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

260 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Pierpont:

Thanks for proving conservatives only pretend to revere the Constitution.

Thanks for proving you suffer from massive confirmation bias....

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

Quote camaroman:The left lib progressive pundits think that by taking away the rights of law abiding citizens then no one will have to have any personal resposibility.
You're full of shit as usual. As I've been defending liberty under the Ninth, it's conservatives HERE like Capital and CS who are denying they exist. They are following in that great tradition voiced by the likes of Bork and Scalia that we can never know what the Ninth means so legally it must be ignored.

I'm for a government that is always trying to 1: make its citizens more responsible and 2: always looking to keep to the spirit of the Ninth to continually expand freedom. 3: protecting others against the irresponsibility of others.

I have no problems with responsible citizens owning guns for self-protection, sport, or recreation. I DO have problems with Gun Nuts who live in a state of perpetual paranoia believing any common sense restrictions on guns must be vehemently opposed. I'm opposed to Gun Nuts glorifying guns as somehow patriotic… or manly. I can see how this might appeal to the insecure, shallow knuckleheads who, thinks muscle cars do the same.

When I see YOU lecturing your rabid right buddies here on how the Ninth amendment is the key to our liberties, perhaps THEN you can lecture the rest of us. Otherwise piss off.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

Thanks for proving conservatives only pretend to revere the Constitution.

Thanks for proving you suffer from massive confirmation bias....

I have no idea what you're babbling about. I don't pretend to be a fan of the Constitution. It's anti-democratic and it fails to met the standard of morally legitimate government. But unlike you I will stand up for the right's we're SUPPOSED to have.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote camaroman:The NRA does some very good work in teaching responsible and safe gun ownership and useto all its members, especially the youth. It just does not fit your leftwinged meme and agenda, Pp, so you fear and ridicule it. YOU ARE WRONG!!!
Ya, in a neighboring town... at one of these friendly NRA gun meets some moron.. (ah gee, it was his dad!).. let an 8 year old fire an Uzi. The kid lost control and shot himself in the head.

Anyone for potato salad?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote camaroman:The NRA does some very good work in teaching responsible and safe gun ownership and useto all its members, especially the youth. It just does not fit your leftwinged meme and agenda, Pp, so you fear and ridicule it. YOU ARE WRONG!!!
Ya, in a neighboring town... at one of these friendly NRA gun meets some moron.. (ah gee, it was his dad!).. let an 8 year old fire an Uzi. The kid lost control and shot himself in the head.

Anyone for potato salad?

You have any idea what the leading causes of accidental deaths are for kids 0 - 19 years old? (not denying the dad was an idiot or that accidents happen with guns, but just answer the question).

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote camaroman:The NRA does some very good work in teaching responsible and safe gun ownership and useto all its members, especially the youth. It just does not fit your leftwinged meme and agenda, Pp, so you fear and ridicule it. YOU ARE WRONG!!!
Ya, in a neighboring town... at one of these friendly NRA gun meets some moron.. (ah gee, it was his dad!).. let an 8 year old fire an Uzi. The kid lost control and shot himself in the head.

Anyone for potato salad?

You have any idea what the leading causes of accidental deaths are for kids 0 - 19 years old? (not denying the dad was an idiot or that accidents happen with guns, but just answer the question).

Choking on potato salad? Nah, that would be too ironic. Either way THIS kid would still be alive if not for this Gun Nut need to even let tots experience the joy of automatic weapons fire.

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

You do know that there is a distinction between automatic weapons and what is being refered to as assault weapons? For the most part automatic weapons are illegal if manufactured post-1986. There is additional licensing at state and federal to have automatic weapons.

What is being refered to here is "SCARY" looking rifles that have composite instead of wood. Any black gun that in any way ressembles an M4, M-16, AR, or AK. Semi auto rifles have plenty of regulation already. Automatic weapons have even MORE regulation.

Not sure if the anti-semitism of the left but everyone seems to be VERY afraid of the UZI. I think the popularity of that fire arm went out of style in the 1980's!

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

You do know there isn't a distinction between being shot with an automatic and being shot with what is being referred to as assault weapons?

While children are bleeding on the ground, it doesn't matter if the shooter has a permit or not.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm

What about shotguns, pistols, baseball bats? They kill people less dead than a rifle?

I think if you hate guns you should really spend some time reading about Chicago. I cannot convince you but I would love to hear your self justification of why they lead the country in gun related murderes while having one of the longest and most strict gun & ammuniation bans in the country.

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm

If right-wingers love guns so much, why do so few of them go to Afghanistan? Are they afraid to see what it's like to be on the receiving end of an assault rifle?

Is an AR-15 any more practical than a revolver against a thief inside your living room? No, it's not. If anything, the bulk of it makes it even less practical than a handgun. And if gun-worshippers actually think they're 'protecting America from government tyranny,' a nasty bit of truth is that the US government has Abram tanks and Predator drones. How much good is an AR-15 against a laser-guided death robot that no one can see or hear raining down Hell from two miles up?

