Toledo Talk

Hancock Co. Sheriff Swears To Not Enforce The Law

http://findlay.toledonewsnow.com/news/news/107168-hancock-county-sherriff-writes-president-obama-promises-not-enforce-gun-control-laws

February 1, 2013

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing this letter to you as a duly sworn and legally elected Sheriff in Hancock County, Ohio.

It has come to my attention that you and some of your administration believe that the 2nd Amendment of The Constitution of the United States is up for your personal interpretation, and that there is a movement underway from the White House, and the Senate, and the Congress to take away the right of the people of this free country to keep guns and ammunition for their personal defense and security.

May I remind you that the Constitution of the great state of Ohio, Article 1, section 4 states:

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security

And, the Constitution of the United States, in the Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment states:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As you, I placed my hand on the Bible and promised to protect and defend the Constitution of The United States of America, with that promise, and with that oath, I will defend that Constitution in its entirety, until my dying day. I made that promise before God, and before the free citizens of Hancock County, and I will keep that promise.

It is with my blessing and my elected position as Sheriff, of Hancock County, Ohio, that the right of the people in the county which I represent will continue, to keep and bear arms for their defense and security, and that right will not be infringed upon by any enemy, foreign, or domestic.

You have my solemn promise that I will defend the Constitution I swore to uphold. Our free citizens will remain free citizens, and as free citizens, we recognize as our only ultimate governmental authority Ė The Constitution of these United States.

Any edict, regulation, or so called "federal law" which infringes on the right of the citizens of Hancock County, Ohio to keep and bear arms for their security, will not be tolerated, recognized or enforced by me or my office.

- Michael E. Heldman, Sheriff

In other words, "WAAAAAAAAAA I decide what laws I'm gonna enforce, despite my oath of office!"

created by anonymouscoward on Feb 04, 2013 at 08:26:11 pm     Politics     Comments: 188

source      versions      1 person liked this


Comments ... #

Is he running for re-election soon? Or perhaps trying to get up to the level of attention that that crazy Arizona sheriff has.

posted by JustaSooner on Feb 04, 2013 at 08:36:41 pm     #  

Heldman is right. The federal government can't infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. That's not even an "interpretation". It's a direct logical conclusion from the text of the Second Amendment. And Ohio's constitution says the same thing with respect to the state government, which means all levels of government within the state... yes, including counties and municipalities. Literally speaking, no level of government in Ohio has the right to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.

Sorry there, AC. You Liberals tried to create a fantasyland for the past few decades where American gun rights could be taken away, often capriciously. Americans have now wised up to that. And we're putting a stop to the infringement. All 50 states have concealed carry affirmation now (IL is scheduled to implement them). Gun ownership has never been higher. And Feinstein was basically told to stuff her "assault weapon" ban right back up her cunt. LOL!

I applaud Heldman's efforts. The President is now on notice. And it appears that the blowback is working, since Obama has been fairly effete on the issue with his proposals. For that matter, I say: GOOD. It's good to see a President bow to constitutional law for a change.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 04, 2013 at 08:38:18 pm     #   5 people liked this

So, GZarthy, you like the idea of law enforcement that selectively enforces the law per THEIR interpretation?

It is not the sheriff's job to INTERPRET the law. That's the job of the COURTS.

3.07 Misconduct in office - forfeiture.

Any person holding office in this state, or in any municipal corporation, county, or subdivision thereof, coming within the official classification in Section 38 of Article II, Ohio Constitution, who willfully and flagrantly exercises authority or power not authorized by law, refuses or willfully neglects to enforce the law or to perform any official duty imposed upon him by law, or is guilty of gross neglect of duty, gross immorality, drunkenness, misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance is guilty of misconduct in office. Upon complaint and hearing in the manner provided for in sections 3.07 to 3.10, inclusive, of the Revised Code, such person shall have judgment of forfeiture of said office with all its emoluments entered thereon against him, creating thereby in said office a vacancy to be filled as prescribed by law. The proceedings provided for in such sections are in addition to impeachment and other methods of removal authorized by law, and such sections do not divest the governor or any other authority of the jurisdiction given in removal proceedings.

Guess who just kicked himself out of office.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 04, 2013 at 08:52:17 pm     #   5 people liked this

I wish he felt that way about the 4th Amendment.

posted by JohnnyMac on Feb 04, 2013 at 09:01:34 pm     #   2 people liked this

"And Feinstein was basically told to stuff her "assault weapon" ban right back up her cunt. LOL!" -- GuestZero

Classy, GZarthy.

HEY EVERYONE, LOOK AT WHAT MISOGYNISTIC ASSHOLES GOP TEABAGGERS ARE! COME AND SEE THE HATRED AGAINST WOMEN THEY HAVE!

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 04, 2013 at 09:04:24 pm     #   5 people liked this

Guess who just kicked himself out of office. - anonymouscoward

Not really. He doesn't necessarily have to enforce federal laws, just look at Arizona's problems regarding immigration any of a number of Sanctuary Cities all across the country.

As for presidential executive orders, the President of the United States holds no power to order a county official to do anything as upheld in Printz v. U.S. His orders only apply to employees of the Federal government.

posted by taliesin52 on Feb 05, 2013 at 02:49:50 am     #   2 people liked this

Now if only they'd decide to stop enforcing the nonsensical marijuana prohibition too.

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 05, 2013 at 02:54:03 am     #   2 people liked this

Some more context. The article written by the web producer was a little thin.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/sheriffs-gun-ban-enforce/1873885/

posted by justread on Feb 05, 2013 at 07:46:15 am     #  

The 2nd and 3rd words of the 2nd amendment are "well regulated." Not being able to have an assault rifle is not equal to not being able to have a gun. The amendment doesn't say "right to have whatever weapon you feel like."

posted by Johio83 on Feb 05, 2013 at 08:41:38 am     #   1 person liked this

I know, I know... they specifically meant muskets.

posted by justread on Feb 05, 2013 at 08:43:16 am     #  

"Well regulated"; two of the most misinterpreted and misapplied words in the Constitution.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Feb 05, 2013 at 08:44:12 am     #   2 people liked this

They did mean muskets, but thay doesn't mean that's all we can have now. It means the government has the right to place guidelines on it.

posted by Johio83 on Feb 05, 2013 at 08:52:43 am     #  

They meant muskets, and they meant wealthy white men, too.

The intent was that goverment SHALL NOT disarm the true owners of the country, the people.

posted by justread on Feb 05, 2013 at 09:35:55 am     #   2 people liked this

MoreThanRhetoric posted at 07:44:12 AM on Feb 05, 2013:

"Well regulated"; two of the most misinterpreted and misapplied words in the Constitution.

That depends on who you ask!

posted by researcher on Feb 05, 2013 at 09:38:10 am     #  

From Anonymous_Coward: In other words, "WAAAAAAAAAA I decide what laws I'm gonna enforce, despite my oath of office!"

If ignorance were a crime you'd be doing LWOP, 99 sentences served consecutively in a maximum security prison.

Law Enforcement Officers have always had the authority to selectively enforce the law.

posted by madjack on Feb 05, 2013 at 10:13:03 am     #   1 person liked this

My compliments to Hancock County Sheriff Michael Heldman for upholding the Constitutions of Ohio and the United States, and protecting our civil rights.

We need more people like Sheriff Heldman in office.

posted by madjack on Feb 05, 2013 at 10:19:09 am     #   1 person liked this

"The intent was that goverment SHALL NOT disarm the true owners of the country, the people."

And preventing people from owning assaut rifles does not equal disarming. You can still own hand guns, rifles, shot guns, etc. That argument is like saying "You won't let me eat steak for dinner every night! You're trying to make me starve!" There are plenty of perfectly effective options still 100% available to you. I don't remember anyone whining that they aren't allowed to strap a .50 cal to the roof of their H2. How is this any different?

posted by Johio83 on Feb 05, 2013 at 10:46:54 am     #   3 people liked this

In other words, "WAAAAAAAAAA I decide what laws I'm gonna enforce, despite my oath of office!"

Shit...take a pill dude.

Here are some other on-the-books Ohio laws the sheriff doesn't enforce either.

Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public.

The Ohio driverís education manual states that you must honk the horn whenever you pass another car.

It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.

No civil arrests may be made on Sunday or on the Fourth of July.

posted by oldhometown on Feb 05, 2013 at 10:53:53 am     #  

And if the subject here is more about selective enforcement of laws rather than ginning up another 400 post gun thread...

Explain to me how a Chinese guy who comes to the country legally, pays taxes, shows he's a model citizen with a wife and young children (all U.S. citizens, by the way), and contributes to the community has the full weight of the INS thrown on him (including time in jail). Here's the story from 2011 from 13abc.

Yet anybody with a pulse can come across the (usually) southern border...some 11 or 12 million people....and suddenly they're just "undocumented guests", striving for the American Dream, allowed to stay ( in full view of law enforcement authorities ) and pretty much joked about as a "whattya gonna do" situation.

Talk about selective enforcement. Don't give me what the status of reform is now. No no. Illegal immigration is still...well... illegal.

So, when do we start the Obama impeachment since we missed out on the Bush 43, Clinton, and Bush 41 impeachments for allowing this illegal activity to go on?

You put a million Wei Zheng's in America and you'll have a great place to live. But he's the one the INS wants to get out of the country? Selective enforcement.

posted by oldhometown on Feb 05, 2013 at 11:08:31 am     #   2 people liked this

Correction, Mr. Zheng is here illegally (it is in the article). My bad. 21 years.

And all he did in that time was employ people and pay taxes. I thought people such as him were supposed to get a break. My bad again...

posted by oldhometown on Feb 05, 2013 at 11:18:36 am     #  

Mr. Zheng's 2 year visa he go when he was 17 expired and he simply stayed in the country. So he did enter legally, but is now illegal because he never extended his visa or attempted to gain citizenship.

posted by oldhometown on Feb 05, 2013 at 11:20:58 am     #  

MoreThanRhetoric posted at 07:44:12 AM on Feb 05, 2013:

"Well regulated"; two of the most misinterpreted and misapplied words in the Constitution.

Wrong, dumbass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 05, 2013 at 11:59:43 am     #  

justread posted at 08:35:55 AM on Feb 05, 2013:

They meant muskets, and they meant wealthy white men, too.

The intent was that goverment SHALL NOT disarm the true owners of the country, the people.

Wrong, dumbass!

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

The intent was to make the southern slave-holding states happy by making sure the slave patrol militias were armed and under state control.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 05, 2013 at 12:01:56 pm     #  

oldhometown posted at 09:53:53 AM on Feb 05, 2013:

In other words, "WAAAAAAAAAA I decide what laws I'm gonna enforce, despite my oath of office!"

Shit...take a pill dude.

Here are some other on-the-books Ohio laws the sheriff doesn't enforce either.

Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public.

The Ohio driverís education manual states that you must honk the horn whenever you pass another car.

It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.

No civil arrests may be made on Sunday or on the Fourth of July.

Your source sucks. The Ohio Revised code is online.

Nude boobies are allowed in public, as Columbus Police found out and had to make a payout on. http://gotopless.org/news.php?item.3.1

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 05, 2013 at 12:07:31 pm     #  

Your source sucks. The Ohio Revised code is online.

Unlike yourself, I don't have time to troll the ORC for endless hours. If you want to post to the statute, be my guest.

posted by oldhometown on Feb 05, 2013 at 12:16:37 pm     #   3 people liked this

To clarify arrests on a Sunday or Fourth of July:

2331.12 Days on which arrests may not be made.

No person shall be arrested during a sitting of the senate or house of representatives, within the hall where such session is being held, or in any court of justice during the sitting of such court, or on Sunday or on the fourth day of July.

2331.11 Privilege from arrest.

  • The following persons are privileged from arrest:*

(1) Members, the chief administrative officer of the house of representatives, the clerk of the house of representatives, clerks, sergeants at arms, and staff of the senate and house of representatives, during the sessions of the general assembly, and while traveling to and from such sessions;

(2) Electors, while going to, returning from, or in attendance at elections;

(3) Judges of the courts, while attending court, and also during the time necessarily employed in going to, holding, and returning from the court that it is their duty to attend;

(4) Attorneys, bailiffs, clerks of courts, sheriffs, coroners, constables, plaintiffs, defendants, jurors, and witnesses, and other officers or employees of the court, while going to, attending, or returning from court;

  • Persons who, on their traditional day of worship, are within, going to, or returning from their place of worship, are worshipping at a service, or are going to or returning from a service.*

(B) Whoever arrests a person in violation of division (A) of this section shall pay one hundred dollars, to be recovered by civil action, in the name and for the use of the person injured.

---
And now for the clincher:

2331.13 Application.

Sections 2331.11 to 2331.14, inclusive, of the Revised Code do not extend to cases of treason, felony, or breach of the peace, nor do they privilege any person specified in such sections from being served with a summons or notice to appear. Arrests not contrary to such sections made in any place or on any river or watercourse within or bounding upon this state are lawful.

Go ahead and resist arrest for DUI on the Fourth of July. I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 05, 2013 at 12:19:32 pm     #  

anonymouscoward posted at 10:59:43 AM on Feb 05, 2013:
MoreThanRhetoric posted at 07:44:12 AM on Feb 05, 2013:

"Well regulated"; two of the most misinterpreted and misapplied words in the Constitution.

Wrong, dumbass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

MoreThanRhetoric: identified real lawyer who presumably took a Constitutional law course (perhaps two) in law school.

AC: rushing off to the Internet to prove an extremely general statement false.

Which of these two is the dumbass again?

posted by oldhometown on Feb 05, 2013 at 12:21:12 pm     #   2 people liked this

And there's the ORC search! Do you wash cars too?

posted by oldhometown on Feb 05, 2013 at 12:21:51 pm     #  

And if you can cite to Wikipedia, I see no shame in citing to WikiAnswers as a time saver:

WikiAnswers: Are there funny Ohio laws?

posted by oldhometown on Feb 05, 2013 at 12:23:13 pm     #  

researcher posted at 08:38:10 AM on Feb 05, 2013:
MoreThanRhetoric posted at 07:44:12 AM on Feb 05, 2013:

"Well regulated"; two of the most misinterpreted and misapplied words in the Constitution.

That depends on who you ask!

Depends on what the definition of "is" is. Bill Clinton

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 05, 2013 at 01:32:14 pm     #  

A question I have always wanted to ask.

I can read and understand the amendments to the constitution. They are written simple and straight forward. How can we say but...they really meant thus and so when they wrote these?

posted by jackie on Feb 05, 2013 at 02:01:52 pm     #  

The "regulate" in "well regulated militia" is a reference for the need to have a fighting force trained to a similar standard. Otherwise, we would have been vulnerable to a better-trained, better-armed enemy. The Constitution was specifically written as a document limiting governmental power.

