How Did We Get To Be A Nation Of Gun Nuts?

260 posts / 0 new

I bought my first rifle 32 years ago. I bought it because I often camped alone out in the middle of nowhere. I bought it for self-protection and never thought I had any rights under the Second Amendment. I've always saw the NRA less a group of hunters and target shooters, and more the lunatic fringe especially when they insisted Teflon "cop killer" bullets be legal in the mid-80's. In 1990 I was going to go for my handgun permit. I took a handgun safety course at a local range and got my certificate. But then the chiefs of police for each town in Massachusetts had much discretion in who they gave handgun permits to... and if one could not make a good self-defense case, another way was to belong to an NRA gun club. I could not in good conscience become a member of the NRA and just never bothered getting my permit.

When I look at the NRA I see a leadership that has contempt for its members. The members are manipulated with lies and half-truths then milked for donations. The more irrational and paranoid the membership becomes, the more power the leadership has. And somewhere in this crazed dynamic arose the cult of the Gun Nut.

The NRA faithful have been lied to that the Second Amendment is some sacred Right to own a gun unconnected to a "well regulated militia". On some level I agree... that it's a Ninth Amendment right but as such isn't so absolute as the NRA claims.

Gun nuts love to strip off the first half of the Second amendment concerning the "well regulated militia" as if it has no relevance and let the second half stand alone. Since the faithful buy into the lie, they also see themselves as constantly under attack by gun control advocates who must be seen as guilty of sins against the Founders of this nation itself!

Is it any wonder Gun Nuts are… nuts?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Comments

What part of " the right of the people" do you not understand? It is mentioned 6 times in the Bill of Rights. I am NOT, nor have ever been, a member of the NRA. But I do believe that it is an individuals right to "keep and bear arms" as enumerated in the Constitution, be it the 2nd or 9th amendments.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Quote camaroman:What part of "the right of the people" do you not understand? It is mentioned 6 times in the Bill of Rights.

And let's take them one at a time: Did the Framers intend Slaves to have the right to "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Didn't think so.

Did the Framers intend slaves to have the right "to keep and bear Arms"? Didn't think so.

Did the Framers intend slaves to have the right to "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"? Didn't think so.

Shall I continue?

I'm arguing ORIGINAL INTENT... not the post 14th Amendment world.

I am NOT, nor have ever been, a member of the NRA. But I do believe that it is an individuals right to "keep and bear arms" as enumerated in the Constitution, be it the 2nd or 9th amendments.
Gee, are you a member of the "well regulated militia"? Me neither. The Second doesn't apply to us today. Get over your delusions.

But the Ninth does. It's time it deserves to be defended. Unfortunately the NRA like everyone else ignores it.

It's easier to demagogue a half-truth than it is to educate the public on a subtle whole truth.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

What do you want to bet that slaves and even native Americans still had firearms. Gun ownership restriction didn't work then, just as it doesn't now. What about FREEMEN that were not required to serve in your precious militia, like 46-100 year olds? Were they prohibited from firearms ownership? I would bet not. You need to get over your obsession with the militia. Participation began to fade away in the 1790s. You need to discern the facts of history from your fantasies.

The second DOES apply today!!! It is as relevant as your ambiguous 9th.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Quote camaroman:What about FREEMEN that were not required to serve in your precious militia, like 46-100 year olds? Were they prohibited from firearms ownership? I would bet not.
Please take your braindead Gun Nut dementia elsewhere. No matter how many times I say the original intent of the Constitution was to protect the right of freemen to own a weapon, your dementia just can't comprehend what I write. Where we disagree is about THE SECOND AMENDMENT. It's about the well-regulated MILITIA... and militia members were REQUIRED to own a weapon. THERE'S NO RIGHT TO OWN, IF THERE'S A MANDATE TO OWN. A "right" is a CHOICE.

The "right" here is that the government can NOT disarm these well-regulated militias made up of the People… technically a subset of the People… able bodied white males between 18 and 45. That does NOT stop ANY of the free men from owning a weapon, but those in the militia MUST own one that meets congressional requirements. Any of this sinking in yet Chuckles? Didn't think so! Did slaves have any rights? None guaranteed by the federal government. Sure a few may have had guns. But do you seriously believe the slave states would have ratified the Constitution or the BoRs if slaves were granted rights intended for freemen?


Does the Second apply today? Ya, if one is in the National Guard. Otherwise the personal right to bear arms comes from the Ninth.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote camaroman:What part of "the right of the people" do you not understand? It is mentioned 6 times in the Bill of Rights.

