in value.

But you really needed to have bought before the re-election of the greatest gun salesman in history.

posted by justread on Dec 27, 2012 at 07:06:17 am     #  

AC will love this:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=4bb8adad-8b3c-4f4b-8e7e-8844bf30ee08

Anyway, my original post that he latched onto carried no opinion. It was a factual statement of values before and after the rhetoric, posted as information.

posted by justread on Dec 27, 2012 at 07:26:07 am     #  

"I love that argument.
When they wrote the second amendment, the people and the military had the EXACT same weapons. The only exception would be a very small amount of cannon. Woefully inaccurate cannon, loaded with whatever was handy." - justread

Actually not entirely true. Much of the cannons and artillery during the revolutionary war was privately owned.

posted by taliesin52 on Dec 27, 2012 at 04:20:18 pm     #  

I don't give a damn where these weapons came from. If only a tiny fraction gets out of the hands of those who know nothing about gun safety so be it.

I hate guns and it is well known by all. But my husband has guns and a healthy respect for them. I feel way too many people look at a gun as power for the moment.

posted by jackie on Dec 27, 2012 at 07:13:11 pm     #  

justread posted at 06:26:07 AM on Dec 27, 2012:

AC will love this:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=4bb8adad-8b3c-4f4b-8e7e-8844bf30ee08

Anyway, my original post that he latched onto carried no opinion. It was a factual statement of values before and after the rhetoric, posted as information.

Right, and we are to ignore your previous comments about buying MORE guns up.

Maybe there will be another killing spree to drive the price of your "investments" up more. It's only proper capitalism if you put profit ahead of lives.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 27, 2012 at 07:22:22 pm     #  

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/21/worlds-largest-firearms-supplier-sells-3-5-years-worth-of-ar-15-clips-in-72-hours/

Gun speculation. Brought to you by the Teabagging rednecks who complain about gas prices.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 27, 2012 at 07:29:09 pm     #  

"It's only proper capitalism if you put profit ahead of lives."

Don't worry AC, with all the spending to support the looter lifestyle there'll be nothing left to take soon anyways.

posted by Danneskjold on Dec 27, 2012 at 07:47:01 pm     #   2 people liked this

Danneskjold posted at 06:47:01 PM on Dec 27, 2012:

"It's only proper capitalism if you put profit ahead of lives."

Don't worry AC, with all the spending to support the looter lifestyle there'll be nothing left to take soon anyways.

Ah, the dogwhistle phrase for "socialism".

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 27, 2012 at 10:51:43 pm     #  

anonymouscoward posted at 09:51:43 PM on Dec 27, 2012:
Danneskjold posted at 06:47:01 PM on Dec 27, 2012:

"It's only proper capitalism if you put profit ahead of lives."

Don't worry AC, with all the spending to support the looter lifestyle there'll be nothing left to take soon anyways.

Ah, the dogwhistle phrase for "socialism".

Or perhaps you shouldn't jump at every sound you hear coward and just go back to chasing your tail and licking you own ass.

posted by RBancroft on Dec 27, 2012 at 11:26:58 pm     #  

RBancroft posted at 10:26:58 PM on Dec 27, 2012:
anonymouscoward posted at 09:51:43 PM on Dec 27, 2012:
Danneskjold posted at 06:47:01 PM on Dec 27, 2012:

"It's only proper capitalism if you put profit ahead of lives."

Don't worry AC, with all the spending to support the looter lifestyle there'll be nothing left to take soon anyways.

Ah, the dogwhistle phrase for "socialism".

Or perhaps you shouldn't jump at every sound you hear coward and just go back to chasing your tail and licking you own ass.

Or perhaps you shouldn't jump at every sound you hear coward and just go back to chasing your tail and licking *your own ass.

posted by RBancroft on Dec 27, 2012 at 11:28:06 pm     #  

anonymouscoward posted at 06:22:22 PM on Dec 27, 2012:
justread posted at 06:26:07 AM on Dec 27, 2012:

AC will love this:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=4bb8adad-8b3c-4f4b-8e7e-8844bf30ee08

Anyway, my original post that he latched onto carried no opinion. It was a factual statement of values before and after the rhetoric, posted as information.

Right, and we are to ignore your previous comments about buying MORE guns up.

Maybe there will be another killing spree to drive the price of your "investments" up more. It's only proper capitalism if you put profit ahead of lives.

5 or 6 times now, I have corrected you that it is not the killing that drives the supply and demand economics in regard to guns. It is the irresponsible and threatening rhetoric of the administration. Sturm and Ruger is up 700%, not because of the recent tragic killings by a crazy person with a stolen gun. They are up since 2008. Hmmm. Google guns as investments and you will see I am simply sharing information, not spearheading a campaign. This dynamic is new to YOU. It is not new, and it is not as a result of killing. It has happened several times before, always related to the loss of rights and the enactment of hurried and emotionally based laws that don't stand the test of time.

Unlike you, I hope that the killings and the rhetoric BOTH stop. Unlike you, I recognize that both are harmful.

Unlike you, I am unwilling to invent positions and for people that are most convenient for me.

And again, and on every thread that you drag me into by trolling past comments into new threads, I will tell you this:
What I want is not killings. What I want is not gun investments to go up. What I want is for this administration to make comments that inspire confidence in investing in the US, and those that might drive my property value up. I want them to STOP doing and saying things that make people arm themselves and fear for their rights.

(AC response: "So, you are saying that you kill children?")

posted by justread on Dec 28, 2012 at 07:15:20 am     #  

It's interesting when you actually look at the historic relationship between guns and ammo and financial and POLITICAL events outside of the emotional rhetoric of calling people murderers because you don't agree with them.

In 2000, upon the election of George Bush and the record NASDAQ of 5,048, the cost of a box of Remington .223 went down, from $12.49 the year before to $11.99.
In 2008, upon the election of Barack Obama, that same box of Remington .223 was $26.99.
During the period between 2000 and 2008, this particular ammo nearly kept pace with gold right into the beginning of the recession.

posted by justread on Dec 28, 2012 at 07:32:28 am     #   1 person liked this

A very coherent post, justread.

I have one problem, though...

After four years of Obama--you know, the prez who is going to take all our guns away--more guns have been sold and more people have guns than ever before...

Yet, Obama is going to take our guns away? That just doesn't make sense.

Major gun control laws were passed in 1934 and 1968; and both times the laws enjoyed partial support from the NRA. Gun control (or, better put, "gun control") has been around for decades in some form and to some level. So why is it that NOW, suddenly, everyone feels the need to arm themselves against a President? Was there any widespread stockpiling of weapons for fear of Roosevelt or Johnson?

Disclaimer: The preceding is intended as food for thought, submitted by a committed defender of 2nd amendment rights.

posted by Sohio on Dec 28, 2012 at 10:11:14 am     #  

Sohio posted at 09:11:14 AM on Dec 28, 2012:

A very coherent post, justread.

I have one problem, though...

After four years of Obama--you know, the prez who is going to take all our guns away--more guns have been sold and more people have guns than ever before...

Yet, Obama is going to take our guns away? That just doesn't make sense.

Major gun control laws were passed in 1934 and 1968; and both times the laws enjoyed partial support from the NRA. Gun control (or, better put, "gun control") has been around for decades in some form and to some level. So why is it that NOW, suddenly, everyone feels the need to arm themselves against a President? Was there any widespread stockpiling of weapons for fear of Roosevelt or Johnson?

Disclaimer: The preceding is intended as food for thought, submitted by a committed defender of 2nd amendment rights.

Executive order 6102: April 5, 1933. The criminalization of the possesion of gold.
Yes. The federal government made the possesion of gold illegal.
People started hoarding gold before it became illegal also.

The nice thing about laws is, for every 18th amendment written as an emotional reaction to a perception that life can somehow be controlled... there is a 21st.

The issue is not whether the president will actually go door to door and take guns away, the issue is that at this time, the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee of the United States are spewing identical rhetoric. Was THAT dynamic present in 1934 and 1968?

There were runs on guns each time that Feinstein, et al have started rattling Sabres. Brady, Clinton, etc.

Part of this is supply and demand, and part is fear of coming prohibition.

What is interesting is that in 1934 and in 1968, the laws did not turn guns and ammo into a commodity market, as the current crop of rhetoric spewers have done. I guess the socio-economic conditions didn't exist then that exist now.

What concerns me is not so much that guns and ammo have clearly become a secondary commodity market, what concerns me is how long it will take that commodity market to become a currency.
In other words, in a world in which the dollar is not supported by a gold standard, what year will the .22LR cartridge replace the quarter?

posted by justread on Dec 28, 2012 at 12:03:52 pm     #  

AC said: Maybe there will be another killing spree to drive the price of your "investments" up more.

Uh, "maybe"? Dude, the totally disarmed schools are magnets for psychos. No maybe about it, there WILL be another school massacre. And another. And then another.