As for AC, he is welcome to his opinion however ill-formed.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Feb 05, 2013 at 02:20:40 pm     #   2 people liked this

Incidentally, AC, the Militia Acts were specifically written to accomplish what I was referencing in my prior post. Who knew? Oh, wait, I did.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Feb 05, 2013 at 02:22:12 pm     #   2 people liked this

Was the Civilian Marksmanship Program designed to keep slavery intact?
Oh, no, that's right... it was to make sure that shooting skills were maintained among the regular folks as a national security measure. http://www.odcmp.com/

posted by justread on Feb 05, 2013 at 02:45:46 pm     #  

jackie posted at 01:01:52 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

A question I have always wanted to ask.

I can read and understand the amendments to the constitution. They are written simple and straight forward. How can we say but...they really meant thus and so when they wrote these?

Context.
A document written by the men who fled from and then declared war against a tyrannical government that had too many powers and taxes can be read differently than a document written by men who valued larger government and less freedoms.

The framers of our constitution were the former, not the latter.

posted by justread on Feb 05, 2013 at 02:49:23 pm     #  

Jackie:

There are also a lot of ancillary documents that shed light. Look at the writings of Jefferson, Payne, and others who were instrumental in the formation of the Nation. You can also look at a lot of the laws and decisions of the courts written in the years after ratification.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Feb 05, 2013 at 03:05:23 pm     #  

jackie posted at 01:01:52 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

A question I have always wanted to ask.

I can read and understand the amendments to the constitution. They are written simple and straight forward. How can we say but...they really meant thus and so when they wrote these?

How can we say it? Real easy: you just say it. Everyone wants the constitution to mean exactly what they want it to mean. Folks on all sides will play with it to fit their own needs while all the while claiming to love that document like no other. This is how you still have people in favor of school-led prayer, even though it is a clear violation of the first amendment.

posted by Sohio on Feb 05, 2013 at 03:10:01 pm     #  

justread posted at 01:49:23 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
jackie posted at 01:01:52 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

A question I have always wanted to ask.

I can read and understand the amendments to the constitution. They are written simple and straight forward. How can we say but...they really meant thus and so when they wrote these?

Context.
A document written by the men who fled from and then declared war against a tyrannical government that had too many powers and taxes can be read differently than a document written by men who valued larger government and less freedoms.

The framers of our constitution were the former, not the latter.

What the framers 'were' is hardly relevant, and is easily shot full of holes. This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free, and who saw no need for a woman to be allowed to vote. SO, if you want to base our current path on the supposed morality and principles and convictions of the founders, you're going to come up short. Perhaps they were aware of this themselves, which is why they gave us the Supreme Court; so that we have a more stable mechanism for upholding the constitution than simply asking "hmmm, what would those guys have thought?"

posted by Sohio on Feb 05, 2013 at 03:18:21 pm     #   1 person liked this

AC said: So, GZarthy, you like the idea of law enforcement that selectively enforces the law per THEIR interpretation?

You know, the irony here's so thick that you could build a bridge out of it.

The people not obeying the law here, are the Liberals. They are ignoring the Second Amendment. They are also ignoring the part of Ohio's constitution that mimics the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms can't be infringed therefore by ANY level of government in Ohio.

Heldman is merely affirming that fact. It doesn't matter what the President says. It doesn't matter what the Congress says. It doesn't matter what you dwindling legions of Liberals say. Heldman is right and he's standing by what's right.

Good luck getting him out of office. Hancock County is full of those 'teabaggers' and other types who obey the law of the land. Being a Liberal today must be truly fraught with daily frustrations; AC, have you considered taking medication to calm yourself? Stress kills, after all.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 05, 2013 at 03:33:33 pm     #  

Sohio said: This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free, and who saw no need for a woman to be allowed to vote.

And those problems were corrected by the appropriate legal action that changed the US constitution itself. Note well that appropriate legal action is NOT what the Liberals are doing when they try to ban guns. They refuse to follow the procedure... probably because as with all children, they know they'll just lose, so they dismiss it.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 05, 2013 at 03:36:20 pm     #  

1.) The Founders gave us the ability to amend the Constitution to adapt to changing times. Thus, slavery was abolished, women given the right to vote, and income tax could be federally levied. None of which happened at the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court is not a "stable mechanism" as you termed it. If it was, the holdings of Plesssy v. Furgueson would still be law. They were overturned...as are many decisions of the past.

2.) "Supposed morality and principles and convictions of the founders"? Those men were steeped more deeply in timeless human and political philosophy than you or I and 99.999% of America today.

Thomas Jefferson's genius is not forever invalidated because he owned slaves. Nor are the other Founders. It may be the original sin of this country, but it does not render useless their thought and writing about humanity, politics, religion, and other things simply because in 2013 we (correctly) find slavery abhorrent.

And one of the biggest fights at the 1787 Constitutional Convention was over slavery, and there were many Founders against the practice...so to tarnish all with the same brush is paraphrasing a great bit from George Carlin. Many prominent Founders were slaveholders, but not all.

posted by oldhometown on Feb 05, 2013 at 03:39:24 pm     #  

Johio said: The 2nd and 3rd words of the 2nd amendment are "well regulated." Not being able to have an assault rifle is not equal to not being able to have a gun. The amendment doesn't say "right to have whatever weapon you feel like."

That's a typical Liberal tack to attack the Second Amendment. There are about a dozen such tactics and your sort of people have been using them regardless of how discredited they are.

The word "regulate" as used in the Second Amendment means the act of being called up for duty in the militia. Nothing more or less. Just because that definition has fallen to the wayside in the intervening centuries, doesn't mean the original meaning changed.

The intent of the Second Amendment can't be any clearer, except to a Liberal: You must have the right to keep and bear arms first, to ever fulfill your duties if called up for action in the militia.

And that's how we've done it all this time, for centuries, until that loathsome creature called the Liberal appeared in the 1970s and started denying centuries of well established law. Not that that creature had any legal basis for the denials; no, he just didn't like the laws and wanted them to be different.

So how we use the Second Amendment now is how it's only to be used. The federal government can't infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. Period. There's no decision point buried in there about which pistol or which rifle or which knife a person is allowed to have. Also period.

And if you don't like that, then amend the US constitution again.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 05, 2013 at 03:51:17 pm     #  

GZ:

You don't add anything to your argument or your overriding concern for the 2nd Amendment by constantly spewing the word liberal. I am liberal on a huge number of social issues but strongly support the 2nd Amendment. I am not saying you have to care about the opinions of others, but if you truly want to preserve the right to bear arms you need to consider the manner in which you deliver the message.

Of course, the same goes for AC and a host of other posters...

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Feb 05, 2013 at 03:58:03 pm     #   1 person liked this

Sohio posted at 02:18:21 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
justread posted at 01:49:23 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
jackie posted at 01:01:52 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

A question I have always wanted to ask.

I can read and understand the amendments to the constitution. They are written simple and straight forward. How can we say but...they really meant thus and so when they wrote these?

Context.
A document written by the men who fled from and then declared war against a tyrannical government that had too many powers and taxes can be read differently than a document written by men who valued larger government and less freedoms.

The framers of our constitution were the former, not the latter.

What the framers 'were' is hardly relevant, and is easily shot full of holes. This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free, and who saw no need for a woman to be allowed to vote. SO, if you want to base our current path on the supposed morality and principles and convictions of the founders, you're going to come up short. Perhaps they were aware of this themselves, which is why they gave us the Supreme Court; so that we have a more stable mechanism for upholding the constitution than simply asking "hmmm, what would those guys have thought?"

A document that was written by the men who fled from and then declared war against a tyrannical government had little to do with slaves. Slavery was not created by the Declaration of Independence. Nor was it a particular byproduct of the American Revolution, nor was it causal. It was a secondary issue.

I would not like to base our current path on the supposed morality of the framers. I was explaining what I meant by "context" in regard to a document that was designed to limit powers of government by men who wisely wished to limit powers of government.

Slavery is a straw man to my comment and my point.

posted by justread on Feb 05, 2013 at 04:01:01 pm     #  

oldhometown posted at 02:39:24 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

1.) The Founders gave us the ability to amend the Constitution to adapt to changing times. Thus, slavery was abolished, women given the right to vote, and income tax could be federally levied. None of which happened at the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court is not a "stable mechanism" as you termed it. If it was, the holdings of Plesssy v. Furgueson would still be law. They were overturned...as are many decisions of the past.

2.) "Supposed morality and principles and convictions of the founders"? Those men were steeped more deeply in timeless human and political philosophy than you or I and 99.999% of America today.

Thomas Jefferson's genius is not forever invalidated because he owned slaves. Nor are the other Founders. It may be the original sin of this country, but it does not render useless their thought and writing about humanity, politics, religion, and other things simply because in 2013 we (correctly) find slavery abhorrent.

And one of the biggest fights at the 1787 Constitutional Convention was over slavery, and there were many Founders against the practice...so to tarnish all with the same brush is paraphrasing a great bit from George Carlin. Many prominent Founders were slaveholders, but not all.

1. True enough. The fact remains, though, that the Supreme Court is the final authority over constitutional matters. And that court is a decidedly stable mechanism; you are confusing stability with virtue. Just because they have not always been right or just does not mean they are not stable. Perhaps 'organized' would have been a better choice of words than 'stable'...or 'accountable.' I think a more factual statement would be that Plessy v. Ferguson was not a stable ruling.

2. 'Those men were steeped more deeply in timeless human and political philosophy than you or I and 99.999% of America today.'
--That is a pretty broad assertion, and a matter of opinion.

'Thomas Jefferson's genius is not forever invalidated because he owned slaves.'
--I agree. But it does offer context. Much like our leaders of today, they were not perfect men, so there's no need to deify them as if they were.

'paraphrasing a great bit from George Carlin.'
--You're right, that was ripped off from Carlin, I meant to note that but forgot.

posted by Sohio on Feb 05, 2013 at 04:55:05 pm     #  

justread posted at 03:01:01 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
Sohio posted at 02:18:21 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
justread posted at 01:49:23 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
jackie posted at 01:01:52 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

A question I have always wanted to ask.

I can read and understand the amendments to the constitution. They are written simple and straight forward. How can we say but...they really meant thus and so when they wrote these?

Context.
A document written by the men who fled from and then declared war against a tyrannical government that had too many powers and taxes can be read differently than a document written by men who valued larger government and less freedoms.

The framers of our constitution were the former, not the latter.

What the framers 'were' is hardly relevant, and is easily shot full of holes. This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free, and who saw no need for a woman to be allowed to vote. SO, if you want to base our current path on the supposed morality and principles and convictions of the founders, you're going to come up short. Perhaps they were aware of this themselves, which is why they gave us the Supreme Court; so that we have a more stable mechanism for upholding the constitution than simply asking "hmmm, what would those guys have thought?"

A document that was written by the men who fled from and then declared war against a tyrannical government had little to do with slaves. Slavery was not created by the Declaration of Independence. Nor was it a particular byproduct of the American Revolution, nor was it causal. It was a secondary issue.

I would not like to base our current path on the supposed morality of the framers. I was explaining what I meant by "context" in regard to a document that was designed to limit powers of government by men who wisely wished to limit powers of government.

Slavery is a straw man to my comment and my point.

It's not a straw man, justread. If you're looking for context simply based on their backgrounds, you'll find things in their backgrounds that could be used to invalidate the more positive things that you are trying to contextualize. That they were rebelling against tyrants does not mean they were wholly for limiting government. The Federalists were actually in favor of a robust central government, and John Adams famously outlawed criticizing the government. There are plenty of historical accounts of one group of people fighting for liberty, only to foist servitude on another class once they achieve it.

posted by Sohio on Feb 05, 2013 at 05:15:54 pm     #  

History lesson from GZ:

"And that's how we've done it all this time, for centuries, until that loathsome creature called the Liberal appeared in the 1970s and started denying centuries of well established law. Not that that creature had any legal basis for the denials; no, he just didn't like the laws and wanted them to be different."

Yes, that loathsome creature called the LIBERAL. We first starting seeing these objectionable beasts in the 1970s, when President Franklin Roosevelt was first elected...!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

posted by Sohio on Feb 05, 2013 at 05:21:38 pm     #   3 people liked this

The focus of my context in regard to the constitution was the singular issue of recent throwing off of a government. I submit that rebellion is a strong indicator of recent oppression.

The rest is wonderful and interesting. But not part of the context to which I referred.

posted by justread on Feb 05, 2013 at 05:33:07 pm     #  

The Constitution is a flawed document written by flawed men. Learn, evolve, and grow.

posted by researcher on Feb 05, 2013 at 05:46:01 pm     #  

justread posted at 04:33:07 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

The focus of my context in regard to the constitution was the singular issue of recent throwing off of a government. I submit that rebellion is a strong indicator of recent oppression.

The rest is wonderful and interesting. But not part of the context to which I referred.

'I submit that rebellion is a strong indicator of recent oppression.'

OK, fine. But it is not a reliable indicator of a lack of subsequent oppression, and therefore not much good in determining the disposition toward oppression of those undertaking the rebellion. Is it oppression they hate, or just the fact that they are the oppressed and not the oppressors?

posted by Sohio on Feb 05, 2013 at 05:52:58 pm     #  

Mr. Prosecutor, I submit George Washington's refusal to be "king" as an indication of state of mind regarding oppression and powers of government in the late 1700s.

posted by justread on Feb 05, 2013 at 05:57:07 pm     #  

Your point is well made, btw...

posted by justread on Feb 05, 2013 at 05:58:16 pm     #  

The Constitution is a flawed document written by flawed men. Learn, evolve, and grow.

Which is why there are 27 amendments (1 repealed) as the nation has learned, evolved, and grown over the past 226 years since the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

You are free to change the Constitution any time you please. Get 2/3 of each the House and Senate to vote for it and 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify it. Done deal. Yes, it's difficult for a reason. There's no reason to change the foundation of government on whims of a few or even the "learned" among us. Of the people, by the people, for the people, you know...

The bigger "flaws" are in legislation proposed, and some passed, by a Congress that gives into fears, fads of the moment, outright patronage, or flat misrepresentations of Constitutional issues.

posted by oldhometown on Feb 05, 2013 at 06:33:17 pm     #   2 people liked this

justread posted at 04:57:07 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

Mr. Prosecutor, I submit George Washington's refusal to be "king" as an indication of state of mind regarding oppression and powers of government in the late 1700s.

Point taken, Counselor. However, I would suggest that what your are referring to is more indicative of the late Mr. Washington's disposition toward a monarchistic form of government, as opposed to his state of mind on the general issue of oppression. If there is no risk of oppression from a democratic government, then we have nothing to fear from Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or anyone else.

posted by Sohio on Feb 05, 2013 at 07:27:58 pm     #  

Sohio posted at 06:27:58 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
justread posted at 04:57:07 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

Mr. Prosecutor, I submit George Washington's refusal to be "king" as an indication of state of mind regarding oppression and powers of government in the late 1700s.

Point taken, Counselor. However, I would suggest that what your are referring to is more indicative of the late Mr. Washington's disposition toward a monarchistic form of government, as opposed to his state of mind on the general issue of oppression. If there is no risk of oppression from a democratic government, then we have nothing to fear from Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or anyone else.