And let's take them one at a time: Did the Framers intend Slaves to have the right to "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Didn't think so.

Did the Framers intend slaves to have the right "to keep and bear Arms"? Didn't think so.

Did the Framers intend slaves to have the right to "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"? Didn't think so.

Shall I continue?

I'm arguing ORIGINAL INTENT... not the post 14th Amendment world.

I am NOT, nor have ever been, a member of the NRA. But I do believe that it is an individuals right to "keep and bear arms" as enumerated in the Constitution, be it the 2nd or 9th amendments.
Gee, are you a member of the "well regulated militia"? Me neither. The Second doesn't apply to us today. Get over your delusions.

But the Ninth does. It's time it deserves to be defended. Unfortunately the NRA like everyone else ignores it.

It's easier to demagogue a half-truth than it is to educate the public on a subtle whole truth.

Eough with the Slaves, the Rights were for freemen, that did include blacks. What law school did you attend? What is the basis for your opinion, yes opinion, on the 2nd. At the time of the founding of this country individual ownership of guns was common, so do you really think the new government would go against this accepted practice?

Marlin60
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 4:04 am

Quote Marlin60:Eough with the Slaves, the Rights were for freemen, that did include blacks.
THANKS for recognizing that gun ownership was NEVER intended to be a universal individual right. That is my ONLY point when I bring up slaves.
What is the basis for your opinion, yes opinion, on the 2nd.
No opinion. If militia members were REQUIRED to have specified guns and equipment, then at least for them there's no individual right involved. Inherent in the concept of a right is a CHOICE.
At the time of the founding of this country individual ownership of guns was common, so do you really think the new government would go against this accepted practice?

My god, why is it whenever gun ownership comes up the IQ of right wingers drops 47 points? HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY GUN OWNERSHIP FOR FREEMEN WAS A PROTECTED RIGHT… only it was unenumerated like just about every other right. And this is clear just by looking at that period between the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Unless your argument that no rights were protected for freemen during that time. The "right" in the Second is that the militias made up of "the People" could not be disarmed. It's not a individual CHOICE on their part to own or not own a gun. Since "the People" also included some freemen too young or old to be in the Militias, perhaps there was some right there… but then it overlaps with the Ninth. The militias and the Second Amendment were never amended away so both still exist. But since the state militias of old are now the National Guards the Second today doesn't apply to the ordinary citizen. But they retain their right under the Ninth which paradoxically is under the most attack from the Right.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

So if we are going to ban assualt weapons because the founders couldn't have seen them coming do we need to not protect the Internet under the first?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:

So if we are going to ban assualt weapons because the founders couldn't have seen them coming do we need to not protect the Internet under the first?

What do you care since you believe we didn't have any rights until the Bill of Rights yet deny the Ninth has any meaning!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:

So if we are going to ban assualt weapons because the founders couldn't have seen them coming do we need to not protect the Internet under the first?

What do you care since you believe we didn't have any rights until the Bill of Rights yet deny the Ninth has any meaning!

Why are you avoiding the question?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

Quote Ever clueless, Commonsense461:

So if we are going to ban assualt weapons because the founders couldn't have seen them coming do we need to not protect the Internet under the first?

If you have ANY understanding of the Constitution you'd not ask such idiotic questions. After all it was YOU who said we didn't have a right to privacy since it wasn't mentioned in the Bill Of Rights.

Since the well-regulated militias of old are now the state National Guards... they'll NOT be affected by any assault weapons ban will they? If we're to believe in Natural rights, which apparently you don't, it doesn't matter if the Framers never envisioned the internet or assault weapons. But like other rights First amendment's freedom of speech/press or Ninth amendment's right to own a firearm... government can place reasonable restrictions on them. What the Ninth does is require the burden of proof for restricting rights lies with the government.... not the right wing approach which has citizens fighting to have their rights recognized.

It's time the Right stop bastardizing the Second in invent a right and stop pretending the all-important Ninth has no meaning.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:

So if we are going to ban assualt weapons because the founders couldn't have seen them coming do we need to not protect the Internet under the first?

What do you care since you believe we didn't have any rights until the Bill of Rights yet deny the Ninth has any meaning!

Why are you avoiding the question?

I wasn't avoiding it... my first reaction was merely that you of all people who are determined to undermine our Ninth amendment rights are the last person to question ANYONE on their committment to rights. After all it was YOU who said we had no right to privacy since it wasn't in the BoR.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

I do belive in natural rights owning what ever weapon I see fit is one of those natural rights.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

The 2nd says nothing about any requirement to provide one's own firearm and accoutrements. The requirement is in the second act of the Militia Acts.