This farce will continue until you Liberals give up on your kid-killing strategy against guns and let adults in those public schools be armed as multiple constitutions say they can. Then there will be defenders, then the psychos will lose their easy targets.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 28, 2012 at 01:33:25 pm     #  

Its not a "kid-killing stratagy" in a sane world a no gun policy would make sense at a school. Sensationalism in the media and the destruction of a national sense of morality has led to more nuts in the nation seeking a sensational end to their lives. Suicide by cop is only a recent phrase in the last several years and pretty much sums up a lot of the problem.

posted by Linecrosser on Dec 28, 2012 at 02:22:04 pm     #  

justread,

respectfully...

"The nice thing about laws is, for every 18th amendment written as an emotional reaction to a perception that life can somehow be controlled... there is a 21st."
--Agreed. Yet, even after the spectacular debacle that was the 18th, there is still a mentality in this country that you can solve all problems by outlawing tangible articles.

"the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee of the United States are spewing identical rhetoric"
--In order to address that, I'd have to see the rhetoric you are referring to...

"Was THAT dynamic present in 1934 and 1968?"
--Well, the disingenuous comparing of American Democrats to Communists certainly was...

"There were runs on guns each time that Feinstein, et al have started rattling Sabres. Brady, Clinton, etc."
--As governors, Reagan and Romney both signed Brady bills in their states. Was there a run on guns those times?

"Part of this is supply and demand, and part is fear of coming prohibition."
--That is kind of the same thing...the fear is what is driving the demand.

"What is interesting is that in 1934 and in 1968, the laws did not turn guns and ammo into a commodity market, as the current crop of rhetoric spewers have done. I guess the socio-economic conditions didn't exist then that exist now."
--I think back then, you had less of this dynamic that seems to exist now, where any sort of legislation that certain people disagree with is seen not as simply an unpopular law, but rather an unprecedented forceful takeover of America by a Godless commie cabal.

You told AC you want to see the rhetoric toned down...but you are engaging in some rhetoric yourself, justread. Just my opinion.

posted by Sohio on Dec 28, 2012 at 02:38:50 pm     #  

You expect the conservatards to not be flaming grade-A hypocrites, Sohio? How... quaint.

Anyway.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/28/gunman-shoots-three-cops-inside-new-jersey-police-station/

MAN, IF ONLY THE POLICE HAD BEEN ARMED, THIS TRAGEDY WOULD HAVE BEEN AVERTED !!

Also loving how GZ and Liney are at odds. The conservatards are now fighting amongst themselves! BRB making more popcorn!

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 28, 2012 at 02:44:30 pm     #  

AC, calm down man. You get way too worked up.

posted by Sohio on Dec 28, 2012 at 03:18:35 pm     #  

Sohio posted at 01:38:50 PM on Dec 28, 2012:

justread,

respectfully...

"The nice thing about laws is, for every 18th amendment written as an emotional reaction to a perception that life can somehow be controlled... there is a 21st."
--Agreed. Yet, even after the spectacular debacle that was the 18th, there is still a mentality in this country that you can solve all problems by outlawing tangible articles.

"the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee of the United States are spewing identical rhetoric"
--In order to address that, I'd have to see the rhetoric you are referring to...

"Was THAT dynamic present in 1934 and 1968?"
--Well, the disingenuous comparing of American Democrats to Communists certainly was...

"There were runs on guns each time that Feinstein, et al have started rattling Sabres. Brady, Clinton, etc."
--As governors, Reagan and Romney both signed Brady bills in their states. Was there a run on guns those times?

"Part of this is supply and demand, and part is fear of coming prohibition."
--That is kind of the same thing...the fear is what is driving the demand.

"What is interesting is that in 1934 and in 1968, the laws did not turn guns and ammo into a commodity market, as the current crop of rhetoric spewers have done. I guess the socio-economic conditions didn't exist then that exist now."
--I think back then, you had less of this dynamic that seems to exist now, where any sort of legislation that certain people disagree with is seen not as simply an unpopular law, but rather an unprecedented forceful takeover of America by a Godless commie cabal.

You told AC you want to see the rhetoric toned down...but you are engaging in some rhetoric yourself, justread. Just my opinion.

1. No doubt.
2. It was all over the net on December 20.
3. They make it awefully easy when their comments are indistinguishable from one another.
4. Perhaps McCarthy was ahead of his time.
5. Yes, there were. Both are silent today. For different reasons.
6. Fear is also driving the over reaching and over reacting gun grab rhetoric.
7. I agree with the unprecedented part. The American shooting public took the bluff seriously. They have seen what this administration is capable of in terms of interference in the marketplace and in the lives of people of many nations. When the current congress threatens to remove more rights and enact more laws, it is a credible threat.

I told AC that it is the rhetoric driving the demand. I am not engaged in the sort of threatening rhetoric that is coming from the dems.

I believe that I am participating in a discussion. I am not attempting to win a thread or to insult others. I am adding information to a discussion. Some may like it, some may not.
I consider it a conversation, not a conflict.

I believe that AC is mischaracterizing, insulting, flaming, trolling, and misquoting. I believe that this is a distinct difference in my posts and ACs.

I have studied the various similar moments in our history, and can see

posted by justread on Dec 28, 2012 at 04:23:36 pm     #  

dam..... can see that there is a difference this time. They have actually become a commodity.

posted by justread on Dec 28, 2012 at 04:25:04 pm     #  

1. Good. We agree.
2. You'll have to refer me. I don't recall seeing anything like that.
3. Again, rhetoric on your part. Calling Democrats communist is a tired bit of rhetoric, thoroughly debunked (decades ago) and betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of communism and American liberalism.
4. Not really. We had BS like his long before he came along. They were called 'witch trials'.
5. I wasn't in either place, so I couldn't say for sure. They have never needed to be anything but silent, because they have never been called out on the issue.
6. I would argue that there is an equal amount of over-reaction on both sides...
7. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If you really think this administration is that far out of line with the ones that came before it, I won't try to change your mind.

Your posts are different from AC's in that you are far more calm and respectful.

It would be pretty hard for guns to become commodities in the truest sense. They aren't fungible, for one thing.

posted by Sohio on Dec 28, 2012 at 05:08:32 pm     #  

3. So, what is the result of my "rhetoric" on here with 7 people vs. the result of Diane Feinstein's on an international stage?

3. Perhaps not betraying. Portraying?

7b. I am not angry with anyone. No need to be anything but calm. It is only a conversation.

posted by justread on Dec 28, 2012 at 05:15:07 pm     #  

"So, what is the result of my "rhetoric" on here with 7 people vs. the result of Diane Feinstein's on an international stage?"
--Not the same impact. I agree. But you miss the point. There is reactionary rhetoric on both sides of this issue. I disagree that gun bans succeed in addressing the roots of the problems...but I also disagree that ALL forms of 'gun control' are in violation of the 2nd amendment.

Dianne Feinstein is a hard-left liberal, but she is no communist. No self-respecting commie would live in such a colorful city as San Francisco.

I believe "betraying" is the proper term...

posted by Sohio on Dec 28, 2012 at 05:44:21 pm     #   1 person liked this

"I told AC that it is the rhetoric driving the demand. I am not engaged in the sort of threatening rhetoric that is coming from the dems. "

Of course you aren't. You're engaged in the sort of threatening rhetoric that is coming from the extreme right. You know, "cold dead hands" and "watering the tree of liberty" and all that.

I'm just here to see how high I can pump up the blood pressure of the extreme right-wingers and to make you look stupid, silly, and hypocritical, not that you need help with any of those things at all. I just want you all to self-destruct sooner rather than later so maybe we can get back to a Congress and an America that's not held hostage by a pile of nutjobs zipping around on scooters yelling about how they want less government regulation and government out of everything (which, ironically, includes the ADA that mandates the ramps for their scooters, and the Medicare that subsidizes their scooters). All I have to do is make the occasional post pointing out when and where you're being hypocritical and when you're spouting utter bullshit and so on, and counter it with facts, and eventually all the undecideds and independents will (rightfully) conclude that the Tea Party/Republican/Conservative side of things is wrong, insane even, and you'll eventually all die off or be successfully marginalized with enough time.

Oh, and thank you for establishing and maintaining the conservative echo chamber whereby you tune out/ignore any advice, such as that which I'm giving you right now, that would actually benefit your side of things.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 28, 2012 at 06:14:06 pm     #   1 person liked this

What are the differences between Japan and the USA when it comes to gun violence?

posted by researcher on Dec 28, 2012 at 06:19:07 pm     #  

Sohio posted at 04:44:21 PM on Dec 28, 2012:

"So, what is the result of my "rhetoric" on here with 7 people vs. the result of Diane Feinstein's on an international stage?"
--Not the same impact. I agree. But you miss the point. There is reactionary rhetoric on both sides of this issue. I disagree that gun bans succeed in addressing the roots of the problems...but I also disagree that ALL forms of 'gun control' are in violation of the 2nd amendment.

Dianne Feinstein is a hard-left liberal, but she is no communist. No self-respecting commie would live in such a colorful city as San Francisco.

I believe "betraying" is the proper term...

Dude(ette, as the case may be), un-read there truly does not understand that whipping out "commie! socialist!" BS when describing Dems or anything to the left of Reagan is in fact inflammatory rhetoric. To him, it's God's honest truth as perpetuated by Fox News Channel and talk radio. It's impossible to argue with or change the minds of such people.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 28, 2012 at 06:19:56 pm     #  

That's as may be, AC. But you catch more flies with honey.