Maybe there is just less risk of oppression from a "constitutionally limited representative democratic republic."

Btw... interesting conversation. I enjoyed it. You made some great points.

posted by justread on Feb 05, 2013 at 07:43:19 pm     #  

oldhometown posted at 05:33:17 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

The Constitution is a flawed document written by flawed men. Learn, evolve, and grow.

Which is why there are 27 amendments (1 repealed) as the nation has learned, evolved, and grown over the past 226 years since the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

You are free to change the Constitution any time you please. Get 2/3 of each the House and Senate to vote for it and 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify it. Done deal. Yes, it's difficult for a reason. There's no reason to change the foundation of government on whims of a few or even the "learned" among us. Of the people, by the people, for the people, you know...

The bigger "flaws" are in legislation proposed, and some passed, by a Congress that gives into fears, fads of the moment, outright patronage, or flat misrepresentations of Constitutional issues.

It wouldn't be as difficult if much of the electorate could be transported back to 1787 without an intellectual difference. That's proven by the anti-intellectual posts displayed here in every thread, but especially the BGSU-FA thread.

My life is good, fortunately, so I don't have to worry too much. Us in the "Golden Class" can sit upon high and laugh at the masses.

posted by researcher on Feb 05, 2013 at 08:34:13 pm     #  

Researcher said: Us in the "Golden Class" can sit upon high and laugh at the masses.

Yeah, Marie Antoinette didn't get it either.

History doesn't so much as repeat but continue to rhyme.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 05, 2013 at 09:40:51 pm     #  

MTR said: You don't add anything to your argument or your overriding concern for the 2nd Amendment by constantly spewing the word liberal.

I do add to my argument... contempt is what I'm adding. You're free to ignore it. You're even free to mouth off about it. But what you can't do is actually control it. It's the hardest lesson for Liberals to learn.

Liberals need as a class to stop with the gun-grabbing rhetoric. But that doesn't really matter, since you're also forgetting that we don't need Liberals on "our side". The gun confiscators will merely spark civil war, and as the disarmed side, they will lose. We don't need you. We want this war to happen, because Liberalism has already destroyed the social fabric of what it means to be a citizen of the American Republic. Never, ever forget that. We're merely waiting for the war to start, hence all our stockpiling activity.

Your move. Make it a good one.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 05, 2013 at 09:49:07 pm     #  

Go read the first drafts of the Second Amendment:

So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Except that the people who were allowed to keep and bear arms were not the slaves, nor women, nor non-free white men.

In other words, right at the start, despite what you gun nuts and ultra-literal conservative readers believe, gun control existed.

And then, BAM!, 1792! you had the Militia Acts, REQUIRING all free white men between 18 and 45 to BUY ARMS AND REPORT FOR MILITIA TRAINING. You know what that was, right? A GOVERNMENT MANDATE TO BUY SOMETHING! Now, by all means, tell me why the government in 1792 could mandate you buy arms and serve in the militia, but the government in 2013 can't mandate Obamacare? Oh wait, getting off topic, but still, PRECEDENT! IN 1792 EVEN!

The clear intent of the Second Amendment was to be "the people have the right to keep and bear arms, as part of defense of the nation and the state as part of the militia", because, as is well-documented, the Founding Fathers were NOT fans of standing armies. I'd cite but I'm calling on the oh-so-great Constitutional scholar NoMoreThanRhetoric to disprove me first. Unfortunately for everyone, the militias got turned into the National Guard (another spot for NoMoreThanRhetoric to catch me out if he dares) and thus put as dual reservists under the Army Reserve as well.

We already know that the Founding Fathers didn't subscribe to the "hey, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed applies to EVERYONE!" theory because they loved the whole "free able-bodied white male citizen" thing and kept guns out of the hands of everyone who wasn't a free able-bodied white male citizen. We know that they didn't just say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", as it specifies "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

The militias were turned into the National Guard, and we have a standing Army. Why don't you nuts go rail against those things first, and then after those are disbanded, we can get back to how you NEED a dozen AR-15s and 100 round drum magazines at home to protect the nation from Iran or North Korea or rabid Canadian beavers or whatever big scary threat is being trumped up on talk radio today?

I got a real simple solution for all you gun nuts. It goes like this: If you want to keep and bear arms, you have to be part of the well-regulated militia. In other words, you get to be part of the National Guard, you get to serve your 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year, you get to be under the UCMJ, your "personal" weapons are now considered to be part of the militia, just like how you had to buy your own gun in 1792, and if you lose it or misuse it, you get to face court-martial and the prospect of firing squad or breaking big rocks into little rocks for the rest of your life in Leavenworth or bad conduct discharge and all your guns taken away. That also means the next time there's a natural disaster, you get to serve your country filling sandbags and passing out MREs and whatever other fun stuff the National Guard does during natural disasters. THEN you can go on about what great patriots you are and how much you love America.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 05, 2013 at 10:09:45 pm     #   2 people liked this

justread posted at 06:43:19 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
Sohio posted at 06:27:58 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
justread posted at 04:57:07 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

Mr. Prosecutor, I submit George Washington's refusal to be "king" as an indication of state of mind regarding oppression and powers of government in the late 1700s.

Point taken, Counselor. However, I would suggest that what your are referring to is more indicative of the late Mr. Washington's disposition toward a monarchistic form of government, as opposed to his state of mind on the general issue of oppression. If there is no risk of oppression from a democratic government, then we have nothing to fear from Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or anyone else.

Maybe there is just less risk of oppression from a "constitutionally limited representative democratic republic."

Btw... interesting conversation. I enjoyed it. You made some great points.

As did you, justread. It was a pleasure.

posted by Sohio on Feb 05, 2013 at 10:22:19 pm     #  

Sohio posted at 02:10:01 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
jackie posted at 01:01:52 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

A question I have always wanted to ask.

I can read and understand the amendments to the constitution. They are written simple and straight forward. How can we say but...they really meant thus and so when they wrote these?

How can we say it? Real easy: you just say it. Everyone wants the constitution to mean exactly what they want it to mean. Folks on all sides will play with it to fit their own needs while all the while claiming to love that document like no other. This is how you still have people in favor of school-led prayer, even though it is a clear violation of the first amendment.

Ah but denying people the right to pray is also a violation of the 1st amendment.

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 05, 2013 at 10:58:05 pm     #  

GuestZero posted at 08:49:07 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

MTR said: You don't add anything to your argument or your overriding concern for the 2nd Amendment by constantly spewing the word liberal.

I do add to my argument... contempt is what I'm adding. You're free to ignore it. You're even free to mouth off about it. But what you can't do is actually control it. It's the hardest lesson for Liberals to learn.

Liberals need as a class to stop with the gun-grabbing rhetoric. But that doesn't really matter, since you're also forgetting that we don't need Liberals on "our side". The gun confiscators will merely spark civil war, and as the disarmed side, they will lose. We don't need you. We want this war to happen, because Liberalism has already destroyed the social fabric of what it means to be a citizen of the American Republic. Never, ever forget that. We're merely waiting for the war to start, hence all our stockpiling activity.

Your move. Make it a good one.

I think MTRs point is that by constantly and indiscriminately throwing that word around, you add 'nothing' to an argument that is already without substance to begin with. If all you add is CONTEMPT, as you say, that proves it. A legitimate argument need not be peppered with such strong emotions. If you are secure in your thinking, you don't NEED contempt. The worst part is that you misuse the word 'liberal' so horribly, simply by using it as a byword for all which you disagree with; what you are doing is not actually presenting any sort of coherent argument...you're rambling. I have called you out on this before.

Case in point: I asked you this on another thread; was Ronald Reagan a liberal gun grabber? Because he supported the Brady Bill. read for yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

I asked you this before, you never answered. As usual. Since liberals are the only ones grabbing for your guns, do you want to tell me Reagan was a liberal?

You also still have not responded to my challenge on the other thread regarding liberals being at fault for the Giffords shooting in Arizona. I'm STILL waiting for you to show me how liberals had anything to do with that. See the other thread...if liberals are as devious as you say, surely you have an answer for that? Or is it just more of your insane mumblings...?
_
"Liberalism has already destroyed the social fabric of what it means to be a citizen of the American Republic."_
--Then you start in with this type of nonsense. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you believe this stuff, you're a lunatic. If you're just doing it for shock value you're a troll (or a possible deep-cover liberal). Either way, you need to get a life.

posted by Sohio on Feb 05, 2013 at 11:13:02 pm     #  

Linecrosser posted at 09:58:05 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
Sohio posted at 02:10:01 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
jackie posted at 01:01:52 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

A question I have always wanted to ask.

I can read and understand the amendments to the constitution. They are written simple and straight forward. How can we say but...they really meant thus and so when they wrote these?

How can we say it? Real easy: you just say it. Everyone wants the constitution to mean exactly what they want it to mean. Folks on all sides will play with it to fit their own needs while all the while claiming to love that document like no other. This is how you still have people in favor of school-led prayer, even though it is a clear violation of the first amendment.

Ah but denying people the right to pray is also a violation of the 1st amendment.

Will you quit it with the deliberate misinterpretation of the argument and the strawmen and red herrings and all that?

They're not forbidden from praying.

Get back on topic.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 05, 2013 at 11:18:53 pm     #  

Linecrosser posted at 09:58:05 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
Sohio posted at 02:10:01 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
jackie posted at 01:01:52 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

A question I have always wanted to ask.

I can read and understand the amendments to the constitution. They are written simple and straight forward. How can we say but...they really meant thus and so when they wrote these?

How can we say it? Real easy: you just say it. Everyone wants the constitution to mean exactly what they want it to mean. Folks on all sides will play with it to fit their own needs while all the while claiming to love that document like no other. This is how you still have people in favor of school-led prayer, even though it is a clear violation of the first amendment.

Ah but denying people the right to pray is also a violation of the 1st amendment.

Nobody is denying that. Prayer in that type of setting, if done alone, would generally be silent. Therefore, nobody could really stop you from praying even if they wanted to, which they don't. Unless you are making a show of it, nobody but you & God should even be able to tell you are praying. If you are praying out loud, that's a disturbance, and a teacher would be correct to tell you to be quiet.

posted by Sohio on Feb 05, 2013 at 11:19:03 pm     #  

I always thought GZ was just an angry old crank. Now there seems to be a strong case for serious mental illness. I hope you find the help you need before you end up dead or incarcerated for going well beyond the line of civil disobedience.

As a side note, you must have missed the part where I support the 2nd Amendment and essentially agree with your interpretation of its meaning.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Feb 05, 2013 at 11:21:51 pm     #   2 people liked this

anonymouscoward posted at 10:18:53 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
Linecrosser posted at 09:58:05 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
Sohio posted at 02:10:01 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
jackie posted at 01:01:52 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

A question I have always wanted to ask.

I can read and understand the amendments to the constitution. They are written simple and straight forward. How can we say but...they really meant thus and so when they wrote these?

How can we say it? Real easy: you just say it. Everyone wants the constitution to mean exactly what they want it to mean. Folks on all sides will play with it to fit their own needs while all the while claiming to love that document like no other. This is how you still have people in favor of school-led prayer, even though it is a clear violation of the first amendment.

Ah but denying people the right to pray is also a violation of the 1st amendment.

Will you quit it with the deliberate misinterpretation of the argument and the strawmen and red herrings and all that?

They're not forbidden from praying.

Get back on topic.

This is on topic, AC. We are discussing the general administration of laws and rights here. It all ties together.

It's all cool, man. Chill.

posted by Sohio on Feb 05, 2013 at 11:22:02 pm     #  

AC:

You seem to be unable to maintain a consistent argument. In any case, the militias were designed to be available to fend off attack on the free States. I'm not sure where you think you "got me" with that argument since it is the one I made when you first tried to march out the Militia Acts. The rest of your argument is entertaining but does nothing to alter the fact that the framers did not intend the Constitution to limit the rights of the people in any way. You can throw in straw men like free white males and the like, but the Constitution a demonstrated by whole host of writings was intended to be a check on governmental power.

As for your goofy little dig about universal healthcare (the mandate comment), I actually support the concept, but I think the current version is a terrible bastardized version of what should have been implemented. You are blind to the fact that most people do not ascribe to one political leaning or another. Folks like you and GZ are a constant impediment to real change because you can't accept the fact that you don't know everything.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Feb 05, 2013 at 11:43:04 pm     #  

Sohio posted at 10:13:02 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
GuestZero posted at 08:49:07 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

MTR said: You don't add anything to your argument or your overriding concern for the 2nd Amendment by constantly spewing the word liberal.

I do add to my argument... contempt is what I'm adding. You're free to ignore it. You're even free to mouth off about it. But what you can't do is actually control it. It's the hardest lesson for Liberals to learn.

Liberals need as a class to stop with the gun-grabbing rhetoric. But that doesn't really matter, since you're also forgetting that we don't need Liberals on "our side". The gun confiscators will merely spark civil war, and as the disarmed side, they will lose. We don't need you. We want this war to happen, because Liberalism has already destroyed the social fabric of what it means to be a citizen of the American Republic. Never, ever forget that. We're merely waiting for the war to start, hence all our stockpiling activity.

Your move. Make it a good one.

I think MTRs point is that by constantly and indiscriminately throwing that word around, you add 'nothing' to an argument that is already without substance to begin with. If all you add is CONTEMPT, as you say, that proves it. A legitimate argument need not be peppered with such strong emotions. If you are secure in your thinking, you don't NEED contempt. The worst part is that you misuse the word 'liberal' so horribly, simply by using it as a byword for all which you disagree with; what you are doing is not actually presenting any sort of coherent argument...you're rambling. I have called you out on this before.

Case in point: I asked you this on another thread; was Ronald Reagan a liberal gun grabber? Because he supported the Brady Bill. read for yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

I asked you this before, you never answered. As usual. Since liberals are the only ones grabbing for your guns, do you want to tell me Reagan was a liberal?

You also still have not responded to my challenge on the other thread regarding liberals being at fault for the Giffords shooting in Arizona. I'm STILL waiting for you to show me how liberals had anything to do with that. See the other thread...if liberals are as devious as you say, surely you have an answer for that? Or is it just more of your insane mumblings...?
_

"Liberalism has already destroyed the social fabric of what it means to be a citizen of the American Republic."_

--Then you start in with this type of nonsense. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you believe this stuff, you're a lunatic. If you're just doing it for shock value you're a troll (or a possible deep-cover liberal). Either way, you need to get a life.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/05/texas-man-guns-down-couple-over-dog-poop-on-his-porch/

I am kinda scared that this is the sort of thing GZarthy will end up doing.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 06, 2013 at 12:33:59 am     #  

GuestZero posted at 08:40:51 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

Researcher said: Us in the "Golden Class" can sit upon high and laugh at the masses.

Yeah, Marie Antoinette didn't get it either.

History doesn't so much as repeat but continue to rhyme.