If the government wants to take your guns, they will.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm

I spent over a decade in the military and while Afghanistan happened after I got out in 2001, I did spend time in the Saudi Arabia/Iraq (1991-92), Somalia (1993), and Bosnia (1995). I have served to protect my rights and yours. If you dont want a gun, dont buy one. Either way, not my concern. But in exchange for respecting your choice and opinions, I think its fair to ask the same of you. I respect guns, and the rights of lawful, responsible US citizens to own them. I never knew it was a choice pistol or rifle, I thought you could have BOTH?

BTW, didnt realize that laser guided death robots was a big concern on the left? Is that produced buy Koch industries or just something you have a bizzare fetish about?

As for the government taking guns, property, or personal assets I think that is about the MOST un-American thing I could imagine. Your words sound gleeful as I read them and its as if you would encourage a strong government to surpess the public. I feel sorry for you that you are so afraid that you need a repressive government to make you feel better. Nothing would divide America more than an opressive government taking power and property from the people.

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm
Quote camaroman:

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.

Here, here!

Here are a few more.

…”No free man shall ever be debarred the use or arms”

-Thomas Jefferson

…”To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms…”

-Richard Henry Lee (1788)

…”The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them”

-Zacharia Johnson.

…”The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed.”

-James Madison

…”Everyone who is able may have a gun”

-Patrick Henry

TChamp3121's picture
TChamp3121
Joined:
Nov. 16, 2010 5:20 pm

Pp, "that's the problem with Gun Nuts. Since they live in a state of perpetual paranoia that their gun religion is under attack, they can't see the world in any other terms. At what point does this cross the line into mental illness? "

Pp, you are the one bouncing are on this thread screaming about your rights under the 9th and having paranoid delusions about a very responsible organization that has helped lock up many criminals that used guns for the commission of their crimes in some of the heaviest crime laiden cities in the US. Plus, they teach responsible firearms ownership and training for use, especially the youth. So you fuck off about the NRA. Or do some research and find out more of what they stand for and what they do both with communities (they put their money where their mouth is) and with their membership. It is far from the cult of your deluded ideation.

Pp, "I have no problems with responsible citizens owning guns for self-protection, sport, or recreation. I DO have problems with Gun Nuts who live in a state of perpetual paranoia believing any common sense restrictions on guns must be vehemently opposed. I'm opposed to Gun Nuts glorifying guns as somehow patriotic… or manly. I can see how this might appeal to the insecure, shallow knuckleheads who, thinks muscle cars do the same."

When you refer to not having a problem eith responsible citizens owning guns for whatever reason. The gun nuts are the paranoid screaming idiots like yourself that I for one would be in favor of preventing you from owning anything you might could harm yourself or anyone else with, You are the one that is the paranoid delusion fanatic. And, you have avoided most of MY questions.

Where is the word right in the 2nd? Where is the word mandate anywhere in the 2nd or Article I, Section 8?

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is found in the 2nd. Historians, scholars, and the courts have agreed for 2 centuries on this. I will concede that the right to own a firearm could be construed as an unenumerated right in the 9th based on the demands of the times the framers wrote these hallowed words and what conditions were like that demanded such for life back then. I don't know how that argument would stand if challenged today, though. But I will concede it is there.

I do not consider myself a shallow knucklehead because I have choosen to execise my 2n amendment right and purchase several (many) types of firearms (handguns, rifles and shotguns) some antique ones mainly for investment, some for hunting, and some for just target shooting. The car was an investment that I could also enjoy driving occassionaly. WTF is it to you? See it is anti-gun nuts like you that want to run everbody else's life by telling them what the can , can't, should, and shoudn't do based on your warped liberal ideation of the world according to, Pierpont. To that , I say , you are barking at the moon, buddy. Get a grip.

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. 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.

Here, here! And, here are a few more.

…”No free man shall ever be debarred the use or arms”

-Thomas Jefferson

…”To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms…”

-Richard Henry Lee (1788)

…”The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them”

-Zacharia Johnson.

…”The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed.”

-James Madison

…”Everyone who is able may have a gun”

-Patrick Henry

TChamp3121's picture
TChamp3121
Joined:
Nov. 16, 2010 5:20 pm

I didn't say "you" specifically, Sheep. I'm a veteran, as well, and my experience didn't show me how wonderful guns and death are. It sure as hell didn't do anything for my uncles in Vietnam or my mother's father in Korea or my dad's father in France. "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it." - General Robert E. Lee

And who's rights were being protected in Iraq or Somalia or Bosnia, or in any other country that the US has fought in since 1945 for that matter? Any country that the US can send its military into is not a threat to the United States. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is a sick place that produced 11 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11, but they're our allies so that's okay.

You didn't realize that drone strikes were a concern for the left? They sure aren't a concern for the right.