And I am a male.

posted by Sohio on Dec 28, 2012 at 07:48:11 pm     #  

I'm not at all concerned about the sensibilities of the right wing gun crazies. I'm concerned about how many more lives will be taken before gun control becomes obviously necessary to the majority. We're getting there, but at what an awful cost.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/26/gun-rights-assault-weapons/1791827/

posted by holland on Dec 28, 2012 at 10:47:10 pm     #   1 person liked this

I'll tell you what if we ever had a complete ban on firearms you will see a revolt. You will have another civil war on your hands with more deaths.

posted by lfrost2125 on Dec 28, 2012 at 11:52:15 pm     #  

or another Revolution. However you wanna look at it

posted by lfrost2125 on Dec 28, 2012 at 11:56:10 pm     #  

Holland, we're not "getting there" at all. There is precisely zero effort to amend either the national constitution or the state constitution where it applies. You can't ban guns. Period. It's unconstitutional. Passing unconstitutional laws does less than nothing... in fact harming the situation since it leads to contempt for the law.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 29, 2012 at 12:04:15 am     #   2 people liked this

Researcher said: What are the differences between Japan and the USA when it comes to gun violence?

We're not allowed to talk about that, since it involves R-A-C-E and the Liberals don't allow that sort of discussion to take place.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 29, 2012 at 12:05:51 am     #  

Liney* said: Its not a "kid-killing stratagy" in a sane world a no gun policy would make sense at a school.

We don't live in a sane world. We live in the real world where you need to defend yourself. Want to know which houses in neighborhoods are looted the most? The ones with the fewest protections. That's the same principle applied to schools; they are utterly defenseless, and offer a "high score" to attackers. A high value set of targets. So they are the most vulnerable.

And yet people, largely Liberals, continue to insist that these places remain disarmed. School massacres logically follow.

Nobody's really that stupid, so it's actually part of the larger Liberal strategy to put enough innocents in harm's way to finally get Americans mad enough to overturn the Second Amendment, or the next best thing in Liberal 'thinking', that being another gun-ban bill.

* Sorry, dude, I like the abbreviating moniker.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 29, 2012 at 12:19:32 am     #  

We don't live in la la land exactly, in the real world there should be available an immediate response to a nut job with a gun or knife harming innocent children other than waiting on a cop with a gun to respond in 10-15 minutes.

posted by Linecrosser on Dec 29, 2012 at 03:15:09 am     #  

lfrost2125 posted at 10:52:15 PM on Dec 28, 2012:

I'll tell you what if we ever had a complete ban on firearms you will see a revolt. You will have another civil war on your hands with more deaths.

Judging by the response to the THREAT to the constitution, the response to the actual attack will be quite profound.

People often forget, when projecting their sympathy on the most recent victims of the latest evil act, that many more people died to achieve the freedoms we have than died as a result of them. But there are always people who can't get past their initial emotional reaction to the facts and realities of life in a (somewhat) free society and fail to refocus on the larger societal and historical picture.

posted by justread on Dec 29, 2012 at 06:43:34 am     #  

Just a question for our constitutional law scholars on this thread: do you also feel that the freedom of the press promised by the first amendment gives you the right to create, publish, and distribute child pornography?

Not advocating child porn here...just asking a philosophical question.

posted by Sohio on Dec 29, 2012 at 10:34:56 am     #  

Sohio posted at 09:34:56 AM on Dec 29, 2012:

Just a question for our constitutional law scholars on this thread: do you also feel that the freedom of the press promised by the first amendment gives you the right to create, publish, and distribute child pornography?

Not advocating child porn here...just asking a philosophical question.

The Bill of Rights has gone thru judicial review and have certain 'restrictions' on them. You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater; you can't do child porn; you can't have a fully auto weapon without the proper permits. So all rights have some MINOR restrictions for the safety of all.

Banning guns, all guns, or making registration a requirement for all guns, is not minor, IMO. (This is specifically in reference to Feinstein's proposed AWB).

And it isn't for the safety of all because criminals will still have guns.

We have reasonable restrictions on guns; we have 20,000+ laws on the books already. What more would make the criminals follow the law?

posted by MrsArcher on Dec 29, 2012 at 10:41:53 am     #  

Until the lunatics took over the NRA in 1977 and started buying off Congresspeople and state legislators and fighting in court, the judicial system cited the "well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment. But now we have at least one Supreme Court justice who thinks that any arms you can bear should be allowed. As in, hey, I can pick up a missile launcher or backpack nuke therefore private ownership of missile launchers and backpack nukes should be allowed.

Riiiiight.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 29, 2012 at 11:11:49 am     #   1 person liked this

Exactly my point, mrsarcher.

The debate, then, is what qualifies as an acceptable restriction and what does not.

I just wanted to put that out there. Certain people around here like to pound on the 2nd amendment and leave it at that; even though the issue is far more complex. Such simplistic discussion actually puts the 2nd amendment in MORE danger, which I hate to see happen. If you ignore complexity and nuance, you harm your own argument.

posted by Sohio on Dec 29, 2012 at 11:30:47 am     #  

Sohio posted at 09:34:56 AM on Dec 29, 2012:

Just a question for our constitutional law scholars on this thread: do you also feel that the freedom of the press promised by the first amendment gives you the right to create, publish, and distribute child pornography?

Not advocating child porn here...just asking a philosophical question.

No need to be a dick with that whole constitutional scholars thing if you are advocating for calm and reasonable, respectful discussion.
A regular joe can have an opinion about their own rights and what threatens or protects them. People feed themselves who are not chefs and people change their oil without being mechanics. Most of us who had civics class have a working knowledge, and some even have a copy, like this one right here.
(Pats copy of constitution on table.)

I thought you were gonna play the shouting "fire" in a crowded theater card. You can do seditious speech next, somebody is bound to.
Anyway...
I sure the hell hope that the majority of people in the US don't engage in child pornography. We aren't doing that thing that AC does where we compare child porn to gun ownership and then make the seemingly logical conclusion that "gun nuts" must support child porn, are we? Are you sure that you are not advocating for child porn? I think that you may be a "child porn" nut. Hmmm.
(It's easy, isn't it?)

You can enact 20,000,000 laws against creating, publishing and distributing child pornography if you think that it will keep sickos from breaking the new laws. Have at it. You can even make viewing it illegal. Seems to make sense. In fact, I am so anti-child porn, that I think that child porn pubishers should be given life sentences.

Still fine with laws against murder too, for the record. Also fine with laws against certain people possessing firearms, you know... like the Lanza kid, the Columbine shooters and that creep who shot the first responders and killed two. The woman who bought that guy a gun knowing that he was under a "disability" to own firearms should be charged with more than what she is. I am almost comfortable with her sharing the murder charge.
But that won't stop whackos from doing evil things with illegally possessed weapons. It will just make me feel better. Like the thought of more gun laws makes the lunatic anti-gun fringe feel all warm inside.

Today's interesting fact: Harry Reid is a "Gun Nut" by the standards of some posters. Good old Harry. A gun nut. My oh my.

posted by justread on Dec 29, 2012 at 11:35:30 am     #  

there should be available an immediate response

Yes, it's called the right to keep and bear arms, which in Ohio and Connecticut is outlined specifically for self defense. The immediate response is for you to react in self defense using your personal armament.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 29, 2012 at 12:16:01 pm     #   1 person liked this

Sohio, what's child pornography? Within a year after making a name for herself from the movie "Kick-Ass", Chloe Grace Moretz was in photo shoots that would make you blush. (It's unknown if she was blushing.)

That aside, how would you obtain naked pictures of children or more racey stuff, considering those children under the principle of "age of majority" cannot give their informed consent?

I find Liberals constantly (under the principle of "loser desperation") trying to pull children into the Second Amendment rights issue, one way or another. We've used the concept of "age of majority" for millennia. It applies. It applies to gun ownership, porn, marriage, contracts, etc.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 29, 2012 at 12:22:01 pm     #  

GuestZero posted at 11:16:01 AM on Dec 29, 2012:

there should be available an immediate response

Yes, it's called the right to keep and bear arms, which in Ohio and Connecticut is outlined specifically for self defense. The immediate response is for you to react in self defense using your personal armament.

Don't know why your arguing with me I think we both agree on the same thing. If a teacher that had a CC permit in Sandy Hook had been allowed to carry in that school that day the number of dead innocents might have been a lot less. Its not that I'm calling for FORCING anyone in a school to carry a weapon there are probably at least 1 person in a school that might if they were allowed to. Just owning a gun and having a permit wouldn't be enough though in my opinion I think some additional training and some certification might be required. But if someone wants to volunteer to do that why are they stopping that from happening?

posted by Linecrosser on Dec 29, 2012 at 01:52:33 pm     #  

GuestZero posted at 11:22:01 AM on Dec 29, 2012:

Sohio, what's child pornography? Within a year after making a name for herself from the movie "Kick-Ass", Chloe Grace Moretz was in photo shoots that would make you blush. (It's unknown if she was blushing.)

That aside, how would you obtain naked pictures of children or more racey stuff, considering those children under the principle of "age of majority" cannot give their informed consent?