You'll have to come out from your mother's basement to make something happen. Of course, we'll just smack you back in line.

posted by researcher on Feb 06, 2013 at 12:42:52 am     #  

researcher posted at 11:42:52 PM on Feb 05, 2013:
GuestZero posted at 08:40:51 PM on Feb 05, 2013:

Researcher said: Us in the "Golden Class" can sit upon high and laugh at the masses.

Yeah, Marie Antoinette didn't get it either.

History doesn't so much as repeat but continue to rhyme.

You'll have to come out from your mother's basement to make something happen. Of course, we'll just smack you back in line.

GZarthy doesn't live in his mom's basement. He has a Unabomber hut with a hand-built bunker. He's just ragingly jealous that we have real jobs vs. his gig as a Walmart greeter, and that we are can afford all the neat toys (guns) he wants but choose not to buy them, because that way he could be even more jealous of us.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 06, 2013 at 09:28:25 am     #  

From MoreThanRhetoric (addressing AC): You seem to be unable to maintain a consistent argument.

Is this the first time you've noticed this behavior?

From Researcher (addressing GZ): You'll have to come out from your mother's basement to make something happen. Of course, we'll just smack you back in line.

You'll get bitch slapped and put in your time out chair for your trouble.

posted by madjack on Feb 06, 2013 at 09:47:56 am     #  

AC said: I got a real simple solution for all you gun nuts. It goes like this: If you want to keep and bear arms, you have to be part of the well-regulated militia.

It's not a solution since there's no problem. We've been doing it correctly all along. What you're doing is called a 'Liberal invention'. You're trying to re-write history. There just hasn't been a decade in all of the history of the United States where a man could NOT go into a shop and obtain a firearm and ammunition, or he could NOT go into his workshop and construct one of those fine Kentucky rifles.

You Liberals are trying to overturn what's clearly been legal and perfectly fine all along... merely because you're afraid of guns and their owners. But you SHOULD be afraid of guns and their owners, since you people are the Fascists in this situation (all disarmament people are).

And when fear isn't enough, we're going to need those guns to herd you Liberals into the death camps. Like I said before, what else do you think we're preparing for? Guns are for killing people. That's what makes them useful. Blackie down the road knows that much, which is why he's afraid to kick in my door. Why aren't you White Liberals that smart?

posted by GuestZero on Feb 06, 2013 at 02:44:59 pm     #   1 person liked this

AC said: I am kinda scared that this is the sort of thing GZarthy will end up doing.

You've said that sort of thing for years. Sounds more like hope to me, not fear, given the frequency you've said it.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 06, 2013 at 02:51:36 pm     #   1 person liked this

MTR said: Folks like you and GZ are a constant impediment to real change because you can't accept the fact that you don't know everything.

Good. I don't want "real change" since that means taking away my right to keep and bar arms, which will cause a civil war since there's no other possible outcome to such a seizure.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 06, 2013 at 02:54:02 pm     #  

MTR said: As a side note, you must have missed the part where I support the 2nd Amendment and essentially agree with your interpretation of its meaning.

I got tired of watching sheep wander up and suddenly flash fur and teeth. I really can't recall a single instance of when I quizzed a Liberal that was "pro gun rights" and found they actually were. Usually it's something on the order of involving a government official to make the determination of who gets what gun, or some wholly invented restriction on where and when, etc. Total bullshit, in other words.

When you point out to a Liberal that you have the right to walk down the public sidewalk and into the public library with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder, they lose their fucking minds in about a microsecond. Therefore almost no Liberals actually believe in the right to keep and bear arms. There's always some specification or thirteen just stuffed in there that makes said Liberals feel safe about what's NOT a real right to keep and bear arms.

I suggest you start addressing that particular problem amongst your Liberal brethren, MTR. At work. At the dinner table. Etc. You Liberals as a class have so thoroughly discredited yourselves as gun owners, that the onus logically is upon you. All of you. Hey, how about all those Liberal politicians that you people vote for? They're unabashed gun grabbers. See what I mean?

posted by GuestZero on Feb 06, 2013 at 03:06:35 pm     #  

Have you completely lost touch with reality? You threaten civil war, death camps, etc...and "support" your psychotic rants with nothing but unsupported BS. I suspect I have far more experience with firearms than you. I would also venture a guess that I have a done more to protect the right to keep and bear those arms than you. Regardless of your status as either mentally ill or troll, you need to examine the path your life seems to be taking.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Feb 06, 2013 at 03:19:22 pm     #  

GuestZero posted at 02:06:35 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

MTR said: As a side note, you must have missed the part where I support the 2nd Amendment and essentially agree with your interpretation of its meaning.

I got tired of watching sheep wander up and suddenly flash fur and teeth. I really can't recall a single instance of when I quizzed a Liberal that was "pro gun rights" and found they actually were. Usually it's something on the order of involving a government official to make the determination of who gets what gun, or some wholly invented restriction on where and when, etc. Total bullshit, in other words.

When you point out to a Liberal that you have the right to walk down the public sidewalk and into the public library with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder, they lose their fucking minds in about a microsecond. Therefore almost no Liberals actually believe in the right to keep and bear arms. There's always some specification or thirteen just stuffed in there that makes said Liberals feel safe about what's NOT a real right to keep and bear arms.

I suggest you start addressing that particular problem amongst your Liberal brethren, MTR. At work. At the dinner table. Etc. You Liberals as a class have so thoroughly discredited yourselves as gun owners, that the onus logically is upon you. All of you. Hey, how about all those Liberal politicians that you people vote for? They're unabashed gun grabbers. See what I mean?

GZarthy, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the Second Amendment says "arms", not "guns". Neither you nor I have the right to own 40 lbs of C4, Sarin gas, anthrax, or 10 pounds of weapons-grade uranium. Therefore, "gun" (arms) control already exists. You've already accepted this. You're off tilting at windmills insisting that you have the right to own anything that resembles a gun that fires bullets or shot. As long as you do that and don't aim (heh!) for the bigger stuff, you're admitting the argument about "well-regulated militia" since you're clearly restricting yourself to what the (citizen) militia should be armed with.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 06, 2013 at 03:30:55 pm     #  

Repeated is right.

I'm still laughing about the "real job" comment.

posted by justread on Feb 06, 2013 at 03:34:32 pm     #  

madjack posted at 08:47:56 AM on Feb 06, 2013:

From MoreThanRhetoric (addressing AC): You seem to be unable to maintain a consistent argument.

Is this the first time you've noticed this behavior?

From Researcher (addressing GZ): You'll have to come out from your mother's basement to make something happen. Of course, we'll just smack you back in line.

You'll get bitch slapped and put in your time out chair for your trouble.

Reality is altered when you're drunk posting.

posted by researcher on Feb 06, 2013 at 04:07:28 pm     #  

justread posted at 02:34:32 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

Repeated is right.

I'm still laughing about the "real job" comment.

What's so funny about that? He's clearly pissed off at historymike's occupation. I don't get what's wrong with GZarthy other than he's pissed off that he can't work 14 hour days, 7 days a week, in a slaughterhouse with no regulations of any kind. Or maybe he's so old he did do that and is now pissed off that he's not a bajillionnaire and that people today aren't working that hard and have a better standard of living.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 06, 2013 at 04:09:07 pm     #  

GuestZero posted at 01:44:59 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

AC said: I got a real simple solution for all you gun nuts. It goes like this: If you want to keep and bear arms, you have to be part of the well-regulated militia.

It's not a solution since there's no problem. We've been doing it correctly all along. What you're doing is called a 'Liberal invention'. You're trying to re-write history. There just hasn't been a decade in all of the history of the United States where a man could NOT go into a shop and obtain a firearm and ammunition, or he could NOT go into his workshop and construct one of those fine Kentucky rifles.

You Liberals are trying to overturn what's clearly been legal and perfectly fine all along... merely because you're afraid of guns and their owners. But you SHOULD be afraid of guns and their owners, since you people are the Fascists in this situation (all disarmament people are).

And when fear isn't enough, we're going to need those guns to herd you Liberals into the death camps. Like I said before, what else do you think we're preparing for? Guns are for killing people. That's what makes them useful. Blackie down the road knows that much, which is why he's afraid to kick in my door. Why aren't you White Liberals that smart?

Were your ancestors saying the same thing up until slavery ended?

Sorry to ruin your party, whitey!

posted by researcher on Feb 06, 2013 at 04:10:24 pm     #  

GuestZero posted at 01:54:02 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

MTR said: Folks like you and GZ are a constant impediment to real change because you can't accept the fact that you don't know everything.

Good. I don't want "real change" since that means taking away my right to keep and bar arms, which will cause a civil war since there's no other possible outcome to such a seizure.

Sure there is. You'll just continue to cry about it online. That's the realistic outcome.

posted by researcher on Feb 06, 2013 at 04:11:36 pm     #  

GZ: I asked you a couple of questions. Care to respond?

posted by Sohio on Feb 06, 2013 at 04:30:23 pm     #  

anonymouscoward posted at 03:09:07 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
justread posted at 02:34:32 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

Repeated is right.

I'm still laughing about the "real job" comment.

What's so funny about that? He's clearly pissed off at historymike's occupation. I don't get what's wrong with GZarthy other than he's pissed off that he can't work 14 hour days, 7 days a week, in a slaughterhouse with no regulations of any kind. Or maybe he's so old he did do that and is now pissed off that he's not a bajillionnaire and that people today aren't working that hard and have a better standard of living.

Presumed IT guy to presumed Wal Mart greeter: "we have real jobs."

I find it bad luck and bad form to look down on other's occupations/earnings because there will always be lesser and greater people than myself (with a tip of the hat to the Desiderata) It's just bad juju. I have been lucky, and I don't want to jinx it, so it is not my intent to engage in it. Besides, to an actual wealthy person, the three of us are in the same class.

Having said that, what was funny? Relatively poor people making fun of poor people for being even more poor and talking about all the things that they can buy that the guy who is even more poor can't.
It's like the black on black racism where the light skinned black people make fun of darker skinned black people, as if they aren't both black or something.

Sorry, it just cracked me up.

posted by justread on Feb 06, 2013 at 04:39:28 pm     #   1 person liked this

Well I seen the race card thrown in, slavery, escalation of arms/guns rights to include explosives and heavy weaponry. Its amazing how liberals use those ploys to further their arguments.

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 06, 2013 at 06:41:48 pm     #  

MTR said: Have you completely lost touch with reality?

No, the Liberals have. They got a taste of tolerated unconstitutionality with the 1994 gun ban and now they won't accept anything less. Look at AC. He just makes up terms wildly, jumping from one justification and assumption to another to somehow arrive at the ability to ban guns, which wasn't legal and isn't legal. I call it "Liberal invention" where Liberals start making up new definitions for things just to bypass the U.S. Constitution.

The reality here is that we gun owners had been law abiding but complacent all this time, and look how far it's gotten: Any psycho that wants to rack up a body count just packs his carrybag with some guns and heads for a public school. 30 dead, easy, without even trying. And that's because everyone in that school is disarmed, which in Ohio is in clear violation of the Ohio constitution.

So in the final analysis, we're just putting the Liberals on notice: Try to take our guns, and we'll kill you for it. It's pure self defense and it won't bother us any more than it does to flush the toilet, for the same reason. Those who oppress free men deserve death. This is what being Human is all about, post-Enlightenment.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 06, 2013 at 07:34:33 pm     #  

No one played the race card. Unless you are referring to GZ's indefensible rant which included a mention of his "blackie" neighbors who he apparently threatens with bodily harm.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Feb 06, 2013 at 07:36:47 pm     #   2 people liked this

Linecrosser posted at 05:41:48 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

Well I seen the race card thrown in, slavery, escalation of arms/guns rights to include explosives and heavy weaponry. Its amazing how liberals use those ploys to further their arguments.

I think slavery was only brought up as a tangential point to the wider discussion.

And as for 'escalation of arms/guns rights to include explosives and heavy weaponry'; such a slippery-slope argument is no different than claiming that mild gun laws are a slippery slope to full firearm confiscation. It goes both ways. Slippery slopes do indeed exist; but if you blindly accept slippery-slope logic, well, the slope can go both ways.

posted by Sohio on Feb 06, 2013 at 08:01:27 pm     #   3 people liked this

I do not believe that a discussion containing references to slavery in relation to the larger picture of civil rights in American civil/individual rights history is "The Race Card."

posted by justread on Feb 06, 2013 at 08:15:14 pm     #   2 people liked this

Sohio posted at 07:01:27 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
Linecrosser posted at 05:41:48 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

Well I seen the race card thrown in, slavery, escalation of arms/guns rights to include explosives and heavy weaponry. Its amazing how liberals use those ploys to further their arguments.

I think slavery was only brought up as a tangential point to the wider discussion.

And as for 'escalation of arms/guns rights to include explosives and heavy weaponry'; such a slippery-slope argument is no different than claiming that mild gun laws are a slippery slope to full firearm confiscation. It goes both ways. Slippery slopes do indeed exist; but if you blindly accept slippery-slope logic, well, the slope can go both ways.

What is a "mild" gun law? I'd like to separate the "mild" gun laws from the "wild" gun laws. And it will be a big job, because there are tens of thousands of them.

Firearm confiscation ain't gonna happen. I believe that Madam Feinstein said "Dry up the supply" and that, has been quickly accomplished.

posted by justread on Feb 06, 2013 at 08:17:56 pm     #  

Linecrosser posted at 05:41:48 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

Well I seen the race card thrown in, slavery, escalation of arms/guns rights to include explosives and heavy weaponry. Its amazing how liberals use those ploys to further their arguments.

You might want to back your ass up to where GZarthy started us off with his "LIBERALS!" and his misogyny -- "And Feinstein was basically told to stuff her "assault weapon" ban right back up her cunt. LOL!"

You've got nothing on bitching about "liberal arguments" until your side decides to apologize for that.

That's also why Team Teabagger and Team GOP are in deep shit with a lot of voters. Too bad you guys seem to lack a way of "shutting down" the crap that comes out of your mouths. Not that I really want you to, of course. Keep up fucking that chicken, and the voters will decide they don't want you guys in office.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 06, 2013 at 09:06:20 pm     #  

"And that's because everyone in that school is disarmed, which in Ohio is in clear violation of the Ohio constitution." --GZarthy

HEY EVERYONE, GZARTHY WANTS TO ARM SCHOOLCHILDREN AND SEND THEM TO SCHOOL!

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 06, 2013 at 09:07:45 pm     #  

"So in the final analysis, we're just putting the Liberals on notice: Try to take our guns, and we'll kill you for it. It's pure self defense and it won't bother us any more than it does to flush the toilet, for the same reason." -- GZarthy

Conclusion: GZarthy is a sociopath/psychopath and paranoid delusional. The next time the cops knock at his door for anything, he's gonna either shoot them outright, believing they're agents of Obama come to take his guns away, or he'll retreat into his bunker and start a 2-week armed standoff until he runs out of drinking water and baked beans.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 06, 2013 at 09:11:35 pm     #  

justread posted at 07:15:14 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

I do not believe that a discussion containing references to slavery in relation to the larger picture of civil rights in American civil/individual rights history is "The Race Card."