As long as Republicans vote in Republicans and Democrats vote in Democrats, and everyone thinks that those are the only two options that we have, the nation will always be divided.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm

BTW, IMHO, the best weapon for home defense is an 18" barrel, pump .410 shot gun with #4 pellets. It will do consideralbe damage to the chest or gut of a perpetrator without doing serious damage to your home, like, say, a 12 guage shotgun that will splatter blood and flesh all over your walls and blow holes in them too. It just makes less of a mess to clean up.

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

Last time I checked based on the leaks in the paper I thought it was Obama and Democrat cabinet that had the kill list for drone strikes? Didnt Obama's lackies boast to NYT's to make him sound strong on foreign policy? Didn't this adminstration bypass Congress and deploy weapons in Lybia? Didnt this administration use drones to execute a US citizens without any due process?

What does the drones have to do with Republicans? I read a story yesterday that DHS (also democrat) was buying UAV "drones" for domestic use? Where is the outcry on your own party?

sheep4thom's picture
sheep4thom
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2012 2:36 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote camaroman:The NRA does some very good work in teaching responsible and safe gun ownership and useto all its members, especially the youth. It just does not fit your leftwinged meme and agenda, Pp, so you fear and ridicule it. YOU ARE WRONG!!!
Ya, in a neighboring town... at one of these friendly NRA gun meets some moron.. (ah gee, it was his dad!).. let an 8 year old fire an Uzi. The kid lost control and shot himself in the head.

Anyone for potato salad?

You have any idea what the leading causes of accidental deaths are for kids 0 - 19 years old? (not denying the dad was an idiot or that accidents happen with guns, but just answer the question).

Choking on potato salad? Nah, that would be too ironic. Either way THIS kid would still be alive if not for this Gun Nut need to even let tots experience the joy of automatic weapons fire.

How ironic that you avoid the question.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

Quote Our one trick pony camaroman:Where is the word right in the 2nd? Where is the word mandate anywhere in the 2nd or Article I, Section 8?
Would it make you happy if I rephrased the question in the other thread to "Where is the "right" to gun ownership for those members of the well regulated militia mentioned in the Second Amendment, when Congress MANDATED militia members to own a gun whether they wanted one or not?"

Will that break through your mental log jam?

Didn't think so. I await the return of the one-trick pony show.

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

Quote DowntheMiddle:

Quote Pierpont:

Quote DowntheMiddle:

You have any idea what the leading causes of accidental deaths are for kids 0 - 19 years old? (not denying the dad was an idiot or that accidents happen with guns, but just answer the question).

Choking on potato salad? Nah, that would be too ironic. Either way THIS kid would still be alive if not for this Gun Nut need to even let tots experience the joy of automatic weapons fire.

How ironic that you avoid the question.

Gee, I started this thread on a different topic so excuse me if I don't nibble at the bait to take it further off topic.

I can only repeat that the 8-year old in question would be alive today if NOT for having gone to a gun meet run by Gun Nuts.

Feel free to start your own thread on mortality stats for accidental deaths of kids 0-19. I'm sure it will be fascinating.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote TChamp3121:

Here, here! And, here are a few more.

Since we're talking constitutional LAW not opinions... perhaps you can stop playing the "quote" game. Anyone can "prove" ANY position with selective quotes. Opinions mean NOTHING unless they were actually written into law.

My position is quite simple... as a gun owner who has never belonged to the "well regulated militia", the Second doesn't apply to me. The Ninth does... but sadly the far Right is determined to abolish our Ninth Amendment rights. The Second has been hijacked and made to sound like some inalienable individual right when in reality the militia of the day were FORCED to own a weapon. There's no "right" in militia membership to own or not to own. The "right" is the collective one that the militias made up of the People can not be disarmed. It's moot now since the militias are now the National Guard. Individuals no longer need to provide their own weapons.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote TChamp3121:

Here, here! And, here are a few more.

My position is quite simple... as a gun owner who has never belonged to the "well regulated militia", the Second doesn't apply to me. The Ninth does... but sadly the far Right is determined to abolish our Ninth Amendment rights. The Second has been hijacked and made to sound like some inalienable individual right when in reality the militia of the day were FORCED to own a weapon. There's no "right" in militia membership to own or not to own. The "right" is the collective one that the militias made up of the People can not be disarmed. It's moot now since the militias are now the National Guard. Individuals no longer need to provide their own weapons.

It's funny. you've spent days here arguing that same stupid point when no administration or Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment that way nor has any agreed with you since the Constitution was written. In fact, they've all agreed that it applies to citizens of this country regardless of the "militia" portion of it, hence the fact that even as recently as a couple of years ago, the SCOTUS said that Chicago's gun ban was U N C O N S T I T U T I O N A L and last I checked, there was no "well regulated militia in Chicago" and they continue to make similar rulings to this day.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am
Quote Pierpont:

Quote DowntheMiddle:

Quote Pierpont:

Quote DowntheMiddle:

You have any idea what the leading causes of accidental deaths are for kids 0 - 19 years old? (not denying the dad was an idiot or that accidents happen with guns, but just answer the question).