I find Liberals constantly (under the principle of "loser desperation") trying to pull children into the Second Amendment rights issue, one way or another. We've used the concept of "age of majority" for millennia. It applies. It applies to gun ownership, porn, marriage, contracts, etc.

Yes, we have been using that standard. A standard which was NOT spelled out in the bill of rights. The Bill of Rights does not mention age. We applied the 'age of majority' ourselves, later on. And it has not been there for 'millennia,' as this country has not existed that long; and elsewhere in the world, underage marriages and sexual relationships between adults and children have not only been tolerated but often celebrated. Not to mention we had underage marriages and child labor in this country within the lifetimes of some people who are still alive.

And what is child porn? Again, some of it would be obvious, whereas some of it might be more a matter of opinion (remember Miley Cyrus and the magazine photo she did?) Society has to figure that out as it goes along. How a person 'obtains' such images is beside the point. It is illegal to 'obtain' them, but that is not addressed in the Bill of Rights. It is also illegal to print or distribute them, regardless of who obtained them or how it was done, and that law stands in spite of your right to freedom of the press. It also stands, in spite of the fact that not everyone heeds it.

The freedom of the press--by 'press,' meaning that which you can create with a printing press--does not extend to certain atrocities. The government telling me I cannot do certain things with my printing press, despite their blanket permission in the Bill of Rights, is not an infringement on my rights, it is a reasonable regulation in response to a problem.

Getting back on topic: there are certain forms of reasonable gun regulations, too. And it is not just 'liberals' who think so, as I have demonstrated several times here. That is the only point I was trying to make. I support the 2nd amendment fully, but you can't hide behind it in all situations.

posted by Sohio on Dec 29, 2012 at 02:33:40 pm     #  

justread posted at 10:35:30 AM on Dec 29, 2012:
Sohio posted at 09:34:56 AM on Dec 29, 2012:

Just a question for our constitutional law scholars on this thread: do you also feel that the freedom of the press promised by the first amendment gives you the right to create, publish, and distribute child pornography?

Not advocating child porn here...just asking a philosophical question.

No need to be a dick with that whole constitutional scholars thing if you are advocating for calm and reasonable, respectful discussion.
A regular joe can have an opinion about their own rights and what threatens or protects them. People feed themselves who are not chefs and people change their oil without being mechanics. Most of us who had civics class have a working knowledge, and some even have a copy, like this one right here.

(Pats copy of constitution on table.)

I thought you were gonna play the shouting "fire" in a crowded theater card. You can do seditious speech next, somebody is bound to.
Anyway...

I sure the hell hope that the majority of people in the US don't engage in child pornography. We aren't doing that thing that AC does where we compare child porn to gun ownership and then make the seemingly logical conclusion that "gun nuts" must support child porn, are we? Are you sure that you are not advocating for child porn? I think that you may be a "child porn" nut. Hmmm.

(It's easy, isn't it?)

You can enact 20,000,000 laws against creating, publishing and distributing child pornography if you think that it will keep sickos from breaking the new laws. Have at it. You can even make viewing it illegal. Seems to make sense. In fact, I am so anti-child porn, that I think that child porn pubishers should be given life sentences.

Still fine with laws against murder too, for the record. Also fine with laws against certain people possessing firearms, you know... like the Lanza kid, the Columbine shooters and that creep who shot the first responders and killed two. The woman who bought that guy a gun knowing that he was under a "disability" to own firearms should be charged with more than what she is. I am almost comfortable with her sharing the murder charge.
But that won't stop whackos from doing evil things with illegally possessed weapons. It will just make me feel better. Like the thought of more gun laws makes the lunatic anti-gun fringe feel all warm inside.

Today's interesting fact: Harry Reid is a "Gun Nut" by the standards of some posters. Good old Harry. A gun nut. My oh my.

1. It was good-natured ribbing, justread. I am as much of an "amateur expert" as anyone else here. Geez. Sensitive?

2. 'fire in a crowded theater' is as tired as Hitler comparisons. I wanted to try something new. I am not comparing gun ownership to child porn by any means. I own a gun myself. I am comparing the literal reading of the 2nd amendment, with no allowance for regulation of certain things, to the literal reading of any other amendment. And no, it's not 'easy,' as I stated, I was rather advocating for the restriction of certain things perhaps tacitly permitted by the Bill of Rights. Don't put words in my mouth.

3. No need to enact 20,000,000 laws. The ones we have will do. And while they won't stop certain pervs from doing it, if it were not illegal, you could not punish them for it.

4. Ah, finally, we agree. Rather than 'gun control,' how about 'people control'? Barring certain people (criminals, crazies, etc.) from having guns is a lot different than banning guns (or certain guns) altogether. The problem there is, to implement bans such as those, you have to conduct background checks, which many people oppose. There is also the problem, as you stated, of the fact that even measures such as those won't stop certain people from getting guns anyway, not to mention people that are 'fine' until the first time they do something crazy. But it might stop SOME, and I guess that is the best you could hope for while still preserving the rights of law-abiding citizens?

Harry Reid a gun nut. Now THAT'S a funny image. I'd like to see that guy on a sugar buzz, loaded for bear. You must be wrong about that, though, because Reid is a liberal, and as Professor GuestZero will tell you, all Liberals are gun-hating gay Godless brain-dead Communists.

posted by Sohio on Dec 29, 2012 at 02:53:55 pm     #  

"people control" is illegal. Nothing in the Constitution says you can take away rights from nutjobs for being insane.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 29, 2012 at 03:31:13 pm     #  

Really? How about your right to freedom after you've been convicted of a crime?

posted by Sohio on Dec 29, 2012 at 03:34:14 pm     #  

Sohio posted at 02:34:14 PM on Dec 29, 2012:

Really? How about your right to freedom after you've been convicted of a crime?

Eighth Amendment.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 29, 2012 at 05:54:36 pm     #  

Yeah? So?

posted by Sohio on Dec 29, 2012 at 06:00:27 pm     #  

Sohio posted at 01:53:55 PM on Dec 29, 2012:
justread posted at 10:35:30 AM on Dec 29, 2012:
Sohio posted at 09:34:56 AM on Dec 29, 2012:

Just a question for our constitutional law scholars on this thread: do you also feel that the freedom of the press promised by the first amendment gives you the right to create, publish, and distribute child pornography?

Not advocating child porn here...just asking a philosophical question.

No need to be a dick with that whole constitutional scholars thing if you are advocating for calm and reasonable, respectful discussion.
A regular joe can have an opinion about their own rights and what threatens or protects them. People feed themselves who are not chefs and people change their oil without being mechanics. Most of us who had civics class have a working knowledge, and some even have a copy, like this one right here.


(Pats copy of constitution on table.)

I thought you were gonna play the shouting "fire" in a crowded theater card. You can do seditious speech next, somebody is bound to.
Anyway...


I sure the hell hope that the majority of people in the US don't engage in child pornography. We aren't doing that thing that AC does where we compare child porn to gun ownership and then make the seemingly logical conclusion that "gun nuts" must support child porn, are we? Are you sure that you are not advocating for child porn? I think that you may be a "child porn" nut. Hmmm.


(It's easy, isn't it?)

You can enact 20,000,000 laws against creating, publishing and distributing child pornography if you think that it will keep sickos from breaking the new laws. Have at it. You can even make viewing it illegal. Seems to make sense. In fact, I am so anti-child porn, that I think that child porn pubishers should be given life sentences.

Still fine with laws against murder too, for the record. Also fine with laws against certain people possessing firearms, you know... like the Lanza kid, the Columbine shooters and that creep who shot the first responders and killed two. The woman who bought that guy a gun knowing that he was under a "disability" to own firearms should be charged with more than what she is. I am almost comfortable with her sharing the murder charge.
But that won't stop whackos from doing evil things with illegally possessed weapons. It will just make me feel better. Like the thought of more gun laws makes the lunatic anti-gun fringe feel all warm inside.

Today's interesting fact: Harry Reid is a "Gun Nut" by the standards of some posters. Good old Harry. A gun nut. My oh my.

1. It was good-natured ribbing, justread. I am as much of an "amateur expert" as anyone else here. Geez. Sensitive?

2. 'fire in a crowded theater' is as tired as Hitler comparisons. I wanted to try something new. I am not comparing gun ownership to child porn by any means. I own a gun myself. I am comparing the literal reading of the 2nd amendment, with no allowance for regulation of certain things, to the literal reading of any other amendment. And no, it's not 'easy,' as I stated, I was rather advocating for the restriction of certain things perhaps tacitly permitted by the Bill of Rights. Don't put words in my mouth.

3. No need to enact 20,000,000 laws. The ones we have will do. And while they won't stop certain pervs from doing it, if it were not illegal, you could not punish them for it.

4. Ah, finally, we agree. Rather than 'gun control,' how about 'people control'? Barring certain people (criminals, crazies, etc.) from having guns is a lot different than banning guns (or certain guns) altogether. The problem there is, to implement bans such as those, you have to conduct background checks, which many people oppose. There is also the problem, as you stated, of the fact that even measures such as those won't stop certain people from getting guns anyway, not to mention people that are 'fine' until the first time they do something crazy. But it might stop SOME, and I guess that is the best you could hope for while still preserving the rights of law-abiding citizens?