My god, a conservative-leaning person being RATIONAL. Too bad you're one in a thousand.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 06, 2013 at 09:12:47 pm     #  

researcher posted at 03:07:28 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
madjack posted at 08:47:56 AM on Feb 06, 2013:

From MoreThanRhetoric (addressing AC): You seem to be unable to maintain a consistent argument.

Is this the first time you've noticed this behavior?

From Researcher (addressing GZ): You'll have to come out from your mother's basement to make something happen. Of course, we'll just smack you back in line.

You'll get bitch slapped and put in your time out chair for your trouble.

Reality is altered when you're drunk posting.

While it is certainly true that I am, as I write this, inebriated. You, on the other hand, are stupid. Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be stupid.

- credit to W.C. Fields

posted by madjack on Feb 06, 2013 at 09:23:16 pm     #   1 person liked this

Linecrosser posted at 05:41:48 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

Well I seen the race card thrown in, slavery, escalation of arms/guns rights to include explosives and heavy weaponry. Its amazing how liberals use those ploys to further their arguments.

What's amazing is that the Moonbats use these ploys in all sincerity. They actually believe their own bullshit.

posted by madjack on Feb 06, 2013 at 09:26:38 pm     #  

From JustRead: Firearm confiscation ain't gonna happen.

Confiscation of civilian firearms

Hurricane Katrina Gun Confiscation Revisited

Gun Confiscation During Hurricane Katrina

You might want to re-think that one. Just sayin'.

posted by madjack on Feb 06, 2013 at 09:40:15 pm     #  

madjack posted at 08:23:16 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
researcher posted at 03:07:28 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
madjack posted at 08:47:56 AM on Feb 06, 2013:

From MoreThanRhetoric (addressing AC): You seem to be unable to maintain a consistent argument.

Is this the first time you've noticed this behavior?

From Researcher (addressing GZ): You'll have to come out from your mother's basement to make something happen. Of course, we'll just smack you back in line.

You'll get bitch slapped and put in your time out chair for your trouble.

Reality is altered when you're drunk posting.

While it is certainly true that I am, as I write this, inebriated. You, on the other hand, are stupid. Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be stupid.

- credit to W.C. Fields

And, no matter what, you will be a far-right conservative gun nut with an admitted substance abuse problem.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 06, 2013 at 09:42:16 pm     #  

madjack posted at 08:26:38 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
Linecrosser posted at 05:41:48 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

Well I seen the race card thrown in, slavery, escalation of arms/guns rights to include explosives and heavy weaponry. Its amazing how liberals use those ploys to further their arguments.

What's amazing is that the Moonbats use these ploys in all sincerity. They actually believe their own bullshit.

Says someone on the side that believes Obama's birth certificate is a fake, believed the "UnskewedPolls" guy and all the predictions of Romney's win on Fox News and talk radio, and that there were WMDs in Iraq and that Dubya was bound and determined to get bin Laden "dead or alive". As well as all the crap about "Obamacare death panels", "Obama is a socialist", and so on.

Do I really need to go find the video of Karl Rove losing his shit on Election Night, or all the conservatives claiming Romney would win with 300+ EVs?

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 06, 2013 at 09:48:25 pm     #  

madjack posted at 08:40:15 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

From JustRead: Firearm confiscation ain't gonna happen.

Confiscation of civilian firearms

Hurricane Katrina Gun Confiscation Revisited

Gun Confiscation During Hurricane Katrina

You might want to re-think that one. Just sayin'.

"city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals"

And who was President and as such head of the Executive Branch with the authority to tell the ANG and the US Marshalls to ignore this unconstitutional order?

Yeah.

Did he?

Yeah, thought you'd say that.

Therefore, Bush and the GOP are gun-grabbers too.

How do you like those apples?

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 06, 2013 at 09:52:39 pm     #  

MTR said: Unless you are referring to GZ's indefensible rant which included a mention of his "blackie" neighbors who he apparently threatens with bodily harm.

Uh, MTR, when we quote, we bother to quote correctly: "Blackie". That's a proper name, in this case a nickname, but a name at any rate. Blackie is this 4-time loser who lives a few doors down from me, and he's long been suspected to be a neighborhood burglar.

And it's not a threat, but a promise, that if you kick in my door that I'm going to put about 3 bullets in your center of mass, and then walk the line of bullets up to your head if you didn't fall down at that point. Self defense isn't a threat.

[sigh] Once we draw you out, you Liberals really do act all the same about gun ownership and use.

In conclusion, it's sad that (1) you assumed it was a racial slur or identifier, and (2) you can't even quote right, which one learns to do in high school, but perhaps not in the TPS, I'd wager.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 07, 2013 at 12:08:34 am     #  

GZ, you are so full of shit it is positively unbelievable.

posted by Sohio on Feb 07, 2013 at 04:17:06 am     #   1 person liked this

madjack posted at 08:40:15 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

From JustRead: Firearm confiscation ain't gonna happen.

Confiscation of civilian firearms

Hurricane Katrina Gun Confiscation Revisited

Gun Confiscation During Hurricane Katrina

You might want to re-think that one. Just sayin'.

You are right. Can't argue with that situation. I was familiar with some of those instances, and I don't disagree. I remember reading about people who responding with warning shots.

I was thinking federal troops going door to door as a policy set by a rogue administration, like Herod's men looking for boys under 3. That was what I couldn't picture happening. Rather, I think that they will use other means of control over time, and it is already happening.

posted by justread on Feb 07, 2013 at 07:26:07 am     #  

anonymouscoward posted at 08:42:16 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
madjack posted at 08:23:16 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
researcher posted at 03:07:28 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
madjack posted at 08:47:56 AM on Feb 06, 2013:

From MoreThanRhetoric (addressing AC): You seem to be unable to maintain a consistent argument.

Is this the first time you've noticed this behavior?

From Researcher (addressing GZ): You'll have to come out from your mother's basement to make something happen. Of course, we'll just smack you back in line.

You'll get bitch slapped and put in your time out chair for your trouble.

Reality is altered when you're drunk posting.

While it is certainly true that I am, as I write this, inebriated. You, on the other hand, are stupid. Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be stupid.

- credit to W.C. Fields

And, no matter what, you will be a far-right conservative gun nut with an admitted substance abuse problem.

Why is he so dam funny and likeable?
Maybe it is the authenticity.

Maybe the drinking thing is more of a "schtick" than a crutch, half real, half literary device...Maybe he is like the Dean Martin of Dogpatch.

posted by justread on Feb 07, 2013 at 07:34:18 am     #  

AC said:
"That's also why Team Teabagger and Team GOP are in deep shit with a lot of voters."

I don't know that there is a "Team Teabagger." I think that the Tea party is less relevant to conservatives than it is to you, as you need polar opposites to process logic for some reason. Like your world is black and white. No gray allowed. You use "teabagger" more well.... liberally than many here use LLLLLLLLIBERAL.

Anyway... from my "conservative leaning" perspective, Team GOP is in deep shit because they allowed themselves to be hijacked by the uber religious right. I think that many conservatives are more moderate than that, but in an attempt to differentiate, the party drifted too far right. This does not ivalidate conservativism, in my opinion. It invalidates extremism. Hint hint.

The challenge is how to bring conservatism back from the right edge of the table without pandering to the extreme left. In my opinion, both parties have become extreme versions of their former selves.

posted by justread on Feb 07, 2013 at 07:42:15 am     #   1 person liked this

Nice try, GZ. First, blackie was capitalized because it was the first word in a sentence, not because it was a name as you claim. Second, that is supported by your immediate use of the phrase white liberals in the NRC sentence - a phrase you have not used previously. Finally, none of that has anything to do with MY views on gun ownership.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Feb 07, 2013 at 08:55:15 am     #  

Or "next" sentence.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Feb 07, 2013 at 08:56:54 am     #  

If only the backpedaling of GZarthy and his fellows could be converted into electricity....

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 07, 2013 at 10:53:40 am     #  

From my perspective, GZ seems to be an individual, rather than a representative of a group.

Who are his "fellows?"

Are they the people that we assume must be like him, that we have never met, spoken with or seen?

posted by justread on Feb 07, 2013 at 10:55:45 am     #  

justread posted at 06:34:18 AM on Feb 07, 2013:
anonymouscoward posted at 08:42:16 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
madjack posted at 08:23:16 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
researcher posted at 03:07:28 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
madjack posted at 08:47:56 AM on Feb 06, 2013:

From MoreThanRhetoric (addressing AC): You seem to be unable to maintain a consistent argument.

Is this the first time you've noticed this behavior?

From Researcher (addressing GZ): You'll have to come out from your mother's basement to make something happen. Of course, we'll just smack you back in line.

You'll get bitch slapped and put in your time out chair for your trouble.

Reality is altered when you're drunk posting.

While it is certainly true that I am, as I write this, inebriated. You, on the other hand, are stupid. Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be stupid.

- credit to W.C. Fields

And, no matter what, you will be a far-right conservative gun nut with an admitted substance abuse problem.

Why is he so dam funny and likeable?
Maybe it is the authenticity.

Maybe the drinking thing is more of a "schtick" than a crutch, half real, half literary device...Maybe he is like the Dean Martin of Dogpatch.

Birds of a feather?

posted by researcher on Feb 07, 2013 at 12:33:38 pm     #  

madjack posted at 08:23:16 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
researcher posted at 03:07:28 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
madjack posted at 08:47:56 AM on Feb 06, 2013:

From MoreThanRhetoric (addressing AC): You seem to be unable to maintain a consistent argument.

Is this the first time you've noticed this behavior?

From Researcher (addressing GZ): You'll have to come out from your mother's basement to make something happen. Of course, we'll just smack you back in line.

You'll get bitch slapped and put in your time out chair for your trouble.

Reality is altered when you're drunk posting.

While it is certainly true that I am, as I write this, inebriated. You, on the other hand, are stupid. Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be stupid.

- credit to W.C. Fields

Not stupid enough to defend GZ.

posted by researcher on Feb 07, 2013 at 12:34:55 pm     #  

anonymouscoward posted at 08:07:45 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

"And that's because everyone in that school is disarmed, which in Ohio is in clear violation of the Ohio constitution." --GZarthy

HEY EVERYONE, GZARTHY WANTS TO ARM SCHOOLCHILDREN AND SEND THEM TO SCHOOL!

Ahh again with the exagerations.

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 07, 2013 at 01:34:03 pm     #  

Linecrosser posted at 12:34:03 PM on Feb 07, 2013:
anonymouscoward posted at 08:07:45 PM on Feb 06, 2013:

"And that's because everyone in that school is disarmed, which in Ohio is in clear violation of the Ohio constitution." --GZarthy

HEY EVERYONE, GZARTHY WANTS TO ARM SCHOOLCHILDREN AND SEND THEM TO SCHOOL!

Ahh again with the exagerations.

wut dew yule meene?

posted by researcher on Feb 07, 2013 at 03:36:44 pm     #  

Cheap, lazy, ad hominem.

posted by justread on Feb 07, 2013 at 09:08:04 pm     #  

researcher posted at 11:33:38 AM on Feb 07, 2013:
justread posted at 06:34:18 AM on Feb 07, 2013:
anonymouscoward posted at 08:42:16 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
madjack posted at 08:23:16 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
researcher posted at 03:07:28 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
madjack posted at 08:47:56 AM on Feb 06, 2013:

From MoreThanRhetoric (addressing AC): You seem to be unable to maintain a consistent argument.

Is this the first time you've noticed this behavior?

From Researcher (addressing GZ): You'll have to come out from your mother's basement to make something happen. Of course, we'll just smack you back in line.

You'll get bitch slapped and put in your time out chair for your trouble.

Reality is altered when you're drunk posting.

While it is certainly true that I am, as I write this, inebriated. You, on the other hand, are stupid. Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be stupid.

- credit to W.C. Fields

And, no matter what, you will be a far-right conservative gun nut with an admitted substance abuse problem.

Why is he so dam funny and likeable?
Maybe it is the authenticity.

Maybe the drinking thing is more of a "schtick" than a crutch, half real, half literary device...Maybe he is like the Dean Martin of Dogpatch.

Birds of a feather?

No, I don't think that Dean Martin could dance very well.

posted by justread on Feb 07, 2013 at 09:15:41 pm     #  

From JustRead: I was thinking federal troops going door to door as a policy set by a rogue administration, like Herod's men looking for boys under 3. That was what I couldn't picture happening. Rather, I think that they will use other means of control over time, and it is already happening.

Ah. Well, I don't know. I think it might happen but I also think it would begin in carefully chosen localities where it would have some chance of success. Using other means is kind of a given, but one doesn't preclude the other.

I think the current administration has enough hubris to forestall much hesitation. At the same time I also believe that if Himself did order Federal troops to perform a house to house search, the action might push some States into mounting a full scale resistance. I know of people in the deep South that still fly the Stars and Bars and are just waiting for the damned Yankees to make a wrong move. Some of those people hold an office, by the way.

My inclination would be to head South and learn to say y'all, usetacould and whistle Dixie.

posted by madjack on Feb 07, 2013 at 09:29:16 pm     #   1 person liked this

justread posted at 08:15:41 PM on Feb 07, 2013:
researcher posted at 11:33:38 AM on Feb 07, 2013:
justread posted at 06:34:18 AM on Feb 07, 2013:
anonymouscoward posted at 08:42:16 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
madjack posted at 08:23:16 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
researcher posted at 03:07:28 PM on Feb 06, 2013:
madjack posted at 08:47:56 AM on Feb 06, 2013:

From MoreThanRhetoric (addressing AC): You seem to be unable to maintain a consistent argument.

Is this the first time you've noticed this behavior?

From Researcher (addressing GZ): You'll have to come out from your mother's basement to make something happen. Of course, we'll just smack you back in line.

You'll get bitch slapped and put in your time out chair for your trouble.

Reality is altered when you're drunk posting.

While it is certainly true that I am, as I write this, inebriated. You, on the other hand, are stupid. Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be stupid.

- credit to W.C. Fields

And, no matter what, you will be a far-right conservative gun nut with an admitted substance abuse problem.

Why is he so dam funny and likeable?
Maybe it is the authenticity.

Maybe the drinking thing is more of a "schtick" than a crutch, half real, half literary device...Maybe he is like the Dean Martin of Dogpatch.

Birds of a feather?

No, I don't think that Dean Martin could dance very well.

Dino couldn't. He had a little trouble with his equilibrium or something.

Feathers aside, what I read and agree with puts me in good company.

posted by madjack on Feb 07, 2013 at 09:31:55 pm     #  

By deep south, you mean south of Findlay, right? :)

posted by justread on Feb 07, 2013 at 09:33:54 pm     #   1 person liked this

MTR said: First, blackie was capitalized because it was the first word in a sentence, not because it was a name as you claim.

Uh, no there, MTR. Checking over the records, it seems that I was the guy who typed it in the first place. Therefore I'm the guy who knows what it meant. Not you.