Choking on potato salad? Nah, that would be too ironic. Either way THIS kid would still be alive if not for this Gun Nut need to even let tots experience the joy of automatic weapons fire.

How ironic that you avoid the question.

Gee, I started this thread on a different topic so excuse me if I don't nibble at the bait to take it further off topic.

I can only repeat that the 8-year old in question would be alive today if NOT for having gone to a gun meet run by Gun Nuts.

Feel free to start your own thread on mortality stats for accidental deaths of kids 0-19. I'm sure it will be fascinating.

Your method of dodging questions and condescending insulting tones aside (it may work on weaker opponents, but we both know that's it a simple method to avoid debating something you feel might undermine your simple rhetoric), you still avoid the question.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

Camaroman, "Where is the word right in the 2nd? Where is the word mandate anywhere in the 2nd or Article I, Section 8?"

I know he avoids answering questions that to do so would undermine his phony stance. The answer is the that the word right is in the phrase "the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The word mandate if found nowhere in the 2nd or ArticleI, Section 8 with regards to the organizing, training, and arming of the militia. It is nowhere.

Pp, " Anyone can "prove" ANY position with selective quotes. Opinions mean NOTHING unless they were actually written into law.

The quotes and sayings of the founding fathers and framers sure does prove their intent.

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

Camaroman, "Where is the word right in the 2nd? Where is the word mandate anywhere in the 2nd or Article I, Section 8?"

I know he avoids answering questions that to do so would undermine his phony stance. The answer is the that the word right is in the phrase "the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The word mandate if found nowhere in the 2nd or ArticleI, Section 8 with regards to the organizing, training, and arming of the militia. It is nowhere.

Pp, " Anyone can "prove" ANY position with selective quotes. Opinions mean NOTHING unless they were actually written into law.

The quotes and sayings of the founding fathers and framers sure does prove their intent.

"The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled........"

Enough said.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am
Quote sheep4thom:

Last time I checked based on the leaks in the paper I thought it was Obama and Democrat cabinet that had the kill list for drone strikes? Didnt Obama's lackies boast to NYT's to make him sound strong on foreign policy? Didn't this adminstration bypass Congress and deploy weapons in Lybia? Didnt this administration use drones to execute a US citizens without any due process?

What does the drones have to do with Republicans? I read a story yesterday that DHS (also democrat) was buying UAV "drones" for domestic use? Where is the outcry on your own party?

Brother, I'm no Democrat. I'm just against Republicans more. Both parties are full of liars and cheats. There are exceptions on both sides, sure, but the government in general is ran by a one-party system pretending to be a two-party system, and the rights of the People don't mean a damned thing compared to the rights of corporations.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."
- Benito Mussolini

This quote summarizes quite well what is happening in the United States. "Corporations are people, my friend." Whatever, and money is speech. If money is speech, then those with the most money have the loudest voices. That's not Democracy, and both parties have SuperPACs. This is an oligarchy now, at best. It is a fascist state, at worst, combining corporate and government power. In my opinion, the largest victims in this are the soldiers of the US military who bought into the lies of "truth, justice and the American way" because they don't know how to disobey the orders to turn their guns on US citizens.

The reprehensible use of drone strikes began under Bush, just like the unwinnable wars and the resulting economic collapse of the United States. Does that mean Obama is the solution? Hell no, but Republicans have been on national television saying outright that their main goal is to screw the country so badly that everyone turns against Obama and votes him out. Does this mean that Obama is the counterbalance to the GOP? Not a chance. That's just another fantasy we're sold in the corporate press.

If the Obama administration's continuation and escalation of Bush's pointless wars in the Middle East don't point out that we live in a one-party system, then nothing will.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm

Quote DowntheMiddle:It's funny. you've spent days here arguing that same stupid point when no administration or Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment that way nor has any agreed with you since the Constitution was written. In fact, they've all agreed that it applies to citizens of this country regardless of the "militia" portion of it, hence the fact that even as recently as a couple of years ago, the SCOTUS said that Chicago's gun ban was U N C O N S T I T U T I O N A L and last I checked, there was no "well regulated militia in Chicago" and they continue to make similar rulings to this day.

Hey, there are parts of Heller I like… just not the rationale.

You might have a point if there were no right wing Neanderthals on the court. Hey, you're telling me we need to believe the likes of Scalia on constitutional rights when he's leading the charge to undermine... our Ninth amendment constitutional rights? At what point does blatant hypocrisy ever offend you? That's the red flag. We have a partisan right winger who in the name of the Constitution wrote one of the most tortured decisions I've ever read and he just happens to rule in a manner that politically helps the GOP… while working to undermine those rights social conservatives will not accept. Is there a pattern here?

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

Quote DowntheMiddle:Enough said.

Never heard of any terrible Supreme Court decisions? Funny, the Right has a laundry list that might start with Roe v Wade.

The doctrine of stare decisis might set bad decisions in cement... that doesn't make them less bad.