And YOUR interpretation of the 2nd is at odds with most others, especially the SCOTUS. You got a degree in Constitutional Law? The POTUS supposedly has one from Harvard and he gets to interpret (or even ignore) it at his discretion.

Rehnquist wrote:

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, s 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. 110 S. Ct. at 1061. Since Verdugo-Urquidez is not part of "the people," he is not protected by the Fourth Amendments (nor, apparently, by the First, Second, Ninth, or Tenth).

The Supreme Court therefore views the words "the people" in the Second Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. If "the people" really meant the right of states to maintain a militia, then we would be left with the absurd notion that only the states have the right to peaceably assemble, only the states have the right to be secure in their persons and property, etc. The Supreme Court's position is indisputable: the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. Also instructive is the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982):

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

http://thefiringline.com/Misc/library/kates.html

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote Commonsense461:

I do belive in natural rights owning what ever weapon I see fit is one of those natural rights.

Bullsh*t. If you believed in natural rights you'd not deny we have a natural right to PRIVACY. In reality you only believe we have enumerated rights specified in the Bill Of Rights. You're on record with that stand in another thread. But then you're so clueless you're unaware of your own contradictions.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote camaroman:

The 2nd says nothing about any requirement to provide one's own firearm and accoutrements. The requirement is in the second act of the Militia Acts.

AGAIN, you're trying to strip the Second from its legal context which is what gun nuts do. OF COURSE the Second doesn't describe the operation of the Militia. It's merely a restriction on government not to disarm the People who comprise the Militia.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:

I do belive in natural rights owning what ever weapon I see fit is one of those natural rights.

Bullsh*t. If you believed in natural rights you'd not deny we have a natural right to PRIVACY. In reality you only believe we have enumerated rights specified in the Bill Of Rights. You're on record with that stand in another thread. But then you're so clueless you're unaware of your own contradictions.

I belive in natural rights as an individual but enumerated in my government as interpretation of these has gotten us in the mess we are in.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:

I do belive in natural rights owning what ever weapon I see fit is one of those natural rights.

Bullsh*t. If you believed in natural rights you'd not deny we have a natural right to PRIVACY. In reality you only believe we have enumerated rights specified in the Bill Of Rights. You're on record with that stand in another thread. But then you're so clueless you're unaware of your own contradictions.

I belive in natural rights as an individual but enumerated in my government as interpretation of these has gotten us in the mess we are in.

What the hell you even talking about? Please don't post again until you're at least 14, or after you take your meds.

You can NOT believe in Natural Rights and then take the far Right position that we have no right to privacy because it's not enumerated in the BoR.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote camaroman:And YOUR interpretation of the 2nd is at odds with most others, especially the SCOTUS. You got a degree in Constitutional Law? The POTUS supposedly has one from Harvard and he gets to interpret (or even ignore) it at his discretion.

Rehnquist wrote:

And Chief Justice Warren Burger described your take as "...one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies--the militias--[preamble] would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment [referring to the preamble] refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

http://www.guncite.com/rrjbessay.html Let me guess.... I bet suddenly his qualifications don't matter. And you ignore the simple fact that the GOP has packed the USSC with right winger who actively promote the interests of the GOP.

In reading just about ever USSC decision on guns, I've never seen my argument made that if the Militia members were MANDATED to own a weapon, then it was not a right. But since the far Right is determined to deny us our Ninth Amendment rights, they HAVE to find the right to own a firearm elsewhere.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:

I do belive in natural rights owning what ever weapon I see fit is one of those natural rights.

Bullsh*t. If you believed in natural rights you'd not deny we have a natural right to PRIVACY. In reality you only believe we have enumerated rights specified in the Bill Of Rights. You're on record with that stand in another thread. But then you're so clueless you're unaware of your own contradictions.

I belive in natural rights as an individual but enumerated in my government as interpretation of these has gotten us in the mess we are in.

What the hell you even talking about? Please don't post again until you're at least 14, or after you take your meds.

You can NOT believe in Natural Rights and then take the far Right position that we have no right to privacy because it's not enumerated in the BoR.

Yeah I can and do

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Pierpont:

Did the Framers intend slaves to have the right "to keep and bear Arms"? Didn't think so.