You can take over my posting duties if you think you have more authority over what we're discussing than I do. Oops, wait, you don't. I guess you'll have to keep tripping over things here.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 07, 2013 at 09:47:06 pm     #  

justread posted at 08:33:54 PM on Feb 07, 2013:

By deep south, you mean south of Findlay, right? :)

Ha!
Ha!Ha!
Ha!Ha!Ha!

Darn you! I about ruined my keyboard...

Give me a minute, and I'll hoist a newly refilled glass of bourbon to you, Sir.

Here's how!

posted by madjack on Feb 07, 2013 at 09:48:03 pm     #  

AC said: If only the backpedaling of GZarthy and his fellows could be converted into electricity....

Liberal hot air has more generative ability from sheer lifting power.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 07, 2013 at 09:49:45 pm     #  

Justread said: From my perspective, GZ seems to be an individual, rather than a representative of a group.

Far be for me to suggest that my group is the ~60 million households in the United States who own the 310 million private firearms.

When the government shakes the gun control tree and a few hundred thousand more new folk go out and buy guns and ammo and NRA memberships, clearly then I'm not just an individual in my concerns.

Really what I am is another soldier in the largest army in the Americas. I can be slain, but my army, the militia of the American Republic, can't be defeated.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 07, 2013 at 09:58:31 pm     #  

Justread said: Cheap, lazy, ad hominem.

Well, what did you expect? Liberals know they can't act against gun owners legally, since the Second Amendment prohibits that. So they stoke up the propaganda machine and hope enough fools pumped through Liberal public schools end up believing their horsepucky. Liberals are all about MOB RULE... which an AR-15 is very effective against, in the final analysis.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 07, 2013 at 10:04:59 pm     #  

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that your larger perspective was singular, but that your voice on this forum was unique, as is each of ours.

posted by justread on Feb 07, 2013 at 10:06:44 pm     #  

And preventing people from owning assaut rifles does not equal disarming. You can still own hand guns, rifles, shot guns, etc. That argument is like saying "You won't let me eat steak for dinner every night! You're trying to make me starve!" There are plenty of perfectly effective options still 100% available to you. I don't remember anyone whining that they aren't allowed to strap a .50 cal to the roof of their H2. How is this any different? Yes it does equal disarming. A .50 is not an assault rifle, it is a Machine gun. There is a difference. SCOTUS has long upheld that since muskets were the common arm at the time and that given to the most common soldier and was the common arm of the militia that the public who would be called as militia has a right to them. What is the most common arm of the most common soldier? A M4 or M16A4 (basicall the same weapon) with the civilian equivalent being the AR-15 which is the same weapon only without the 3 round burst setting. Even the military and police only use shotguns for one thing - riot control measures. Liberals have been trying to take away hand guns for years. AR-15's are rifles, whether you like it or not. Your post is complete garbage.

the Second Amendment says "arms", not "guns". Neither you nor I have the right to own 40 lbs of C4, Sarin gas, anthrax, or 10 pounds of weapons-grade uranium. Therefore, "gun" (arms) control already exists. You've already accepted this. You're off tilting at windmills insisting that you have the right to own anything that resembles a gun that fires bullets or shot. As long as you do that and don't aim (heh!) for the bigger stuff, you're admitting the argument about "well-regulated militia" since you're clearly restricting yourself to what the (citizen) militia should be armed with. Again, most common arm of the average soldier. The average soldier doesn't have C4, or Sarin gas, or even a grenade. The most basic defensive weapons for the average soldier is that of a semi-automatic rifle or a semi-automatic pistol, the two things liberals are trying to limit law abiding citizens from owning.

Secondly the Militia Acts do not apply. Again SCOTUS has laid a clear distinction between military needs and civilian. That's why SCOTUS upheld the previous decision to not allow homosexuals in the military, that's why SCOTUS upholds to this day women not allowed in infantry positions. Also, the milita acts of 1792 were passed specifically during a time when it was believed an attack was close to imminent, another distiction from SCOTUS. Also the Militia Acts applied to only white men between the ages of 18 and 45 meaning.... it was limited in scope and not a blanket statement and definitely not under the Commerce Clause.

Now, if Obamacare was for 18-45 year old men and women for the purposes of possible conscription even today it would be held as mainly constitutional depending upon if the writing of it is limited in scope to defense needs only.

posted by MikeyA on Feb 07, 2013 at 10:07:36 pm     #   1 person liked this

madjack posted at 08:48:03 PM on Feb 07, 2013:
justread posted at 08:33:54 PM on Feb 07, 2013:

By deep south, you mean south of Findlay, right? :)

Ha!
Ha!Ha!

Ha!Ha!Ha!

Darn you! I about ruined my keyboard...

Give me a minute, and I'll hoist a newly refilled glass of bourbon to you, Sir.

Here's how!

That one cracked me up too.
Cheers. :)

posted by justread on Feb 07, 2013 at 10:09:44 pm     #  

justread posted at 08:08:04 PM on Feb 07, 2013:

Cheap, lazy, ad hominem.

Not simply another exaggeration?

posted by researcher on Feb 08, 2013 at 12:41:14 am     #  

GuestZero posted at 09:04:59 PM on Feb 07, 2013:

Justread said: Cheap, lazy, ad hominem.

Well, what did you expect? Liberals know they can't act against gun owners legally, since the Second Amendment prohibits that. So they stoke up the propaganda machine and hope enough fools pumped through Liberal public schools end up believing their horsepucky. Liberals are all about MOB RULE... which an AR-15 is very effective against, in the final analysis.

Still waiting for you to answer my questions...I mean, the incessant incoherent rambling is entertaining, but you'd do yourself a service if you would address challenges. At the very least it would make a case for your NOT being just a troll who is purposely talking nutty just to rile people up.

Did you refuse to answer questions in school too? Maybe that is why you had such a rough go of it.

posted by Sohio on Feb 08, 2013 at 02:51:47 am     #   1 person liked this

MikeyA, good explanation, not that the ACs of the world will ever admit it, much less understand it. The modern Liberal view is that there are zero militias outside the national guards and national military, therefore guns can be banned. Period. They won't ever entertain the long-established fact that the common man is part of the militia.

This is why civil war is inevitable.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 08, 2013 at 02:06:43 pm     #  

Civil war is NOT inevitable, as most Americans are too fat and lazy to give a rip about their rights. Pass the Pepsi and make sure the DVR is set to record The Biggest Surviving Star Fucking Loser.

I do wholly believe that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I donít agree that anyone should should view at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Like I said before I don't agree with what NY or CA does with the 2A, but it's a States rights issue. I wouldn't give my tax dollars to NY or CA

We must look at ourselves to rebuild a civil society based on family, your faith (or lack their of), honest civil institutions, and freedom through a open market. Can't pretend that snapping our fingers and passing laws is going to fix this problem.

Our own government produces policies (NAFA, SOPA, NDAA) that often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality, stop living in fear and cowering to nanny government for answers.

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 08, 2013 at 02:26:47 pm     #  

researcher posted at 11:41:14 PM on Feb 07, 2013:
justread posted at 08:08:04 PM on Feb 07, 2013:

Cheap, lazy, ad hominem.

Not simply another exaggeration?

So instead of answering the charge of exaggeration you make fun of me misspelling it, nice, and another typical ploy of the elitist.

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 08, 2013 at 03:55:16 pm     #   1 person liked this

From DBW8906: Civil war is NOT inevitable, as most Americans are too fat and lazy to give a rip about their rights. Pass the Pepsi and make sure the DVR is set to record The Biggest Surviving Star Fucking Loser.

There's a man who knows what he's talking about. I'm not certain of the historical fact, and so I call upon HistoryMike to review and correct this.

I believe that the actual number of terrorist rebels patriots who actually took up arms and fought in the Revolutionary War against the tea-swilling oppressors amounted to about 10% of the populace. That was enough, but only barely. And back then half the officers running the enemy's army were incompetent.

I'm not sure how much support the patriots had, either. It takes supplies to put a soldier in the field, and that was something that wasn't easy to come by.

Good luck trying to pull off and actual rebellion today. Apathy is so great in the U.S. that I'm willing to bet you couldn't get an armed demonstration of 10,000 or more people in any State capitol, let alone in DC where it might do some good.

posted by madjack on Feb 08, 2013 at 05:00:29 pm     #  

Linecrosser posted at 02:55:16 PM on Feb 08, 2013:
researcher posted at 11:41:14 PM on Feb 07, 2013:
justread posted at 08:08:04 PM on Feb 07, 2013:

Cheap, lazy, ad hominem.

Not simply another exaggeration?

So instead of answering the charge of exaggeration you make fun of me misspelling it, nice, and another typical ploy of the elitist.

Does everything go meters over your head?

posted by researcher on Feb 09, 2013 at 12:29:26 am     #  

Apparently the metric conversion of condescension has spread beyond France.

posted by justread on Feb 09, 2013 at 08:05:03 am     #  

justread posted at 07:05:03 AM on Feb 09, 2013:

Apparently the metric conversion of condescension has spread beyond France.

LOL!

That's rich!

posted by madjack on Feb 09, 2013 at 09:06:14 am     #  

justread posted at 08:33:54 PM on Feb 07, 2013:

By deep south, you mean south of Findlay, right? :)

No, south of Bowling Green. Findl-tucky has 300 pro-life billboards and 500 pickups with Confederate flags and "Liberal Hunting Permit" stickers in it.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 09, 2013 at 11:04:21 am     #   1 person liked this

MikeyA posted at 09:07:36 PM on Feb 07, 2013:

And preventing people from owning assaut rifles does not equal disarming. You can still own hand guns, rifles, shot guns, etc. That argument is like saying "You won't let me eat steak for dinner every night! You're trying to make me starve!" There are plenty of perfectly effective options still 100% available to you. I don't remember anyone whining that they aren't allowed to strap a .50 cal to the roof of their H2. How is this any different? Yes it does equal disarming. A .50 is not an assault rifle, it is a Machine gun. There is a difference. SCOTUS has long upheld that since muskets were the common arm at the time and that given to the most common soldier and was the common arm of the militia that the public who would be called as militia has a right to them. What is the most common arm of the most common soldier? A M4 or M16A4 (basicall the same weapon) with the civilian equivalent being the AR-15 which is the same weapon only without the 3 round burst setting. Even the military and police only use shotguns for one thing - riot control measures. Liberals have been trying to take away hand guns for years. AR-15's are rifles, whether you like it or not. Your post is complete garbage.

the Second Amendment says "arms", not "guns". Neither you nor I have the right to own 40 lbs of C4, Sarin gas, anthrax, or 10 pounds of weapons-grade uranium. Therefore, "gun" (arms) control already exists. You've already accepted this. You're off tilting at windmills insisting that you have the right to own anything that resembles a gun that fires bullets or shot. As long as you do that and don't aim (heh!) for the bigger stuff, you're admitting the argument about "well-regulated militia" since you're clearly restricting yourself to what the (citizen) militia should be armed with. Again, most common arm of the average soldier. The average soldier doesn't have C4, or Sarin gas, or even a grenade. The most basic defensive weapons for the average soldier is that of a semi-automatic rifle or a semi-automatic pistol, the two things liberals are trying to limit law abiding citizens from owning.

Secondly the Militia Acts do not apply. Again SCOTUS has laid a clear distinction between military needs and civilian. That's why SCOTUS upheld the previous decision to not allow homosexuals in the military, that's why SCOTUS upholds to this day women not allowed in infantry positions. Also, the milita acts of 1792 were passed specifically during a time when it was believed an attack was close to imminent, another distiction from SCOTUS. Also the Militia Acts applied to only white men between the ages of 18 and 45 meaning.... it was limited in scope and not a blanket statement and definitely not under the Commerce Clause.

Now, if Obamacare was for 18-45 year old men and women for the purposes of possible conscription even today it would be held as mainly constitutional depending upon if the writing of it is limited in scope to defense needs only.

And so you admit Congress can pass gun control laws and that there is a limit on what civilians can be armed with.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 09, 2013 at 11:07:37 am     #  

As far as M2s' are concerned, you can get a semiautomatic version and could actually mount one on a vehicle. And since they have basically no characteristics of the so-called "assault" rifle, it is legal(even in California)for a person to get one. Remember, a Browning M2 has no flash suppressor, no bayonet mount, no pistol grip, no black plastic stock(actually no stock, period), and like MikeyA said, they aren't rifles in the first place. In semi-auto, they aren't machine guns, either. A M2 is a fascinating weapon, IMHO

posted by Wulf on Feb 09, 2013 at 01:33:21 pm     #  

There is a flash suppressor for a M2, never seen anyone actually mount it and use it though.

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 09, 2013 at 05:32:29 pm     #  

"And so you admit Congress can pass gun control laws and that there is a limit on what civilians can be armed with."

OMG read SCOTUSes opinions. They specifically said the 2nd Amendment does not apply to cannon's. What it does apply to is AR-15's and other "assault" rifles.

In fact, this is the problem. Technically they're not "assault" weapons. Assault is a specific military term. If you're going to assault something that has specific military and legal implications, if you're going to suppress something that has other implications. Per the military and legal definition these would not be used in an assault so deeming them assault weapons is asinine and it's just a hotbutton word the media uses to ignite images in people's minds and sell more papers.

posted by MikeyA on Feb 11, 2013 at 09:54:55 pm     #  

It's an outrage that I can't have access to any dangerous, useless toy I want.

posted by researcher on Feb 11, 2013 at 10:02:31 pm     #  

MikeyA posted at 08:54:55 PM on Feb 11, 2013:

"And so you admit Congress can pass gun control laws and that there is a limit on what civilians can be armed with."

OMG read SCOTUSes opinions. They specifically said the 2nd Amendment does not apply to cannon's. What it does apply to is AR-15's and other "assault" rifles.

In fact, this is the problem. Technically they're not "assault" weapons. Assault is a specific military term. If you're going to assault something that has specific military and legal implications, if you're going to suppress something that has other implications. Per the military and legal definition these would not be used in an assault so deeming them assault weapons is asinine and it's just a hotbutton word the media uses to ignite images in people's minds and sell more papers.

1) Scalia's comments on Fox News Channel isn't a legal opinion, it's a personal opinion until such time as he and other justices concur on it in a majority ruling (keeping in mind that each justice is free to issue their own opinion in ruling). His comments about "bear arms means it has to be man-portable" are the only opinions I know about off the top of my head, although I sure hope you can point out some SCOTUS rulings on the private ownership of cannons and artillery, just for the entertainment value of reading them.

2) My LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLiberal ass knows that just because a gun is black and scary and has lots of bling on it, it isn't really any more deadly than one done with a nice plain old wood stock. The "pick any 2 and make your weapon an assault weapon" ban was fucking stupid. At the same time, I don't see why everyone needs high-capacity magazines. If you got the goddamn money to buy ammo these days, then you got the money to buy 3 10-round magazines and to swap them out vs. 1 30-round. Sorry that your little gun hobby is affected by some jerks running around shooting up lots of people, but hey, no sympathy because of all the other people with hobbies affected by 9/11-related bullshit. Deal with it and get the fuck over the fact that you can't have nice things because some asshole ruined it for you.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 11, 2013 at 11:22:05 pm     #  

researcher posted at 09:02:31 PM on Feb 11, 2013:

It's an outrage that I can't have access to any dangerous, useless toy I want.