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

Quote camaroman:
Quote Pierpont:

Anyone can "prove" ANY position with selective quotes. Opinions mean NOTHING unless they were actually written into law.

The quotes and sayings of the founding fathers and framers sure does prove their intent.

Gee... so even if the opinion of one of the Framers was REJECTED, we're still to consider that opinion just as legal as what the Framers actually agreed on and sent to the states for ratification? Wow!!!! You get more stupid by the post.

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

AjaxMinoan's picture
AjaxMinoan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote JTaylor:

If right-wingers love guns so much, why do so few of them go to Afghanistan? Are they afraid to see what it's like to be on the receiving end of an assault rifle?

Is an AR-15 any more practical than a revolver against a thief inside your living room? No, it's not. If anything, the bulk of it makes it even less practical than a handgun. And if gun-worshippers actually think they're 'protecting America from government tyranny,' a nasty bit of truth is that the US government has Abram tanks and Predator drones. How much good is an AR-15 against a laser-guided death robot that no one can see or hear raining down Hell from two miles up?

If the government wants to take your guns, they will.

Then why isn't the Taliban defeated yet?

The Predator drone and the Abrams tank are self-defeating weapons. They are so expensive and troublesome to use, and do so little damage against the people we fight when compared to the actual numbers of extremists, that the enemy can simply wait us out, and watch us spend ourselves to death. I read somewhere that a Hellfire missile in it's anti-tank form costs $58,000. I can only hope that each of those missiles fired from our drones aren't that expensive. If we do defeat the Taliban, it will be with the sniper rifle more than the Hellfire missile fired from drones and helicopters. NATO snipers are inflicting an aweful toll on our enemies in Afghanistan, but it is seldom reported on.

A rifle is effective simply by the virtue of being cheap. Have you ever watched Enemy at the Gates? It's not entirely a historically accurate movie, but it's a good metaphor for how the Soviets started to turn things around against a more advanced military.

AjaxMinoan's picture
AjaxMinoan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Here, here! And, here are a few more.

…”No free man shall ever be debarred the use or arms”

-Thomas Jefferson

…”To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms…”

-Richard Henry Lee (1788)

…”The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them”

-Zacharia Johnson.

…”The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed.”

-James Madison

…”Everyone who is able may have a gun”

-Patrick Henry

Ha ha, I love it when history bites people in the ass. Every time some liberal gets on the radio and tries to claim that the second amendment is purely about a well regulated millitia, I have to laugh. Nobody misrepresents our founders quite like a left wing radio pundit.

AjaxMinoan's picture
AjaxMinoan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote JTaylor:

I didn't say "you" specifically, Sheep. I'm a veteran, as well, and my experience didn't show me how wonderful guns and death are. It sure as hell didn't do anything for my uncles in Vietnam or my mother's father in Korea or my dad's father in France. "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it." - General Robert E. Lee

And who's rights were being protected in Iraq or Somalia or Bosnia, or in any other country that the US has fought in since 1945 for that matter? Any country that the US can send its military into is not a threat to the United States. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is a sick place that produced 11 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11, but they're our allies so that's okay.

You didn't realize that drone strikes were a concern for the left? They sure aren't a concern for the right.

As long as Republicans vote in Republicans and Democrats vote in Democrats, and everyone thinks that those are the only two options that we have, the nation will always be divided.

I am a veteran who never saw combat (Thank God) and a conservative but I can tell you we should ALL be worried about drones.

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

Even if the 2nd doesn't protect an individual right, the 9th does. Either way, the pre-existing right is protect. Remember, the Bill of Rights technically wasn't needed. All of the powers the general gov't had before the Bill of Rights, it had after the Bill of Rights.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mjolnir:I am a veteran who never saw combat (Thank God) and a conservative but I can tell you we should ALL be worried about drones.

It's off topic, but there was an excellent show on why we need to fear drones here: http://whmp.com/pages/8875192.php The show played on July 26th and not yet up but it should be soon. Just think... tiny humming bird sized drones that can peer in any window.

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

Quote LysanderSpooner:

Even if the 2nd doesn't protect an individual right, the 9th does. Either way, the pre-existing right is protect. Remember, the Bill of Rights technically wasn't needed. All of the powers the general gov't had before the Bill of Rights, it had after the Bill of Rights.

Thanks LS... I keep trying to make this point all the time. The Gun Nuts just can't resist the absolute sound of: "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It SOUNDS absolute because they've dishonestly stripped it of the intent for this "right". And since militia members were REQUIRED to own guns whether they wanted to or not... the "right" here can't be a matter of choice to own a firearm since there is no choice. So it has to be a new limit on federal power: the government can't disarm the militias which arise from the body of The People.