Didn't we already hash this out and you were CLEARLY wrong. Their INTENT was for everyone, Their actions were a compromise.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Pierpont:

I've never seen my argument made

Doesn't that speak volumes to resonableness everywhere.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

I've never seen my argument made

Doesn't that speak volumes to resonableness everywhere.

At last an answer to the question I posed here: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/03/thom-federal-judge-maryland-ap...

Quote mjolnir:@Pierpont I've only been on this forum a short time but I haven't seen anyone of any political persuasion who either denies or condones slavery.

That being said I have spent quite a bit of time researching sites that reference 9th Amendment rights and some do give lip service to a generalized "right to keep and bear arms" derived from the "natural rights of man". Some of the content is very good and fits with my own personal philosophy.

It is very hard to follow a persons train of thought in a forum context, at least for me, and this isn't a criticism of your stance. What sites do you follow to develop your philosophy concerning the 9th?

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm

The justices on the SCOTUS disagree on nearly every issue along a 5-4 line.

I repost, "

The Supreme Court therefore views the words "the people" in the Second Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. If "the people" really meant the right of states to maintain a militia, then we would be left with the absurd notion that only the states have the right to peaceably assemble, only the states have the right to be secure in their persons and property, etc. The Supreme Court's position is indisputable: the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. Also instructive is the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982):

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

I guess 4 others agreed, huh?

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:Did the Framers intend slaves to have the right "to keep and bear Arms"? Didn't think so.

Didn't we already hash this out and you were CLEARLY wrong.

Nah, I think you ran away from that thread from a few months back.
Their INTENT was for everyone, Their actions were a compromise.
Rights were NEVER intended for the entire population. The slave states would NEVER have ratified the Constitution or the Bill Of Right if that was the intent. Rights were intended for free persons. And central to the Second Amendment is the well-regulated militias must be kept viable... and the Militias were a small subset of the total population. If there's a individual right to own a gun or a natural right to self-protection, it's in the Ninth which then pertained to free persons but after the 14th Amendment applies to all. Perhaps righties like yourself should start defending the Ninth instead of trying to bury it.

As for this thread, it wasn't to rehash the same material already in other threads. It was trying to understand the pathology and perpetual paranoia of the gun nuts. Have anything to add on that topic? Didn't think so.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote camaroman:The justices on the SCOTUS disagree on nearly every issue along a 5-4 line.
And shouldn't that tell you that Heller could easily be reversed?

I'm going to draw a line here. This thread was NOT to rehash the same material already in other threads. It was trying to understand the pathology and perpetual paranoia of the gun nuts.

Have anything to add on that topic?

Didn't think so.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

How can we be a country of gunmutes when we have all these gun free zones like the aura theater.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:

How can we be a country of gunmutes when we have all these gun free zones like the aura theater.

Pray tell, who are the gunmutes?

Like I said... come back when you turn 14 or when you take your meds. Maybe then you'll understand the topic of this thread.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

I've never seen my argument made

Doesn't that speak volumes to resonableness everywhere.

No... my position is the FRAMERS' position that the People retained their natural rights, minus a few surrendered, when the Constitution was ratified. It's YOUR position that historically is flawed because the Ninth Amendment intended to reaffirm the Constitution protected Natural Rights has BEEN IGNORED. It's a scandalous state of affairs. The Tenth has plenty of defenders while the Ninth has been swept under the rug... ESPECIALLY BY THE FAR RIGHT.

Now have anything to add about the pathology and perpetual paranoia of the gun nuts? Or are your posts just proof of my concerns about them?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:

How can we be a country of gunmutes when we have all these gun free zones like the aura theater.

Pray tell, who are the gunmutes?

Like I said... come back when you turn 14 or when you take your meds. Maybe then you'll understand the topic of this thread.

You knew what I meant jack ass now awnser the question how can u have gun nuts when we continue to shrinkwhere we can carry our weapons.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:How can we be a country of gunmutes when we have all these gun free zones like the aura theater.

Pray tell, who are the gunmutes?
Like I said... come back when you turn 14 or when you take your meds. Maybe then you'll understand the topic of this thread.

You knew what I meant jack ass now awnser the question how can u have gun nuts when we continue to shrinkwhere we can carry our weapons.
Are you that stupid that you don't know the owner of private property can restrict rights the government can't? That's a dumb question. We all know you are... why else would you ask such a stupid question about gunmutes?

Now have anything to say about THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:How can we be a country of gunmutes when we have all these gun free zones like the aura theater.

Pray tell, who are the gunmutes?
Like I said... come back when you turn 14 or when you take your meds. Maybe then you'll understand the topic of this thread.