Harry Reid a gun nut. Now THAT'S a funny image. I'd like to see that guy on a sugar buzz, loaded for bear. You must be wrong about that, though, because Reid is a liberal, and as Professor GuestZero will tell you, all Liberals are gun-hating gay Godless brain-dead Communists.

1. Seemed like dick. Not particulaely sensitive. Much prefer good natured ribbing. Thanks for the clarification.
2. Of course, it was just an opportunity to illustrate the spin trick so often employed here.
4. We probably agree on alot. Much of what I have posted is not due to some rabid gun-diety worship, but as a counter to the nonsense that I have been reading from the lunatic anti-gun fringe, sometimes using absurdity.

Harry Reid is much more into guns and has a longer record of supporting gun rights than I. If figured that if I had been labled a "gun nut" due to my belief that people are weapons and guns are tools, folks would be interested to know that he is as likely to stand against the loss of freedoms in this regard than any. Go figure.

Frankly, guns should be controlled. And they are. Whew.
My problem is not with those existing controls, my problem is with the folks (primarily on the left of the aisle) using the recent shooting as an opportunity to push an agenda based on fear rather than a considered and reasonable plan. The rush to enact new laws is worthless other than as a emotional balm for people who don't want to accept that life is a gamble and that there are some bad people in our world. Laws don't make people safer from criminals. They just make longer rap-sheets and fuller prisons.

As I have said in the other thread, (I had no intention of posting an any of the subsequent threads, but AC trolled me into this one), I do not care for assault rifles. I do not own an AR 15, nor is one on my wish list. I like old historical guns (ones that can be purchased with a C and R license) that would likely be unaffected by any of the ban ideas that have been irresponsibly bandied about by my respesentatives from the left side of the aisle.

On socialism as a cheap and ignorant comparison to today's American lefties: when they stop taking over/manipulating private industry, stop villifying success and achievement, stop threatening individual rights, stop attempting to eliminate the wealthy as a method of helping the needy, stop growing the government, and stop using rhetoric that is often indistinguishable from that found in Marx's A Communist Manefesto (pats copy of Communist Manefesto sitting on table)I will stop seeing the left as proponents of a government-citizen relationship that is increasingly socialist in tone and philosophy. "The individual must subjugate to the collective. We know what is best for you." Side note: "Obama or Marx" is a fun drinking game. Hard to pick the author of each quote. Warning: You will get drunk.
We live in a world in which the federal government manipulated the game, allowing the UAW to be paid while private GM creditors were stiffed. They have earned the comparisons so frequently made.

posted by justread on Dec 30, 2012 at 10:50:32 am     #  

Harry Reid would just exempt himself from any law that they would make.

posted by Linecrosser on Dec 30, 2012 at 12:04:11 pm     #  

Gun control isn't about guns; it's about control and reelection. At one time I think it was safe to say that the citizens of the United States didn't like being told what they could or could not do. They valued freedom.

I don't think that's true any longer. There's a growing group of people that really do believe that the government can do a better job of running their life than they can, and that the government will provide good care for them so long as they remain inside the designated ambit. Those people ought to take a hard look at the way the government has cared for the American Indians.

posted by madjack on Dec 30, 2012 at 01:37:14 pm     #  

Unbelievably, Sohio said: We applied the 'age of majority' ourselves, later on.

Uh, no, the concept has been applied culturally for millennia, just like with stuff like "motherhood". These things are deeper than even common law.

You must be trolling. Nobody can be as actually ignorant as you're being.

The desperation of Liberals really is awesome to behold. And yet, we have the right to keep and bear arms. In Ohio as in Connecticut, it's affirmed by two constitutions. You can hardly find a more affirmed civil right. And that pisses off the Liberals more than anything, so that they (ta dah!) become worrisomely illogical, like you're being.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 30, 2012 at 01:59:53 pm     #  

Sohio continued his abysmal bloviation: Barring certain people (criminals, crazies, etc.) from having guns is a lot different than banning guns (or certain guns) altogether.

Figures you'd think so. "Certain" people. We all know full well that that definitive set just expands. First the definers went after the crazies and criminals. Then they went after everyone with any history of any contact with the legal system. Then people who are behind on their taxes.

The very idea that you can keep a man apart from his civil rights after he leaves the jail, is the start of something fairly degenerating insofar as general recognition of civil rights is concerned. We keep creating classes of people whom we determine are less than the rest of us. This is a clear violation of their civil liberties.

Keeping a man in that condition is a clear violation of our prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In other words, punishments have to end.

I rarely meet a Liberal that thinks things like this through. True social consciousness in depth is actually quite foreign to the Liberal. And you're proving that once again, Sohio. Sadly.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 30, 2012 at 02:08:12 pm     #  

Maddie said: Those people ought to take a hard look at the way the government has cared for the American Indians.

Oh, they know. They all imagine they'll be treated like chiefs, not squaws.

P.S. I only said "squaws" to get more Liberal goats. LOL!

posted by GuestZero on Dec 30, 2012 at 02:09:43 pm     #  

I don't want to go off-topic but I smell bullshit so I'm going to call out bullshit:

"On socialism as a cheap and ignorant comparison to today's American lefties: when they stop taking over/manipulating private industry, stop villifying success and achievement, stop threatening individual rights, stop attempting to eliminate the wealthy as a method of helping the needy, stop growing the government, and stop using rhetoric that is often indistinguishable from that found in Marx's A Communist Manefesto (pats copy of Communist Manefesto sitting on table)I will stop seeing the left as proponents of a government-citizen relationship that is increasingly socialist in tone and philosophy. "The individual must subjugate to the collective. We know what is best for you." Side note: "Obama or Marx" is a fun drinking game. Hard to pick the author of each quote. Warning: You will get drunk.
We live in a world in which the federal government manipulated the game, allowing the UAW to be paid while private GM creditors were stiffed. They have earned the comparisons so frequently made."

And under Dubya, we had the Supreme Court decide that hey, the state can take your land under eminent domain and hand it to any kind of "developer"... which happened here in Toledo for Jeep.

You and your conservative friends LOVE to go on about the "trickle-down economics" and how if we just cut taxes further on the "job creators" (aka millionaires) then we'll have oodles of jobs. Well, I hate to break it to you, but wage growth has stagnated, job growth isn't doing so well, and CEO pay is through the roof. All the wealth that is supposed to be trickling down is collecting at the top, because the rich are stashing it in their Scrooge McDuck moneybins instead of buying more yachts. You are probably going to be a proper Fox News conservative and tell us that's because they're pants-pissingly terrified of Obama and the LLLLLLLLLLiberal Dems passing more regulation and stuff... but the trend lines were already firmly in place under Dubya. The economy works best when the money is going round and round. It broke in part because the rich people who own and run the banks were super-happy to make more money extending credit to people who they knew damn well didn't deserve credit, or at least not a $250k mortgage on McDonald's wages. These same rich people are the ones who, once the bubble burst, refused to extend credit to GM and Chrysler... fuck taking a risk, or a hit to their place on the Forbes 500 richest list, we're gonna fuck over tens of thousands of Americans directly and hundreds of thousands more indirectly with trickle-up poverty from those damn union auto workers losing their jobs.

The rich fled from the market in fear of their money. The banks locked up all the money and refused to lend. Without money moving around, what was left? Oh yeah, fire up the printing presses at the Federal Reserve and have the government throw money around... which was thrown at the banks (bailouts) to appease the rich people, but unfortunately was also thrown out to GM, Chrysler, and the stimulus plan, things that the rich people immediately attacked because such measures threaten their control of the money system and devalue their stockpiles of money. (How DARE the little people get more money!) That finally gets the system unstuck a bit... but then the rich fired up the rhetoric on Fox News and talk radio to program idiots like you with, fired up the TEA Party, all to prevent the money from being pried out of the money bins of the rich and put back into the economy to be passed around where it belongs. You, being a proper idiot Teabagger, scream "SOCIALISM!" at the very thought of someone trying to make the rich stop lighting their cigars with $100 bills and spend those $100 bills instead on worker wages. I, being someone who actually sits down and reads many different sources and watches the whole picture, think we need to get the money going around again and actually DEVELOP A MIDDLE CLASS AGAIN, where instead of playing dick-size games over who has the higher ranking on the world's richest list and the biggest yacht and the tallest building with their name on it, the rich have some sense of social duty and down-chain loyalty and pass the money down to the employees rather than hoarding it up at the top and occasionally doling it out as "charitable donations" they get to write-off.

But feel free to ignore all this and fling "SOCIALISM!" and "LLLLLIBERAL!" around like a monkey flings shit.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 30, 2012 at 02:16:31 pm     #  

You pegged me. I am a 19th century robber baron.

Dam.

posted by justread on Dec 30, 2012 at 02:28:44 pm     #  

Um, Ac....You "build" a middle class by creating an environment where business can succeed, and in doing so, create decent jobs. You do not build a middle class by borrowing money from the Chinese, raising the debt ceiling and lowering our credit rating.