Must be limited funds. Sorry to hear that.

posted by justread on Feb 12, 2013 at 06:46:29 am     #  

justread posted at 05:46:29 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
researcher posted at 09:02:31 PM on Feb 11, 2013:

It's an outrage that I can't have access to any dangerous, useless toy I want.

Must be limited funds. Sorry to hear that.

I'm just a lowly academic. Errr, I mean "Golden Class".

Or I just want a AH-64 Apache.

posted by researcher on Feb 12, 2013 at 09:10:34 am     #  

researcher posted at 08:10:34 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
justread posted at 05:46:29 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
researcher posted at 09:02:31 PM on Feb 11, 2013:

It's an outrage that I can't have access to any dangerous, useless toy I want.

Must be limited funds. Sorry to hear that.

I'm just a lowly academic. Errr, I mean "Golden Class".

Or I just want a AH-64 Apache.

Fucking Pepsi reneging on giving me a Harrier for my Pepsi Points.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 12, 2013 at 10:46:42 am     #  

researcher posted at 08:10:34 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
justread posted at 05:46:29 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
researcher posted at 09:02:31 PM on Feb 11, 2013:

It's an outrage that I can't have access to any dangerous, useless toy I want.

Must be limited funds. Sorry to hear that.

I'm just a lowly academic. Errr, I mean "Golden Class".

Or I just want a AH-64 Apache.

Perhaps you would settle for an Apache Brave or Apache Warrior, 28 or 36 foot offshore boats with multiple engines in the 650HP range. Capable of speeds on the water in excess of 85MPH, you could burn more fuel than an AH-64, while still having room for chicks. Where danger and frivolity meet.

Or you could get a wakeboard boat. :)

posted by justread on Feb 12, 2013 at 03:13:59 pm     #  

Researcher said: It's an outrage that I can't have access to any dangerous, useless toy I want.

Largely, you DO have that sort of access. Look around, I mean around when you ever go outside your ivory tower or gated community or whatever social barrier you demented Liberals like to erect around yourselves. People are doing dangerous things all the time. There's a guy who built his own, private jet pack, and he wings around like some lunatic. That's L-I-B-E-R-T-Y. It's dangerous. And it's wonderful... not that you Liberals would ever agree.

Thankfully, we have civil rights, where we don't even need to consult with you Liberals about what we feel like doing.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 12, 2013 at 08:11:36 pm     #  

AC said: Sorry that your little gun hobby is affected by some jerks running around shooting up lots of people[.]

Actually, it isn't. We can buy and use the same firearms, ammo and accessories today that we could buy and use pre-Sandy Hook.

And that's how it should be.

posted by GuestZero on Feb 12, 2013 at 08:15:31 pm     #  

justread posted at 02:13:59 PM on Feb 12, 2013:
researcher posted at 08:10:34 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
justread posted at 05:46:29 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
researcher posted at 09:02:31 PM on Feb 11, 2013:

It's an outrage that I can't have access to any dangerous, useless toy I want.

Must be limited funds. Sorry to hear that.

I'm just a lowly academic. Errr, I mean "Golden Class".

Or I just want a AH-64 Apache.

Perhaps you would settle for an Apache Brave or Apache Warrior, 28 or 36 foot offshore boats with multiple engines in the 650HP range. Capable of speeds on the water in excess of 85MPH, you could burn more fuel than an AH-64, while still having room for chicks. Where danger and frivolity meet.

Or you could get a wakeboard boat. :)

Now you're talking!

posted by researcher on Feb 12, 2013 at 11:59:51 pm     #  

GuestZero posted at 07:11:36 PM on Feb 12, 2013:

Researcher said: It's an outrage that I can't have access to any dangerous, useless toy I want.

Largely, you DO have that sort of access. Look around, I mean around when you ever go outside your ivory tower or gated community or whatever social barrier you demented Liberals like to erect around yourselves. People are doing dangerous things all the time. There's a guy who built his own, private jet pack, and he wings around like some lunatic. That's L-I-B-E-R-T-Y. It's dangerous. And it's wonderful... not that you Liberals would ever agree.

Thankfully, we have civil rights, where we don't even need to consult with you Liberals about what we feel like doing.

BAD TROLLING.

posted by researcher on Feb 13, 2013 at 12:00:48 am     #  

"1) Scalia's comments on Fox News Channel isn't a legal opinion, it's a personal opinion until such time as he and other justices concur on it in a majority ruling (keeping in mind that each justice is free to issue their own opinion in ruling). His comments about "bear arms means it has to be man-portable" are the only opinions I know about off the top of my head, although I sure hope you can point out some SCOTUS rulings on the private ownership of cannons and artillery, just for the entertainment value of reading them."

Actually, I based my comments off of Scalia's majority opinion in DC v. Heller. Again, maybe you should take my suggestion and read it.

"The "pick any 2 and make your weapon an assault weapon" ban was fucking stupid. At the same time, I don't see why everyone needs high-capacity magazines. If you got the goddamn money to buy ammo these days, then you got the money to buy 3 10-round magazines and to swap them out vs. 1 30-round." So it's not dangerous if I have 30 rounds in 3 magazines vice being dangerous if those same rounds are in 1 magazine? This position is beyond retarded.

"Sorry that your little gun hobby is affected by some jerks running around shooting up lots of people, but hey, no sympathy because of all the other people with hobbies affected by 9/11-related bullshit. Deal with it and get the fuck over the fact that you can't have nice things because some asshole ruined it for you." It's actually not a hobby. I have only 2 weapons in my home, none of which belong to me. Glad to know your First Amendment right is in all actuality is a hobby. We should start regulating that now.

posted by MikeyA on Feb 13, 2013 at 02:44:47 pm     #  

researcher posted at 08:10:34 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
justread posted at 05:46:29 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
researcher posted at 09:02:31 PM on Feb 11, 2013:

It's an outrage that I can't have access to any dangerous, useless toy I want.

Must be limited funds. Sorry to hear that.

I'm just a lowly academic. Errr, I mean "Golden Class".

Or I just want a AH-64 Apache.

I mean if we can give that sorta arms to Egypt, Iran, and Israel then why not you!

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 13, 2013 at 05:35:53 pm     #  

Dont forget about Mexicans.

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 13, 2013 at 06:18:04 pm     #  

Christopher Dorner did not need high cap mags and bump feed stocks. He had skill.

Ban skills.

posted by justread on Feb 13, 2013 at 07:08:47 pm     #  

dbw8906 posted at 04:35:53 PM on Feb 13, 2013:
researcher posted at 08:10:34 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
justread posted at 05:46:29 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
researcher posted at 09:02:31 PM on Feb 11, 2013:

It's an outrage that I can't have access to any dangerous, useless toy I want.

Must be limited funds. Sorry to hear that.

I'm just a lowly academic. Errr, I mean "Golden Class".

Or I just want a AH-64 Apache.

I mean if we can give that sorta arms to Egypt, Iran, and Israel then why not you!

Don't forget the Afghani rebels fighting against SOVIET RUSSIA and all that too. We can hand any group of non-American "insurgents" and "rebels" pretty much anything short of nuke/chem/bio weapons and anything classified. Here, brown person fighting against a brown person we don't like and whom won't sell us cheap oil, by all means take this pallet-load of fully automatic rifles and these other 3 pallets of ammo!

Hell, this may explain conservative hatred of Muslims: the Teabaggers have massive jealousy issues because the Muslim terrorists get to play with bigger, better, SHINY!-er guns, FOR FREE, than are allowed here.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 13, 2013 at 10:11:07 pm     #  

justread posted at 06:08:47 PM on Feb 13, 2013:

Christopher Dorner did not need high cap mags and bump feed stocks. He had skill.

Ban skills.

Following Liberal logic we should "close the military and law enforcement loopholes" to prevent another tragedy like this.

posted by MikeyA on Feb 14, 2013 at 12:57:00 am     #  

anonymouscoward posted at 09:11:07 PM on Feb 13, 2013:
dbw8906 posted at 04:35:53 PM on Feb 13, 2013:
researcher posted at 08:10:34 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
justread posted at 05:46:29 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
researcher posted at 09:02:31 PM on Feb 11, 2013:

It's an outrage that I can't have access to any dangerous, useless toy I want.

Must be limited funds. Sorry to hear that.

I'm just a lowly academic. Errr, I mean "Golden Class".

Or I just want a AH-64 Apache.

I mean if we can give that sorta arms to Egypt, Iran, and Israel then why not you!

Don't forget the Afghani rebels fighting against SOVIET RUSSIA and all that too. We can hand any group of non-American "insurgents" and "rebels" pretty much anything short of nuke/chem/bio weapons and anything classified. Here, brown person fighting against a brown person we don't like and whom won't sell us cheap oil, by all means take this pallet-load of fully automatic rifles and these other 3 pallets of ammo!

Hell, this may explain conservative hatred of Muslims: the Teabaggers have massive jealousy issues because the Muslim terrorists get to play with bigger, better, SHINY!-er guns, FOR FREE, than are allowed here.

I recommed a higher ammo pallet to rifle pallet ratio.

posted by justread on Feb 14, 2013 at 06:59:40 am     #  

MikeyA posted at 11:57:00 PM on Feb 13, 2013:
justread posted at 06:08:47 PM on Feb 13, 2013:

Christopher Dorner did not need high cap mags and bump feed stocks. He had skill.

Ban skills.

Following Liberal logic we should "close the military and law enforcement loopholes" to prevent another tragedy like this.

I think you're only following your illogical ideas of what you're most likely incorrectly labeling "Liberal logic".

posted by researcher on Feb 14, 2013 at 11:23:48 am     #  

dbw8906 posted at 04:35:53 PM on Feb 13, 2013:
researcher posted at 08:10:34 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
justread posted at 05:46:29 AM on Feb 12, 2013:
researcher posted at 09:02:31 PM on Feb 11, 2013:

It's an outrage that I can't have access to any dangerous, useless toy I want.

Must be limited funds. Sorry to hear that.

I'm just a lowly academic. Errr, I mean "Golden Class".

Or I just want a AH-64 Apache.

I mean if we can give that sorta arms to Egypt, Iran, and Israel then why not you!

Exactly! I'm a US-born white man. God's Chosen Ones.

posted by researcher on Feb 14, 2013 at 11:24:42 am     #  

"I think you're only following your illogical ideas of what you're most likely incorrectly labeling "Liberal logic"."

Oh really. Let's look at the logic.

"It's a tragedy." "Innocent people are getting killed." "The perpetrator benefitted from a loophole." "We're JUST trying to close the loophole we don't want to affect EVERYONE."

Now this is what was said from Sandy Hook. Was it not? We take it and apply it to Dorner how then is that illogical?

I'm really interested to hear how that is illogical. In fact, I remember from math class, the basis of logical thought, if A+B=C and A+D=C then B=D.

posted by MikeyA on Feb 14, 2013 at 05:42:45 pm     #  

I just don't understand the moral authority of a government who will arm every buck crazy "freedom fighter" on God's green earth with tanks, planes, bombs, and as many firearms as Smith & Wesson can pump off the line all in hopes of making the world a safer place by "arming Liberty minded peoples", yet work harder and harder every year to disarm it's own citizens.

You want to talk gun control well thats fine, lets control the amount of death we hand out around the world before you want to talk about what is in the gun safe of law abiding American citizens. I'll sit down and have a magazine size debate or even talk about them EVIL "black rifles" if we can stop enriching private business arms manufacturer CEO's and weaponizing the planet.

Funny how all these anti-gun Democratic Senators voted for the Surges (both the King George version and the Barry bomb remix), NDAA, the largest military budget in history, don't do anything about drone strikes, said nothing about bombing Libyans, but feel the NEED to make the world a safer place by disarming gun owning Americans (ie Republican voters). Ohh Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schummer hate Ruger/Smith & Wesson cause they fund the NRA, but love voting on bills that keep the business flowing their way. Makes you go hmmm...

None of these horse fuckers want to make the world a safer place, it's all a giant penis showing game that ends in nothing happening but more the same.

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 15, 2013 at 08:55:23 am     #  

MikeyA posted at 04:42:45 PM on Feb 14, 2013:

"I think you're only following your illogical ideas of what you're most likely incorrectly labeling "Liberal logic"."

Oh really. Let's look at the logic.

"It's a tragedy." "Innocent people are getting killed." "The perpetrator benefitted from a loophole." "We're JUST trying to close the loophole we don't want to affect EVERYONE."

Now this is what was said from Sandy Hook. Was it not? We take it and apply it to Dorner how then is that illogical?

I'm really interested to hear how that is illogical. In fact, I remember from math class, the basis of logical thought, if A+B=C and A+D=C then B=D.

Is this serious? Can you verify those quotes and put them in context?

Your entire argument is on some random quotes?

Math class apparently failed you.

posted by researcher on Feb 15, 2013 at 09:47:21 am     #  

researcher posted at 08:47:21 AM on Feb 15, 2013:
MikeyA posted at 04:42:45 PM on Feb 14, 2013:

"I think you're only following your illogical ideas of what you're most likely incorrectly labeling "Liberal logic"."

Oh really. Let's look at the logic.

"It's a tragedy." "Innocent people are getting killed." "The perpetrator benefitted from a loophole." "We're JUST trying to close the loophole we don't want to affect EVERYONE."

Now this is what was said from Sandy Hook. Was it not? We take it and apply it to Dorner how then is that illogical?

I'm really interested to hear how that is illogical. In fact, I remember from math class, the basis of logical thought, if A+B=C and A+D=C then B=D.

Is this serious? Can you verify those quotes and put them in context?

Your entire argument is on some random quotes?

Math class apparently failed you.

Obviously hes using Washington math where adding 5 trillion in money we don't have is a good thing.

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 15, 2013 at 04:25:44 pm     #  

dbw8906 posted at 07:55:23 AM on Feb 15, 2013:

I just don't understand the moral authority of a government who will arm every buck crazy "freedom fighter" on God's green earth with tanks, planes, bombs, and as many firearms as Smith & Wesson can pump off the line all in hopes of making the world a safer place by "arming Liberty minded peoples", yet work harder and harder every year to disarm it's own citizens.

You want to talk gun control well thats fine, lets control the amount of death we hand out around the world before you want to talk about what is in the gun safe of law abiding American citizens. I'll sit down and have a magazine size debate or even talk about them EVIL "black rifles" if we can stop enriching private business arms manufacturer CEO's and weaponizing the planet.

Funny how all these anti-gun Democratic Senators voted for the Surges (both the King George version and the Barry bomb remix), NDAA, the largest military budget in history, don't do anything about drone strikes, said nothing about bombing Libyans, but feel the NEED to make the world a safer place by disarming gun owning Americans (ie Republican voters). Ohh Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schummer hate Ruger/Smith & Wesson cause they fund the NRA, but love voting on bills that keep the business flowing their way. Makes you go hmmm...