You knew what I meant jack ass now awnser the question how can u have gun nuts when we continue to shrinkwhere we can carry our weapons.
Are you that stupid that you don't know the owner of private property can restrict rights the government can't? That's a dumb question. We all know you are... why else would you ask such a stupid question about gunmutes?

Now have anything to say about THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?

Why not we already have said free speach on private property open to the public is protected. Ex: OWS zucati park why can't you do the same with guns?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:

Now have anything to say about THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?

Why not we already have said free speach on private property open to the public is protected. Ex: OWS zucati park why can't you do the same with guns?

I guess not.

BTW, technically Zuccotti Park is private but it's status is a public space. NYC zoning law gives developers permission to build UP if they created public spaces at ground level.

http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2012/01/zucotti-parkliberty-plaza-open-again-to.html

So pray tell Einstein, how is that the same as a mall owner banning guns?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:

Now have anything to say about THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?

Why not we already have said free speach on private property open to the public is protected. Ex: OWS zucati park why can't you do the same with guns?

I guess not.

BTW, technically Zuccotti Park is private but it's status is a public space. NYC zoning law gives developers permission to build UP if they created public spaces at ground level.

http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2012/01/zucotti-parkliberty-plaza-open-again-to.html

So pray tell Einstein, how is that the same as a mall owner banning guns?

How is a mall not a public space?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

Would you see this love affair with guns in a matriarchal society?

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote Commonsense461:[How is a mall not a public space?

I've had it with your games and your hijacking of threads.

Do your own goddamn research, start your own thread, or get ON TOPIC for this thread!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote DynoDon:

Would you see this love affair with guns in a matriarchal society?

It's really an hysteria driven by an almost religious paranoia. How much of it is also testosterone driven... good question.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

I'm asking a legitiment question if a park is public space but private land necause it invites the public in wouldn't the same thing be true of malls?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

This is from a guy who always deflects questions when he can't answer them!

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

This is from a guy who always deflects questions when he can't answer them!

Disagreeing with the premise of a question is not deflecting

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Pierpont:

Nah, I think you ran away from that thread from a few months back.

Much like you understanding of History, you appear to confuse "ran away" with walking away from Stupid.

Rights were NEVER intended for the entire population.

they were.

. The slave states would NEVER have ratified the Constitution or the Bill Of Right if that was the intent.

And yet they did with the 20 year time limit compromise. That you generally love to ignore.

They would not have written the compromise if they didn't have the intent.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Commonsense461:

I'm asking a legitiment question if a park is public space but private land necause it invites the public in wouldn't the same thing be true of malls?

No more of your games moron. I repeat:

Do your own goddamn research, start your own thread, or get ON TOPIC for this thread!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

"The most glaring example of cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them." Moshe Ben-David

I have noted the media's fervent willingness to report criminal acts nationwide, while burying defensive gun uses on page D-24 of the local fishwrap. This is apparently because everbody knows that guns are only useful for criminal homicide, unless they (guns) are in the hands of someone sanctioned by the state. States and their actors use force, individuals use violence. It's OK to kill someone in self-defense , but to prepare for that possibility is evidence of mental instability or at least criminal tendencies, a "gun nut", unless you're one of the anointed.

Should we fear "car nuts" people that are obssessed with collecting and driving cars? I mean cars kill 50,000 people a year. I think that the larger number of “gun nuts” are those who are opposed to guns.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

Nah, I think you ran away from that thread from a few months back.

Much like you understanding of History, you appear to confuse "ran away" with walking away from Stupid.

You just can't help but rewrite history, can you? Here you go AGAIN!

Rights were NEVER intended for the entire population.

they were.

. The slave states would NEVER have ratified the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights if that was the intent.

And yet they did with the 20 year time limit compromise. That you generally love to ignore.

They would not have written the compromise if they didn't have the intent.

[/quote] ROTF… you mean that there'd be a ban of importation of new slaves in 1808? And in your twisted world, that means the slaves states abolished slavery and granted their slaves all rights in the Constitution? OF COURSE NOT!!!!! As I already proved to you using Census records the slave population was self-sustaining and for the next 20-30 years the numbers NEVER went down in the years after 1808. How can you go through life being so stupid?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Commonsense461:

I'm asking a legitiment question if a park is public space but private land necause it invites the public in wouldn't the same thing be true of malls?

The situation is different. If you invite people to your house for a garage sale does that make your home public property?