You grossly underestimate the scope and role of the charitable deduction in the distribution of services, reduction of societal burden on the whole, and the protection of critical soft assets and societal and cultural capital. In addition to the enormous societal cost, the elimination of the charitable deduction would eliminate nearly 1 million jobs in the private sector and government. Do you know how a building gets built? Do you know that the only construction cranes seen in this area in 20 years have been funded by charity and taxes, not private investment?

But hey, can't argue with you. You read the internet. You'd know much more about it than the people who actually participate in the process.

posted by justread on Dec 30, 2012 at 03:05:33 pm     #  

I'll put it simply so it gets through your thick skull, un-read:

All the bullshit you're bitching about, all the rhetoric about "borrowing money from China" and "debt ceiling" and "deficit", didn't start getting traction until after Obama won the election in '08... because the actual fiscal conservatives who were screaming up a storm got kicked to the curb by the GOP, and anyone else that was a moderate or liberal got painted as an anti-American terrorist lover for being unpatriotic and questioning Glorious President Bush and getting in the way of the ludicrous handouts to the military-industrial complex that kept us safe from terrorism!

You obviously forgot about how many TRILLIONS were spent on two wars we got mired down in, and how we FAILED to pay for them, because BUSH TAX CUTS were made, and oh, don't forget the $300 Bush Stimulus Checks. There was nary a fucking peep out of Fox News Channel or talk radio about the rampant spending going on back then. As soon as it became clear that the GOP was gonna lose big time for not only running up the balance on the Federal Credit Card, but also for letting the banks run wild and getting us into another mess, suddenly here comes Fox News and talk radio whipping up the Tea Party and morons like yourself to ignore everything that happened before then and who was in charge when it happened and blame it all on LLLLLLLiberals.

Fucking be honest with your fucking self and admit that the GOP ran up the fucking debt too, and that they're being massively dishonest and playing political games that fuck over most of America so they can try to get back in power and pay back the 1% who bought the GOP their seats in government. Because every fucking time you and your fellow idiots pound away at your keyboards and bash out "LIBERALS!" and "Dems!" and "SOCIALISM!" and so on as if they're insults and blame everything on them, you're sucking off the cocks of the GOP and their rich owners at the same time. I understand it's hard for you to admit that your heroes fucked you over and let you down, but until you decide to admit the GOP is packed full of hypocrites who preach but don't practice "fiscal conservatism", you're part of the problem and definitely not any part of any solution.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 30, 2012 at 05:08:06 pm     #  

You have a lot of baggage, my friend.

Relax... Tell me about your father.

posted by justread on Dec 30, 2012 at 09:13:39 pm     #  

Does anyone else here suspect AC and GZ are the same person?

posted by Sohio on Dec 31, 2012 at 12:31:22 am     #  

GuestZero posted at 12:59:53 PM on Dec 30, 2012:

Unbelievably, Sohio said: We applied the 'age of majority' ourselves, later on.

Uh, no, the concept has been applied culturally for millennia, just like with stuff like "motherhood". These things are deeper than even common law.

You must be trolling. Nobody can be as actually ignorant as you're being.

The desperation of Liberals really is awesome to behold. And yet, we have the right to keep and bear arms. In Ohio as in Connecticut, it's affirmed by two constitutions. You can hardly find a more affirmed civil right. And that pisses off the Liberals more than anything, so that they (ta dah!) become worrisomely illogical, like you're being.

Whatever you say, GZ. Your statements were pointless to begin with. Age of majority is an arbitrary benchmark has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

posted by Sohio on Dec 31, 2012 at 12:41:02 am     #  

GuestZero posted at 01:08:12 PM on Dec 30, 2012:

Sohio continued his abysmal bloviation: Barring certain people (criminals, crazies, etc.) from having guns is a lot different than banning guns (or certain guns) altogether.

Figures you'd think so. "Certain" people. We all know full well that that definitive set just expands. First the definers went after the crazies and criminals. Then they went after everyone with any history of any contact with the legal system. Then people who are behind on their taxes.

The very idea that you can keep a man apart from his civil rights after he leaves the jail, is the start of something fairly degenerating insofar as general recognition of civil rights is concerned. We keep creating classes of people whom we determine are less than the rest of us. This is a clear violation of their civil liberties.

Keeping a man in that condition is a clear violation of our prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In other words, punishments have to end.

I rarely meet a Liberal that thinks things like this through. True social consciousness in depth is actually quite foreign to the Liberal. And you're proving that once again, Sohio. Sadly.

Barring a person from certain activities based on past behaviors is nothing new nor uncommon.

As for keeping a man apart from his civil rights after he leaves a jail, you are obviously not familiar with the concepts of probation, house arrest, or parole.

Ask any inmate serving six consecutive life sentences if punishments have to end.

And as for "creating classes of people whom we determine are less than the rest of us", you do that every time you speak...those you look down upon, you call 'liberals.' You even celebrated the concept of liberals being killed in a mass shooting. So, surely you can't be too concerned for their civil rights?

It sure was nice to hear from you again, though.

posted by Sohio on Dec 31, 2012 at 12:55:40 am     #   2 people liked this

Sohio posted at 11:31:22 PM on Dec 30, 2012:

Does anyone else here suspect AC and GZ are the same person?

They aren't. I know GZ personally, and he isn't AC.

posted by madjack on Dec 31, 2012 at 01:26:40 am     #  

That was meant to be rhetorical. But thanks anyway. :)

posted by Sohio on Dec 31, 2012 at 01:34:57 am     #  

One problem with the current gun laws of the US is that every single one of them was written by a group of elected officials who believed that the Second Amendment was open to a lot of interpretation and that the great unwashed couldn't be trusted with a loaded gun. If the government is going to restrict any of our Constitutional rights, the least the government should do is hire someone to wright the law who has a strong belief in individual freedom and the Bill of Rights.

Needless to say, the government didn't do that, possibly because they couldn't find anyone who fit the bill - who believed in individual freedom and who was duplicitous enough to actually wright a law restricting freedom.

posted by madjack on Dec 31, 2012 at 01:39:16 am     #  

madjack posted at 12:37:14 PM on Dec 30, 2012:

Gun control isn't about guns; it's about control and reelection. At one time I think it was safe to say that the citizens of the United States didn't like being told what they could or could not do. They valued freedom.

I don't think that's true any longer. There's a growing group of people that really do believe that the government can do a better job of running their life than they can, and that the government will provide good care for them so long as they remain inside the designated ambit. Those people ought to take a hard look at the way the government has cared for the American Indians.

I don't think it is anything new, madjack. Americans have tolerated needless, silly, and sometimes immoral prohibitions since before we were even a nation. We didn't value freedom all that much...even after the slaves were freed, it took another 100 years and a social upheaval for their rights to be recognized in any meaningful way. An even after the proven failure of prohibition, we still prohibit marijuana.

posted by Sohio on Dec 31, 2012 at 01:49:17 am     #  

Value whose freedom? Others? Hmmm. Our own? Hell yes.
I'm not sure that it is good science to offer the 100+ year struggle for black rights as evidence of a lack of an American societal value on freedom. It will provide wonderful evidence of prejudice, and its double standards.

I'll grant you the 1968 gun purchase changes.

I don't think that the "big P" Prohibition was tolerated. I also don't think that everybody handed FDR their gold in 1933.

posted by justread on Dec 31, 2012 at 07:58:27 am     #  

I was just commenting on what madjack said. Not that I entirely disagreed with him...but he seemed to say that the occasional looking-the-other-way while we allow certain rights to be taken away from certain people is something new; I would argue it is not.

posted by Sohio on Dec 31, 2012 at 09:44:03 am     #  

AC, good rant, but you can't re-acquire a middle class by government fiat. In fact, our huge government is part of the problem. Its mandates serve the rich and other welfare classes. Working men are taxed heavily to fuel it, which is why working men are under such siege.

In short, less government is the answer. Much less government, really.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 31, 2012 at 09:44:38 am     #  

Sohio said: Age of majority is an arbitrary benchmark has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

The point is that it's a mark itself, that has been set by Humans across nearly all cultures for millennia. It's precisely what we're talking about: Natural law. Natural rights. You know, the stuff you can't accept even though they're obviously true.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 31, 2012 at 09:47:16 am     #  

Sohio said: As for keeping a man apart from his civil rights after he leaves a jail, you are obviously not familiar with the concepts of probation, house arrest, or parole.

Those end. Felon status never does. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Sohio said: Ask any inmate serving six consecutive life sentences if punishments have to end.

We have capital punishment. It's necessarily permanent. Life sentences are effectively executions.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 31, 2012 at 09:50:55 am     #  

GuestZero posted at 08:44:38 AM on Dec 31, 2012:

AC, good rant, but you can't re-acquire a middle class by government fiat. In fact, our huge government is part of the problem. Its mandates serve the rich and other welfare classes. Working men are taxed heavily to fuel it, which is why working men are under such siege.

In short, less government is the answer. Much less government, really.

If you don't like the government so much, move to Somalia.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 31, 2012 at 09:52:33 am     #   1 person liked this

Sohio said: You even celebrated the concept of liberals being killed in a mass shooting.