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

Quote AjaxMinoan:Here, here! And, here are a few more.Ha ha, I love it when history bites people in the ass. Every time some liberal gets on the radio and tries to claim that the second amendment is purely about a well regulated millitia, I have to laugh. Nobody misrepresents our founders quite like a left wing radio pundit.
No side has a monopoly on intellectual dishonesty though the Right specializes in in it more. AGAIN, since the obvious seems to escape you... when discussing Original Intent, opinions mean sh*t if they did not make it into the Constitution. The Right plays this game claiming militias were intended to be an armed check on federal power and Christians play this game that we're "A Christian Nation". Sure, there are no end of such quotes from the past supporting both views. Did either make it into the Constitution? NO! It'd be like trying to "prove" slavery didn't exist by only quoting the anti-slavery Framers.

BTW who here attacks the Ninth Amendment most? IT'S RIGHT WINGERS!!

BTWx2... so how many of those quoted advocated that slaves have the right to keep and bear arms? Oops! So much for any universal individual right.

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

I have no idea what you're babbling about. I don't pretend to be a fan of the Constitution. It's anti-democratic and it fails to met the standard of morally legitimate government. But unlike you I will stand up for the right's we're SUPPOSED to have.

O sure you do.... You can take nearly anything said as a confirmation of your bias. Doesn't really matter what was said.... As long as you can derive you Ahhh Haaa...

We are not a Democratic country... I assumed you knew that.

"morally legitimate" LMAO.... Morality.... Talk abou 50 shades of gray

Capital.1's picture
Capital.1
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 8:07 am
Quote Pierpont:

No side has a monopoly on intellectual dishonesty though the Right specializes in in it more. AGAIN, since the obvious seems to escape you... when discussing Original Intent, opinions mean sh*t if they did not make it into the Constitution.

That is pretty funny Peir.... Original Intent is the interpretation of the meaning of the written words. By definition, Original intent is not explicitly written in the Constitution. Opinions of Founders have profound influence on the meaning of the Constitution. Need I point to Separation of Church and State..

You asked did the Founders meant everyone to have the right to bear arms.... Clearly a lot of them meant everyone..

Capital.1's picture
Capital.1
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 8:07 am

@Pierpont I'll check the link and see if I can catch the show. When I'm not wasting my time on political forums :-) I spend a lot of time here (many of the posts in this particular thread concern "swarmbots"):

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-news-59/kinect-with-ros-moving-forward-quickly-848295/

The future is both exhilarating and frightening to a tech nut like me. For some reason I can't get the link to display properly, may have to c/p.

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

Quote Capital.1:
Quote Pierpont:

I have no idea what you're babbling about. I don't pretend to be a fan of the Constitution. It's anti-democratic and it fails to met the standard of morally legitimate government. But unlike you I will stand up for the right's we're SUPPOSED to have.

O sure you do.... You can take nearly anything said as a confirmation of your bias. Doesn't really matter what was said.... As long as you can derive you Ahhh Haaa...

Confirmation bias. Cap learned a new term in school today and is dying to use it even if he doesn't know what it means.

We are not a Democratic country... I assumed you knew that.
And pray tell Einstein… where is there ANYTHING inherent in the concept of a republic that REQUIRES it to be un- or anti- democratic?

"morally legitimate" LMAO.... Morality.... Talk abou 50 shades of gray
Nah, the test is simple and was set forth in the Declaration of Independence: government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Our Constitution simply fails that test in that it permits rule by the MINORITY. Election 2000 is just the most blatant example. US history was changed for the worst AGAINST the will of the American People.

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

One might better ask . How did the US become a country of car nuts . They kill far more young people and are the a major cause of climate change, and yet no one running around with their hair on fire ,wanting cars banned . Me thinks I smell a rat here, or some separate media agenda, bought and paid for of course . Note, gun sales soar everytime one of theses horrors is trumpeted across the media.

jim mcdonagh's picture
jim mcdonagh
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:07 pm

Intent is not the issue , the deaths of so many youths is . Most shootings by far are suicides , what does that do to your intent argument . Are you against people having the right to end their own suffering?

jim mcdonagh's picture
jim mcdonagh
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:07 pm
Quote Pierpont: Confirmation bias. Cap learned a new term in school today and is dying to use it even if he doesn't know what it means.

When a person makes such a claim.... it is usually followed by the clarification..... Google not working for you today?

And pray tell Einstein… where is there ANYTHING inherent in the concept of a republic that REQUIRES it to be un- or anti- democratic?

Rule of Law vs Rule of the Majority. By it's very structure and design it is UN-democratic. Didn't they teach you that in Social studies?

Nah, the test is simple and was set forth in the Declaration of Independence: government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Our Constitution simply fails that test in that it permits rule by the MINORITY. Election 2000 is just the most blatant example. US history was changed for the worst AGAINST the will of the American People.

Proves once again, the Founders were smarter than you.

Capital.1's picture
Capital.1
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 8:07 am

Quote Capital.1:
Quote Pierpont: Confirmation bias. Cap learned a new term in school today and is dying to use it even if he doesn't know what it means.

When a person makes such a claim.... it is usually followed by the clarification..... Google not working for you today?