We all pay for public parks through taxes and fees. We don't all pay for the mortgage on the local mall with taxes and fees. Although via backdoor politics, we really do.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Nah, I think you ran away from that thread from a few months back.

Much like you understanding of History, you appear to confuse "ran away" with walking away from Stupid.

You just can't help but rewrite history, can you? Here you go AGAIN!

Rights were NEVER intended for the entire population.

they were.

ROTF!

The slave states would NEVER have ratified the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights if that was the intent.

And yet they did with the 20 year time limit compromise. That you generally love to ignore.

They would not have written the compromise if they didn't have the intent.

ROTF… you mean that there'd be a ban of importation of new slaves in 1808? And in your twisted world, that means the slaves states abolished slavery and granted their slaves all rights in the Constitution? OF COURSE NOT!!!!! As I already proved to you using Census records the slave population was self-sustaining and for the next 20-30 years the numbers NEVER went down in the years after 1808. The slave states gave up NOTHING.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote Pierpont:

No... my position is the FRAMERS' position that the People retained their natural rights, minus a few surrendered, when the Constitution was ratified. It's YOUR position that historically is flawed because the Ninth Amendment intended to reaffirm the Constitution protected Natural Rights has BEEN IGNORED. It's a scandalous state of affairs. The Tenth has plenty of defenders while the Ninth has been swept under the rug... ESPECIALLY BY THE FAR RIGHT.

Now have anything to add about the pathology and perpetual paranoia of the gun nuts? Or are your posts just proof of my concerns about them?

It hasn’t been ignored, it is wholly irrelevant. At some point you will eventually have to come to terms with it.

9th says you can’t abridge rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet every supposed Natural Right you seemingly lost is done so by an enumerated power listed in the Constitution.

So ask yourself, Which has more power. Enumerated power or un-enumerated right?

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:

I'm asking a legitiment question if a park is public space but private land necause it invites the public in wouldn't the same thing be true of malls?

No more of your games moron. I repeat:

Do your own goddamn research, start your own thread, or get ON TOPIC for this thread!

I don't need to cause you got nothing.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote camaroman:

"The most glaring example of cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them." Moshe Ben-David

I have noted the media's fervent willingness to report criminal acts nationwide, while burying defensive gun uses on page D-24 of the local fishwrap. This is apparently because everbody knows that guns are only useful for criminal homicide, unless they (guns) are in the hands of someone sanctioned by the state. States and their actors use force, individuals use violence. It's OK to kill someone in self-defense , but to prepare for that possibility is evidence of mental instability or at least criminal tendencies, a "gun nut", unless you're one of the anointed.

Should we fear "car nuts" people that are obssessed with collecting and driving cars? I mean cars kill 50,000 people a year. I think that the larger number of “gun nuts” are those who are opposed to guns.

Guns are bought with the intent to do damage. Whether it be to a paper target, a tin can or an animal or person. Guns are created for the purpose of doing massive damage. Cars are not created for such a purpose. Knives are not created to do damage. See the difference? Guns must be used and respected with the highest regard because of that fact. If you are selling anything that is used to do damage then it should be highly regulated.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote camaroman:

"The most glaring example of cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them." Moshe Ben-David

I have noted the media's fervent willingness to report criminal acts nationwide, while burying defensive gun uses on page D-24 of the local fishwrap. This is apparently because everbody knows that guns are only useful for criminal homicide, unless they (guns) are in the hands of someone sanctioned by the state. States and their actors use force, individuals use violence. It's OK to kill someone in self-defense , but to prepare for that possibility is evidence of mental instability or at least criminal tendencies, a "gun nut", unless you're one of the anointed.

Should we fear "car nuts" people that are obssessed with collecting and driving cars? I mean cars kill 50,000 people a year. I think that the larger number of “gun nuts” are those who are opposed to guns.

Guns are bought with the intent to do damage. Whether it be to a paper target, a tin can or an animal or person. Guns are created for the purpose of doing massive damage. Cars are not created for such a purpose. Knives are not created to do damage. See the difference? Guns must be used and respected with the highest regard because of that fact. If you are selling anything that is used to do damage then it should be highly regulated.

so ignore with out infringement part of the second.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

Haven't you learned there is no point in arguing with the right wing trolls like marlin, Lysander, commonsense etc. You will never, ever change their minds about anything. Just accept they view the world differently and have different priorities. You are just wasting time and energy jousting with them. Time on this site would be better served trying to come up with solutions and actions from a progressive viewpoint.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am