Well, we need to get rid of such a ridiculous and culturally damaging thing like enforced victimhood, and a "die off" is an option for doing that. Liberals won't give up no matter how clearly wrong or illegal they are, so it's a civil war by one means or another, and people die in war. Ring ring, that's the clue phone for you, Sohio. Having Liberals shot dead on "disarmed" city streets and in "disarmed" public schools is a good way to start with the killing, since it's part of that "hoist by your own petard" sort of thing. It gets the killing done, and has a chance (admittedly with Liberals, a tiny one) for getting Liberals to finally change their minds and start honoring the law and culture of the United States again.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 31, 2012 at 09:56:46 am     #  

AC said: If you don't like the government so much, move to Somalia.

This is my country too. At any rate, the federal government is provably 12 times larger than rational budgeting indicates, so from your acceptance, it will be more like the government moving Somalia into your life and mine, whether you like it or not.

Serious question: Do you Liberals read from the same playbook? The "move to Somalia" thing is often repeated by you people. Chapter 12, right? Got a website link to the playbook that I can read?

posted by GuestZero on Dec 31, 2012 at 10:00:30 am     #  

GuestZero posted at 08:50:55 AM on Dec 31, 2012:

Sohio said: As for keeping a man apart from his civil rights after he leaves a jail, you are obviously not familiar with the concepts of probation, house arrest, or parole.

Those end. Felon status never does. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Sohio said: Ask any inmate serving six consecutive life sentences if punishments have to end.

We have capital punishment. It's necessarily permanent. Life sentences are effectively executions.

You are arguing with yourself again, GZ.

'We have capital punishment. It's necessarily permanent.'
--So, restricting a freed felon from doing certain things is cruel and unusual, but killing him isn't?

'Life sentences are effectively executions.'
--That's your opinion. I would say logic would dictate there is a distinct difference between ending a person's life and requiring them to spend the rest of it it under arrest. You might think it is the same thing, but there are quite a few death row inmates who file appeal after appeal to have their sentence reduced to life. Maybe you can't see a difference, but I guess they can. Besides, you are switching focus here. You stated that punishments have to end, I demonstrated that, evidently, they do not.

'Those end. Felon status never does.'
--Once again, shifting focus. No fair moving the goal posts when one of your points is refuted.
Felon status never ends? Have you ever heard of expungement, or Presidential pardon?
It is true that those other things do generally 'end'. But again, you miss the point. Placing restrictions on a person post-incarceration is legal and common, regardless of how long it lasts. And the statutes barring felons from owning guns is an NRA-supported implement of the gun control act of 1968. So if you have a problem with it, I suggest you place a call to those pinko lefty liberals you hate so much down at the NRA offices.

posted by Sohio on Dec 31, 2012 at 10:34:37 am     #  

Socialists love representation until some other opinion is represented. Then they think people with a different opinion should leave their own country.

posted by justread on Dec 31, 2012 at 10:45:55 am     #   1 person liked this

GuestZero posted at 08:56:46 AM on Dec 31, 2012:

Sohio said: You even celebrated the concept of liberals being killed in a mass shooting.

Well, we need to get rid of such a ridiculous and culturally damaging thing like enforced victimhood, and a "die off" is an option for doing that. Liberals won't give up no matter how clearly wrong or illegal they are, so it's a civil war by one means or another, and people die in war. Ring ring, that's the clue phone for you, Sohio. Having Liberals shot dead on "disarmed" city streets and in "disarmed" public schools is a good way to start with the killing, since it's part of that "hoist by your own petard" sort of thing. It gets the killing done, and has a chance (admittedly with Liberals, a tiny one) for getting Liberals to finally change their minds and start honoring the law and culture of the United States again.

I see. When you put it that way, it makes perfect sense.

So...your answer for people who disagree with you is that they are better off dead?

I suggest you see a head shrinker, GZ. My wife minored in psychology, and using some of her old texts, I suspect you may be a violent paranoid delusional. The way you irrationally use a blanket term to personify that which you hate and disagree with; your reliance on the violent elimination of that arbitrary target to complete your worldview, and your rambling screeds and arguments would seem to point to that.

I'm still reading...at first, I thought maybe schizoid or schizotypal, but now I am thinking more like paranoid delusional. It takes a while, though. This DSM is a thick little book, and there are a lot of traits in here that fit you. I'll let you know what i find. And I won't send you a bill for the diagnosis. Don't worry, friend. Help is on the way.

posted by Sohio on Dec 31, 2012 at 10:52:00 am     #   3 people liked this

justread posted at 09:45:55 AM on Dec 31, 2012:

Socialists love representation until some other opinion is represented. Then they think people with a different opinion should leave their own country.

Whereas reactionaries like GZ would prefer those with differing opinions simply be shot dead in their own country...

posted by Sohio on Dec 31, 2012 at 10:57:02 am     #  

justread posted at 09:45:55 AM on Dec 31, 2012:

Socialists love representation until some other opinion is represented. Then they think people with a different opinion should leave their own country.

"Socialists"? Again?

You's trollin'.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 31, 2012 at 11:06:21 am     #  

Sohio posted at 09:57:02 AM on Dec 31, 2012:
justread posted at 09:45:55 AM on Dec 31, 2012:

Socialists love representation until some other opinion is represented. Then they think people with a different opinion should leave their own country.

Whereas reactionaries like GZ would prefer those with differing opinions simply be shot dead in their own country...

Ignore un-read. He just shot himself in the foot again, by having to whip out "socialism" when he doesn't know what it means and after having been scolded for repeating the right-wing talking points AND after having been caught in a lie about how it's the Dems' fault for the nation's credit downgrade. He just likes to use long words so he sounds smarter than he actually is, which is just about smart enough to count to potato.

posted by anonymouscoward on Dec 31, 2012 at 11:12:31 am     #  

Sohio posted at 09:57:02 AM on Dec 31, 2012:
justread posted at 09:45:55 AM on Dec 31, 2012:

Socialists love representation until some other opinion is represented. Then they think people with a different opinion should leave their own country.

Whereas reactionaries like GZ would prefer those with differing opinions simply be shot dead in their own country...

I only think that people with a different opinion than me about killing ME should be shot. Narrows the field considerably.

Although, perhaps... not completely.

Hey, are we back on the gun thing?

posted by justread on Dec 31, 2012 at 11:16:13 am     #  

Sohio posted at 08:44:03 AM on Dec 31, 2012:

I was just commenting on what madjack said. Not that I entirely disagreed with him...but he seemed to say that the occasional looking-the-other-way while we allow certain rights to be taken away from certain people is something new; I would argue it is not.

I gotcha. I would agree that it has been a rather selective application of the value on freedom, historically.

posted by justread on Dec 31, 2012 at 11:21:06 am     #  

GuestZero posted at 11:05:51 PM on Dec 28, 2012:

Researcher said: What are the differences between Japan and the USA when it comes to gun violence?

We're not allowed to talk about that, since it involves R-A-C-E and the Liberals don't allow that sort of discussion to take place.

I didn't realize this was a forum where only morons were able to discuss false ideas.

posted by researcher on Dec 31, 2012 at 10:46:03 pm     #   2 people liked this

Sohio's distractions continue: So, restricting a freed felon from doing certain things is cruel and unusual, but killing him isn't?

In a word, yes. It goes back to that natural law stuff that you refuse to admit exists, despite all available evidence, like oh gee I dunno, history.

That you call these people "felons" shows clearly that your head is embedded in the meme and you won't come out of it.

The point you can't admit is that certain felonious behavior is commonly considered too extreme and thus merits execution. And we then execute people humanely, insofar as the physical act goes. But imprisonment is a term, and terms END. Clue into that "end" part there.

'Life sentences are effectively executions.' That's your opinion.

No, it's math. Denial of life in one way is pretty much denial of life in another way.

Have you ever heard of expungement, or Presidential pardon?

Now, how did I know you'd bring those up? (I made myself a bet that you'd bite on that hook.) Most felons remain marked for life. This is the current situation, called "facts".

Then there's your crap, called "crap". Facts are different than crap. Make a note of it.

posted by GuestZero on Jan 01, 2013 at 12:55:03 am     #  

your answer for people who disagree with you is that they are better off dead?

Yes, considering that's the basic principle this nation was founded on. Give me liberty or give me death, tree of liberty watered by blood, that sort of thing. But I'm not asking.

I just thought I'd take a few moments out of my night to make these points clear in the final minutes of 2012. :^)

posted by GuestZero on Jan 01, 2013 at 12:57:59 am     #  

"It goes back to that natural law stuff that you refuse to admit exists, despite all available evidence, like oh gee I dunno, history."
--Actually, historical evidence proves there are no natural rights, as I have demonstrated to you several times now and yet you have been unable to rebut. I do not deny laws of nature exist; I deny that they are in any way formulated to benefit YOU. SInce you have no factual basis for anything you think or say, you have to chalk them up to some unseen infallible source such as nature. So, in reality, YOU are denying natural laws exist.

"No, it's math. Denial of life in one way is pretty much denial of life in another way."
--OK. That is factually your opinion, and I have shown how the opinions of many people facing such penalties obviously differ form yours. But go on thinking what you want. If you need to call it 'math' to reassure yourself that you have infallible ideas, go ahead.