None of these horse fuckers want to make the world a safer place, it's all a giant penis showing game that ends in nothing happening but more the same.

Dude, I'm all for the USA getting the fuck out of everyone else's business, be it Israel, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, or whatever the hell else, and telling the locals to call the goddamn UN. I'm really sick of our tax dollars going to whatever group has a good lobby and an in with Congress and the Executive to go blow up some asshole leaders and the poor deluded souls who follow them.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 15, 2013 at 04:26:41 pm     #  

Linecrosser posted at 03:25:44 PM on Feb 15, 2013:
researcher posted at 08:47:21 AM on Feb 15, 2013:
MikeyA posted at 04:42:45 PM on Feb 14, 2013:

"I think you're only following your illogical ideas of what you're most likely incorrectly labeling "Liberal logic"."

Oh really. Let's look at the logic.

"It's a tragedy." "Innocent people are getting killed." "The perpetrator benefitted from a loophole." "We're JUST trying to close the loophole we don't want to affect EVERYONE."

Now this is what was said from Sandy Hook. Was it not? We take it and apply it to Dorner how then is that illogical?

I'm really interested to hear how that is illogical. In fact, I remember from math class, the basis of logical thought, if A+B=C and A+D=C then B=D.

Is this serious? Can you verify those quotes and put them in context?

Your entire argument is on some random quotes?

Math class apparently failed you.

Obviously hes using Washington math where adding 5 trillion in money we don't have is a good thing.

You have some odd hang-ups. Financial bad luck? Misplaced blame?

posted by researcher on Feb 17, 2013 at 01:37:28 am     #  

A now for something completely worthless here is a video for you.
http://vimeo.com/23221778#

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 17, 2013 at 04:15:18 am     #  

researcher posted at 08:47:21 AM on Feb 15, 2013:
MikeyA posted at 04:42:45 PM on Feb 14, 2013:

"I think you're only following your illogical ideas of what you're most likely incorrectly labeling "Liberal logic"."

Oh really. Let's look at the logic.

"It's a tragedy." "Innocent people are getting killed." "The perpetrator benefitted from a loophole." "We're JUST trying to close the loophole we don't want to affect EVERYONE."

Now this is what was said from Sandy Hook. Was it not? We take it and apply it to Dorner how then is that illogical?

I'm really interested to hear how that is illogical. In fact, I remember from math class, the basis of logical thought, if A+B=C and A+D=C then B=D.

Is this serious? Can you verify those quotes and put them in context?

Your entire argument is on some random quotes?

Math class apparently failed you.

So I took two separate instances (B and D) and used the same liberal questions (A) and said we should get the same answer ©.

Now if logic holds ( I used mathematics because that is the basis for logic, do you not agree) they should get the same answer (C=close the loophole). If they don't then either the instances are not equal (requires explanation) or the logic of the liberals is illogical.

So please either explain how the Dorner case should be treated differently or concede the Liberal positions are based solely in emotion and are thus not logical.

Math, Physics and American History/Government were the classes I excelled at in school. I partially choose my eventual degree in something I was not good at so I could become better at it.

posted by MikeyA on Feb 17, 2013 at 02:44:48 pm     #  

MikeyA posted at 01:44:48 PM on Feb 17, 2013:
researcher posted at 08:47:21 AM on Feb 15, 2013:
MikeyA posted at 04:42:45 PM on Feb 14, 2013:

"I think you're only following your illogical ideas of what you're most likely incorrectly labeling "Liberal logic"."

Oh really. Let's look at the logic.

"It's a tragedy." "Innocent people are getting killed." "The perpetrator benefitted from a loophole." "We're JUST trying to close the loophole we don't want to affect EVERYONE."

Now this is what was said from Sandy Hook. Was it not? We take it and apply it to Dorner how then is that illogical?

I'm really interested to hear how that is illogical. In fact, I remember from math class, the basis of logical thought, if A+B=C and A+D=C then B=D.

Is this serious? Can you verify those quotes and put them in context?

Your entire argument is on some random quotes?

Math class apparently failed you.

So I took two separate instances (B and D) and used the same liberal questions (A) and said we should get the same answer ©.

Now if logic holds ( I used mathematics because that is the basis for logic, do you not agree) they should get the same answer (C=close the loophole). If they don't then either the instances are not equal (requires explanation) or the logic of the liberals is illogical.

So please either explain how the Dorner case should be treated differently or concede the Liberal positions are based solely in emotion and are thus not logical.

Math, Physics and American History/Government were the classes I excelled at in school. I partially choose my eventual degree in something I was not good at so I could become better at it.

I repeat:

Is this serious? Can you verify those quotes and put them in context?

Your entire argument is on some random quotes?

Math class apparently failed you.

posted by researcher on Feb 18, 2013 at 09:23:59 am     #  

LOL,

researcher, have you been a part of the conversation. If that is not the basis behind the thinking of the Sandy Hook GC push I'd like you then to explain what is.

If my math is wrong please explain how.

posted by MikeyA on Feb 18, 2013 at 01:58:30 pm     #  

MikeyA posted at 12:58:30 PM on Feb 18, 2013:

LOL,

researcher, have you been a part of the conversation. If that is not the basis behind the thinking of the Sandy Hook GC push I'd like you then to explain what is.

If my math is wrong please explain how.

No, it's more fun to watch you try to explain your perception of "Liberal logic".

"Here are some random quotes I made up that prove my point!"

posted by researcher on Feb 18, 2013 at 03:31:38 pm     #  

The college workers had today off, right?

posted by justread on Feb 18, 2013 at 04:35:17 pm     #  

My University is very large, so there were some employees that were off, yes. Same as every day.

posted by researcher on Feb 18, 2013 at 06:21:32 pm     #  

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/justice/connecticut-newtown-shooting/index.html

Color me shocked. That which was blantantly obvious to many of us here now appears to be true to those who wanted to ignore it.

posted by MikeyA on Feb 19, 2013 at 09:06:01 pm     #  

People ignored that he was crazy?

posted by researcher on Feb 19, 2013 at 09:37:01 pm     #  

researcher posted at 08:37:01 PM on Feb 19, 2013:

People ignored that he was crazy?

Just the ones who focused on the gun as the evil actor, rather than the crazy killer.

posted by justread on Feb 20, 2013 at 06:20:11 am     #  

MikeyA posted at 08:06:01 PM on Feb 19, 2013:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/justice/connecticut-newtown-shooting/index.html

Color me shocked. That which was blantantly obvious to many of us here now appears to be true to those who wanted to ignore it.

So we've hit the "blame the media" point now? Because if they hadn't sensationalized the Norway thing, he wouldn't have had something to emulate?

Or are we back around to blaming video games because he wanted to achieve an IRL high score?

How about we blame Mom for raising a kid who was a few crayons short of a box in the "killing people is bad" and "video games are not reality and not to be emulated in real life" areas? Oh, and for being a nutjob herself who felt the need to stock up with and have easy access to firearms?

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 20, 2013 at 07:32:07 am     #  

justread posted at 05:20:11 AM on Feb 20, 2013:
researcher posted at 08:37:01 PM on Feb 19, 2013:

People ignored that he was crazy?

Just the ones who focused on the gun as the evil actor, rather than the crazy killer.

Fortunately, for most people, there was more than one factor.

posted by researcher on Feb 20, 2013 at 09:04:08 am     #  

I blame Ice T and Body Count for Chris Dorner.

posted by researcher on Feb 20, 2013 at 09:04:48 am     #  

researcher posted at 08:04:48 AM on Feb 20, 2013:

I blame Ice T and Body Count for Chris Dorner.

Are Ice T and Body Count training officers for the LAPD? Or do they kick developmentally disabled men in front of honest cops?

posted by justread on Feb 20, 2013 at 11:28:08 am     #  

anonymouscoward posted at 06:32:07 AM on Feb 20, 2013:
MikeyA posted at 08:06:01 PM on Feb 19, 2013:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/justice/connecticut-newtown-shooting/index.html

Color me shocked. That which was blantantly obvious to many of us here now appears to be true to those who wanted to ignore it.

So we've hit the "blame the media" point now? Because if they hadn't sensationalized the Norway thing, he wouldn't have had something to emulate?

Or are we back around to blaming video games because he wanted to achieve an IRL high score?

How about we blame Mom for raising a kid who was a few crayons short of a box in the "killing people is bad" and "video games are not reality and not to be emulated in real life" areas? Oh, and for being a nutjob herself who felt the need to stock up with and have easy access to firearms?

Or blame using 1 mag instead of 3 makes more sense to you?

As I've said before. The problem is cultural and sociological. This reaffirms that. Until we are willing to say that this we will never deal with the problem honestly. I'm not saying the answer is to control the media or stop selling violent video games, but just acknowledge that it does impact these circumstances.

I saw this story an hour after I saw that one. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/kids-watch-excessive-tv-criminal-convictions-young-adulthood-study-article-1.1267868 Now again this is another example of journalists and scientists using the findings as a cause/effect when it is merely a correlation but I'm not surprised at all there's a correlation.

AC are you really blaming his Mom for his mental disease? I'm all for blaming her for not securing her weapons but I don't think most people would see most of their loved ones as capable than this. I've met a lot of mentally disturbed people and there's only one I would definitely say was capable of such horrific things.

posted by MikeyA on Feb 20, 2013 at 11:36:03 am     #  

justread posted at 10:28:08 AM on Feb 20, 2013:
researcher posted at 08:04:48 AM on Feb 20, 2013:

I blame Ice T and Body Count for Chris Dorner.

Are Ice T and Body Count training officers for the LAPD? Or do they kick developmentally disabled men in front of honest cops?

They may be training officers for an angry youth.

posted by researcher on Feb 20, 2013 at 11:42:39 am     #  

Oh, ok. Cause Chris Dorner was not an angry youth. He was a guy who always did the right thing until such time that doing the right thing cost him a career with the LAPD.

Then and only then, did he start doing things the "angry" way.

(Not condoning what he did, but suggesting that he was not trained to be an angry youth. In all likelihood, and by all accounts, he didn't unravel until he was corrupted by the realization that he did all the right things all his life, and it came to nothing because the system was corrupt.)

posted by justread on Feb 20, 2013 at 02:02:11 pm     #  

Just so we're both on the same page, I wasn't being serious and I didn't expect to have a serious discussion about Chris Dorner. That said, in the same way I don't want to defend the LAPD, I don't want to defend Chris Dorner, ex-LAPD.

posted by researcher on Feb 20, 2013 at 04:26:27 pm     #  

Where was Mark Furman when LAPD needed him?

posted by Wulf on Feb 20, 2013 at 04:34:18 pm     #  

researcher posted at 03:26:27 PM on Feb 20, 2013:

Just so we're both on the same page, I wasn't being serious and I didn't expect to have a serious discussion about Chris Dorner. That said, in the same way I don't want to defend the LAPD, I don't want to defend Chris Dorner, ex-LAPD.

I don't expect anyone to have a serious discussion about what makes killers tick and what are the causal factors, warning signs and the process of becoming sociopathic. The work is too daunting. The answers come too slowly. The sound bites are no good. And nobody wants to be perceived as "defending" anybody or anything.

No sir. I expect people to outlaw guns and never touch the human side of the "gun violence" problem at all. I expect them to villify anyone who suggests that the guns are not the causal factor in "gun violence."

I expect people to continue to apply the logic that the hammer causes the roofer to pound a nail in a roof. Not the fact that he could only get a roofer job, not the fact that he has bills to pay, not because roofing is all he knows. No. The hammer has an evil plan, and the roofer is simply carrying it out.

posted by justread on Feb 21, 2013 at 06:24:51 am     #  

MikeyA - Your damn right I'm blaming Lanza's mom. There is no reason you don't have a locking, secure safe in your home when you have kids. I grew up in a home with a loaded shotgun in the coat closet by the front door and a loaded rifle above the backdoor, I knew my dad would have broke all the bones in my hand if I had ever touched them. From an early age I knew that guns where not toys, or "cool", I knew the destructive power they held.

Lanza's mom spends 300 dollars on a safe and a bunch of kids are getting dressed for school today.

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 21, 2013 at 09:03:18 am     #  

dbw8906 posted at 08:03:18 AM on Feb 21, 2013:

MikeyA - Your damn right I'm blaming Lanza's mom. There is no reason you don't have a locking, secure safe in your home when you have kids. I grew up in a home with a loaded shotgun in the coat closet by the front door and a loaded rifle above the backdoor, I knew my dad would have broke all the bones in my hand if I had ever touched them. From an early age I knew that guns where not toys, or "cool", I knew the destructive power they held.

Lanza's mom spends 300 dollars on a safe and a bunch of kids are getting dressed for school today.

dwb there are some issues with your post. First, look at my comment " I'm all for blaming her for not securing her weapons but I don't think most people would see most of their loved ones as capable than this." I never stated you couldn't blame her for not securing her weapons.

But, most people even with heavily disturbed people in their house wouldn't not think their family member is capable of that.

In regards to your post, would your Dad have broken the bones in your hand if you were 21 and going hunting and borrowed his guns to go hunting? If so, your father needs Anger Management training IMO. Most people I know with guns trust their adult family members with them. Kids under the age of 18 yeah then I agree with you. But Lanza was an adult that's why I don't think your post applies. Yes we can blame the mother but again, I think most would think their family is not capable of something like that.

Now, let me tell you a story. This year, I assisted a woman who's husband, a senior Marine, killed himself with his own pistol. She knew he was battling depression, she knew he was on medication, but never did she think he was capable of killing himself. They had been married for 15 years and went through a lot of life experiences together one being the death of a child, but they always got through it. Then suddenly, they have some personal upheavel and he takes his life. She was in a state of shock. I know she didn't think he was capable of suicide. So I reiterate what I say, most people would not think their family members are capable of such a tragedy.

posted by MikeyA on Feb 21, 2013 at 01:35:12 pm     #  

justread posted at 05:24:51 AM on Feb 21, 2013:
researcher posted at 03:26:27 PM on Feb 20, 2013:

Just so we're both on the same page, I wasn't being serious and I didn't expect to have a serious discussion about Chris Dorner. That said, in the same way I don't want to defend the LAPD, I don't want to defend Chris Dorner, ex-LAPD.

I don't expect anyone to have a serious discussion about what makes killers tick and what are the causal factors, warning signs and the process of becoming sociopathic. The work is too daunting. The answers come too slowly. The sound bites are no good. And nobody wants to be perceived as "defending" anybody or anything.

No sir. I expect people to outlaw guns and never touch the human side of the "gun violence" problem at all. I expect them to villify anyone who suggests that the guns are not the causal factor in "gun violence."

I expect people to continue to apply the logic that the hammer causes the roofer to pound a nail in a roof. Not the fact that he could only get a roofer job, not the fact that he has bills to pay, not because roofing is all he knows. No. The hammer has an evil plan, and the roofer is simply carrying it out.

These are not Body Count lyrics.

posted by researcher on Feb 21, 2013 at 04:16:51 pm     #