I still have no idea WTF you're babbling about.

And pray tell Einstein… where is there ANYTHING inherent in the concept of a republic that REQUIRES it to be un- or anti- democratic?

Rule of Law vs Rule of the Majority. By it's very structure and design it is UN-democratic. Didn't they teach you that in Social studies?

WTF are you even babbling about? Even our system is run by majority or super-majority rule. What makes it un- and anti-democratic is that state suffrage is nothing but a vote weighting/dilution scheme ILLEGAL on all other levels of government.

As for rights the intent was there'd be some minority rights the majority can't take away yet YOU support the negation of the Ninth to do just that. You don't advocating repealing the Ninth… you and your far Right buddies have just declared it null and void. So much for your respecting the Constitution. And just because some rights are protected against the majority hardly means the decision making aspect of government must be anti-democratic. Didn't your mommy teach you THAT when you were being homeschooled?

And let me guess... in your Orwellian world of right wing ignorance you've never heard of "elections" where majorities prevail?

Nah, the test is simple and was set forth in the Declaration of Independence: government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Our Constitution simply fails that test in that it permits rule by the MINORITY. Election 2000 is just the most blatant example. US history was changed for the worst AGAINST the will of the American People.

Proves once again, the Founders were smarter than you.

Duh Einstein... it was the Founders who signed the Declaration of Independence who set the standard for morally legitimate government. We already know you have contempt for the concepts of the general welfare and liberty, and now you're proving you have nothing but contempt for the idea of morally legitimate self-government…

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote AjaxMinoan:Then why isn't the Taliban defeated yet?

The answer to this is very long and even more depressing. It involves the CIA training terrorist factions in Afghanistan for at least six months prior to the Russian invasion in December of 1979. The plan was to turn a ragtag bunch of tribal warlords into a "unified" (that term is used very loosely) fighting force capable of hiding amongst the civilian population. According to President Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, it was supposed to be the Soviet Union's 'Vietnam'.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

This was only 30 years ago. The Jihad did to the Soviets what the Viet Cong did to the US just a few years prior. The Jihad fought a prolonged guerrilla war, wearing down a much more powerful invading force over the course of a decade, until the Soviets couldn't sustain a war any longer. Now the Jihad is doing the same thing to the US. Ten years into our war, we are no closer to victory than Russia was, our cities are filing for bankruptcy, we're told by the corporate press to accept austerity while billions more are thrown at a war that the US Federal government itself designed to be unwinnable in the first place.

Another factor to consider is that the US channels billions of dollars in trade revenue and international aid to countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan that have turned some of that funding over to the Jihad. In effect, the United States of America are funding a war against ourselves.

Quote AjaxMinoan:The Predator drone and the Abrams tank are self-defeating weapons. They are so expensive and troublesome to use, and do so little damage against the people we fight when compared to the actual numbers of extremists, that the enemy can simply wait us out, and watch us spend ourselves to death. I read somewhere that a Hellfire missile in it's anti-tank form costs $58,000. I can only hope that each of those missiles fired from our drones aren't that expensive. If we do defeat the Taliban, it will be with the sniper rifle more than the Hellfire missile fired from drones and helicopters. NATO snipers are inflicting an aweful toll on our enemies in Afghanistan, but it is seldom reported on.

You are correct that the US' superior fire power is mostly negated in a guerrilla war. Vietnam is the most obvious example. All those millions of tons of bombs dropped on North Vietnam, South Vietnam and Cambodia didn't make a bit of difference. The US still lost. This is why the CIA began training the Taliban and al-Qaeda in modern guerrilla tactics. The goal was to destabilize the Soviet Union with an unwinnable war, and it worked. In 1989, the Soviets finally withdrew from Afghanistan, bankrupt and humiliated, and the Soviet Union ultimately dissolved. This is where we are heading by our own government's design.

Now, why would a guerrilla war against the American public be any different than Afghanistan or Vietnam? Because the majority of gun owners in the US are fat, lazy rednecks who aren't trained in guerrilla tactics by the Central Intelligence Agency. The majority of rifles and firearms are mostly registered with some agency of the government, so for the most part the government knows who has what guns and where they live. Not to offend any fat lazy rednecks out there, but fat lazy rednecks cannot take on the US government. Rednecks don't have the determination of the Taliban.

Also, XE Services is a private standing mercenary army on American soil that has more powerful weapons than the public, their own fleet of F16 fighter jets, and are immune from international human rights laws. If another revolution or civil war broke out in the US, XE would kill anyone, anywhere, anytime at the government or some other corporations request.
http://www.thenation.com/article/154739/blackwaters-black-ops#

Quote AjaxMinoan:A rifle is effective simply by the virtue of being cheap. Have you ever watched Enemy at the Gates? It's not entirely a historically accurate movie, but it's a good metaphor for how the Soviets started to turn things around against a more advanced military.