'But imprisonment is a term, and terms END. Clue into that "end" part there.'
--Again, I showed your assertion here to be incorrect. Plenty of people are serving terms that will never end. There is nothing anywhere that SAYS prison terms have to end. You just made that up.

'Now, how did I know you'd bring those up? (I made myself a bet that you'd bite on that hook.) Most felons remain marked for life.'
--Oh, you're so smart. You really set a trap for me there. How'd you get so cunning? Going from a blanket statement to one with caveats after I pointed out the caveats. Well played. You really...um...got me? I guess?

You're trying to frustrate me with your bald ignorance. It won't work.

Can we get back to talking about guns now?

posted by Sohio on Jan 01, 2013 at 09:42:39 am     #  

GuestZero posted at 11:57:59 PM on Dec 31, 2012:

your answer for people who disagree with you is that they are better off dead?

Yes, considering that's the basic principle this nation was founded on. Give me liberty or give me death, tree of liberty watered by blood, that sort of thing. But I'm not asking.

I just thought I'd take a few moments out of my night to make these points clear in the final minutes of 2012. :^)

Yeah. Thank you for doing that. Your points are now much clearer.

posted by Sohio on Jan 01, 2013 at 09:46:50 am     #   1 person liked this

Good thing you know where I'm coming from, Sohio. There are about 114 million households in the USA, and most estimates conclude that half of them have at least one gun. That's 57 million gun-owning households in the USA. You're not going to disarm them regardless of your justifications. At one dead confiscation agent per every three households, on average, that's about 19 million dead on the confiscation side alone. We have a word for that already: WAR.

If you want to keep moving in that direction, even knowing that, I'm OK with it. I'm well armed and as such, I've already prepared. I'd make the time to account for at least one of those dead agents. I'm OK with war, considering that's what logically happens when free men are assaulted by out-of-control Liberals.

posted by GuestZero on Jan 01, 2013 at 08:14:53 pm     #  

Whatever you say, GZ. If you'll look back, you'll see that I have never called for confiscation.

For your sake, I hope 2013 brings you some of the violence and bloodshed you so desperately need to affirm your masculinity. Or, better yet, maybe just enough confidence in your own convictions that you no longer require those that disagree with you to be eliminated.

posted by Sohio on Jan 02, 2013 at 07:49:53 pm     #  

One could only hope the basement-dweller, GuestZero, actually acts upon one of his delusional posts. One less resource waster.

posted by researcher on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:07:16 am     #  

Oh really, Sohio?

Sohio said: "I support the 2nd amendment fully, but you can't hide behind it in all situations."

Then you're not supporting the Second Amendment fully. You can't "hide behind" a civil right. You have that right. Period. The Second Amendment says quite clearly that the federal government can't infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. Do we need to go all Clinton-esque here and start debating what "infringe" means?

What should have happened was all the infringers like you should have insisted on amending the US constitution to let the restrictions happen legally. But that's work. That's effort. Liberals don't like to do that; they rely on mob rule.

posted by GuestZero on Jan 03, 2013 at 12:56:41 pm     #  

Thanks, researcher. One, I don't even have a basement in my home. Two, I do act on my assertions. I defend myself. I know that's a nightmare for Liberals like you, but still.

posted by GuestZero on Jan 03, 2013 at 01:04:15 pm     #  

GuestZero posted at 12:04:15 PM on Jan 03, 2013:

Thanks, researcher. One, I don't even have a basement in my home. Two, I do act on my assertions. I defend myself. I know that's a nightmare for Liberals like you, but still.

I think you have delusions of grandeur, given your idea of defending yourself goes no further than replying to posts on an unknown regional internet forum.

posted by researcher on Jan 03, 2013 at 02:40:47 pm     #  

"Do we need to go all Clinton-esque here and start debating what "infringe" means?"
--Sure. It could be interpreted to mean a lot of things. For one thing, your blind reliance on text and wording is one of the most dangerous threats to the second amendment itself. If the government were to outlaw every kind of gun except for one model by one maker, they would not be infringing on your right to bear arms. You would still be perfectly free to own as many units of that one particular legal gun as you pleased. You can easily debate the meaning and intent behind just about any word or phrase; if you refuse to examine nuance, you open the door for such nonsense. That is why rational, intelligent debate is so important. Absolutism invites absolutism in response. If that is the tactic you use, it can be used against you right back.

"Then you're not supporting the Second Amendment fully. You can't "hide behind" a civil right. You have that right. Period."
--Oh, but you can hide behind a civil right. At least, you can try to. The Bill of Rights also protects your right to worship as you see fit; but that does not mean you can violate established laws in the name of your religion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

You might want to read that. Second page, paragraph #2. A legal opinion delivered by notable flaming liberals Tony Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, et al. Damn liberals.

I would say I believe in the 2nd amendment at least as 'fully' as they do. Probably more, actually.

posted by Sohio on Jan 03, 2013 at 08:34:24 pm     #  

I would say I believe in the 2nd amendment at least as 'fully' as they do. Probably more, actually.

And just what does that say? The USSC is supposed to concern itself with the Constitution, the law and the actions of the government. It would naturally follow that if that were really the case, decisions would be 9-0 or 8-1. That's a long way from what's happening today.

You say you believe in the 2nd Amendment, yet your belief is clearly polluted by personal insecurity and denial of reality. This would be a lot less trouble for everyone except for the fact that you are likely to vote, and you really do want the government to run your life for you.

Try a live and let live approach. It's less wearing.

posted by madjack on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:20:15 pm     #  

Madjack,
Allowing for discussion and debate in certain situations is hardly 'wanting the government to run my life for me.' I do believe in the 2nd amendment; although that too is beside the point, since my 'believing' in it (or not) does not change the fact that it exists and protects certain rights. I am not denying reality: my simple assertion has always been that the 2nd amendment does not dictate that firearms can be subject to no regulation whatsoever. Even the arch-Conservative justices in the majority on the supreme court seem to think this way...read the decision. This has nothing to do with any insecurity on my part. I didn't write the damned opinion.

'The USSC is supposed to concern itself with the Constitution, the law and the actions of the government. It would naturally follow that if that were really the case, decisions would be 9-0 or 8-1.'
--Says who? There are 9 people on that court. Their job is, indeed, to interpret the constitution. But nowhere was it ever written that they were going to come to unanimous decisions on a consistent basis.

'Try a live and let live approach.'
--I thought I was?

posted by Sohio on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:53:47 pm     #  

Sohio: Ignore this part.

You say you believe in the 2nd Amendment, yet your belief is clearly polluted by personal insecurity and denial of reality. This would be a lot less trouble for everyone except for the fact that you are likely to vote, and you really do want the government to run your life for you.

Try a live and let live approach. It's less wearing.

I had to take a phone call while I was writing, and, well... shit happens.

posted by madjack on Jan 04, 2013 at 12:08:02 am     #  

Sohio said: "['Infringe'] could be interpreted to mean a lot of things."

Classic Liberal ideology. Face, meet palm. Like I said, when you have a Liberal pinned on the pad with the sharp prongs of logic, he begins to spout that sort of nonsense. Because he knows he's wrong, and he struggles mightily (and to no avail) to get free from it.

posted by GuestZero on Jan 04, 2013 at 01:37:07 am     #  

GuestZero needs to buy a dictionary. I don't think (s)he knows the meaning of "logic", "nonsense", or "wrong".

posted by researcher on Jan 04, 2013 at 09:54:12 am     #  

Again, those are broad terms that could be argued to cover a lot of things. GZ would probably argue that is not the case, though.

posted by Sohio on Jan 04, 2013 at 11:09:19 am     #  

I don't know if those terms are as much broad as they are subjective in nature.

One man's "nonsense" is another's Bible...that kind of thing.

posted by oldhometown on Jan 04, 2013 at 12:21:13 pm     #  

I think you're right. 'Subjective' is a better term than 'broad' there.

posted by Sohio on Jan 04, 2013 at 02:10:19 pm     #  

History has a way of eliminating the "subjective" nature of such terms.

posted by researcher on Jan 04, 2013 at 04:28:41 pm     #  

Nature has a way of eliminating things too.

posted by Linecrosser on Jan 04, 2013 at 05:41:56 pm     #  

Linecrosser posted at 04:41:56 PM on Jan 04, 2013:

Nature has a way of eliminating things too.

If that's true then would you do me a favor and ask Nature to eliminate SensorG as he is a pain in the ass.

posted by madjack on Jan 04, 2013 at 06:58:25 pm     #  

There are several folks in this thread that are in the shallow end of the gene pool. SensorG is NOT among them.

posted by holland on Jan 04, 2013 at 07:46:10 pm     #   5 people liked this

holland posted at 06:46:10 PM on Jan 04, 2013:

There are several folks in this thread that are in the shallow end of the gene pool. SensorG is NOT among them.

When you have to ask who's the asshole in the room and no one replies, guess what, it might just be you.

posted by Linecrosser on Jan 04, 2013 at 08:46:11 pm     #   2 people liked this

Linecrosser posted at 04:41:56 PM on Jan 04, 2013:

Nature has a way of eliminating things too.

Unless, of course, you only trust in God.

posted by researcher on Jan 07, 2013 at 10:00:01 am     #