Russia's main defense in WWII was the cold weather and their willingness to slaughter as many of their own people as needed. The American people just don't have that kind of determination, especially if it's football season.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm

JTaylor, I've always believed that the Soviets won is spite of Stalin not because of him. His strategy of allowing huge portions of his military to be wiped out seemed to be almost genocide at the time. HIs treatment of the Ukrainians on the battlefield is an example.

My large point is about the self-defeating nature of wonder weapons (except for nukes). A German Tiger tank could take out most top of the line Russian tanks before they were close to being in range, and had armour that could only be defeated with allied tank shells at very close ranges. The Tiger Tank was terrifying, but the Germans brought themselves closer to defeat with every Tiger Tank they built. The production and maintenance costs were staggering.

In Afghanistan the smartest thing we've done isn't the drones. It's digging out multitudes of surplus M-14's and making a sniper the standard squad support weapon. We've got fancy new, modern sniper rifles, but they needed a ton of them to fill the ranks. The sniper is a huge part of how they turned things around in Iraq too. We just needed to be ruthless enough to open fire on people beside the road digging a hole.

A drone at least is less expensive than a Tomohawk Cruise missile, but it's not nearly cheap enough.

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

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/US-sniper-war-in-afghanistan/

Your explanation for why the Taliban hasn't been defeated is that they are supposedly CIA trained? Do you really believe that? Can XE defeat the Taliban? Why can't the Mexican government defeat the drug cartels, with US drones and ground personell in a supporting roll? Are Mexican drug dealers tougher than Americans too? A Zeta or a Taliban guy might be tougher than a San Francisco war protester, but that's not the kind of people you find sea to sea.

XE would last about a day if they tried to Nazi-up on Americans.

AjaxMinoan's picture
AjaxMinoan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:

WTF are you even babbling about? Even our system is run by majority or super-majority rule. What makes it un- and anti-democratic is that state suffrage is nothing but a vote weighting/dilution scheme ILLEGAL on all other levels of government.

Yet specfically placed into the constitution to avoid mob rule. Feel free to propose a constitutional amendment at your liesure.

As for rights the intent was there'd be some minority rights the majority can't take away yet YOU support the negation of the Ninth to do just that. You don't advocating repealing the Ninth

Why would I repeal the 9th.... it a thing of Art. It's got you near beligerent 220 years after being written.

Why would I negate something that defies being defined. It's fine just the way it is.

So much for your respecting the Constitution

I respect it just fine. I like Madison can't define the 9th, So we both choose not to.

I just like a Founder...

Capital.1's picture
Capital.1
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 8:07 am

Nice analogy. We became "car nuts" when the 'highway lobby' took out the trains and gave us the Interstates to drive on so we would buy their stuff. Petroleum, rubber, concrete and steel all had a hand in the triumph of the car and the destruction of our rail infrastructure. These businesses used the public antipathy toward the Railroad Barons who had been real shits during the late 19th and early 20th Century. About the time they were ready to yield to public accountability, the other goons wiped them out and gave us a new set of corrupters.

The NRA is a lobby group for arms manufacturers, of course. So, our "gun nuttiness" is another commercial sponsored marketing scheme that depends upon symbolism and emotions to remove all clear thinking about guns, just as we hear about mass transit or high speed rail.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Quote Capital.1:
Quote Pierpont:

WTF are you even babbling about? Even our system is run by majority or super-majority rule. What makes it un- and anti-democratic is that state suffrage is nothing but a vote weighting/dilution scheme ILLEGAL on all other levels of government.

Yet specfically placed into the constitution to avoid mob rule. Feel free to propose a constitutional amendment at your liesure.

Your ignorance knows no bounds does it? You're STILL conflating protecting minority rights and democratic rule as if they are the same. I'm still waiting for you to show the class where it is inherent in the definition of a republic that it be antidemocratic or that the MINORITY can rule.

As for rights the intent was there'd be some minority rights the majority can't take away yet YOU support the negation of the Ninth to do just that. You don't advocating repealing the Ninth

Why would I negate something that defies being defined. It's fine just the way it is.

Thanks for AGAIN proving you're anti-liberty. The concept of having freedom to do anything that doesn't harm others doesn't need to be validated by a laundry list of rights. The list is endless and the Ninth covers them all as UNENUMERATED rights. So according to your "logic", because the Ninth doesn't enumerate all rights, it instead LIMITS rights that were secure BEFORE the Bill of Rights was ratified.

So much for your respecting the Constitution

I respect it just fine. I like Madison can't define the 9th, So we both choose not to.

I just like a Founder...

No, you're still just a Orwellian Right hypocrite who claims to believe in the Constitution even as you applaud those who seek to undermine it by simply negating sections you don't agree with. THAT sort of wholesale right wing judicial activism doesn't bother you… only trying to flesh out liberties guaranteed by the Ninth does.

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

Currently Chatting

Green World Rising

In two previous videos narrated by Leonard DiCaprio and available over at GreenWorldRising.org, we’ve seen the dangers that global warming and climate change present for our planet and the human race.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system