PDA

View Full Version : Shooting at Batman movie


Vis
07-20-2012, 04:24 AM
Ten people reported dead and nearly 40 injured at Aurora Mall
Shooting at Century Theater inside Aurora Mall during a midnight shooting of The Dark Knight Rises.


Read more: http://www.850koa.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=124975&article=10283158#ixzz219Yeh3Dq

Vis
07-20-2012, 04:25 AM
Mass shooting at Batman premiereAT least 20 people have been hurt following a shooting at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado.(0:40 / 3.8MB)

The shooting took place at Aurora's Town Centre. Picture: Courtesy of NBC Source: news.com.au

AT LEAST 10 people have been killed and more than 20 wounded when two gunmen wearing a gas masks and body armour opened fire at a crowded cinema premiere in Denver.

Authorities have confirmed 10 dead and 39 injured in the shooting at at a cinema at a shopping mall in Aurora, Colorado.

Police arrested the alleged gunmen and were searching for another, following chaotic scenes at a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises, the latest Batman movie, KDVR, a local Fox affiliate, reported.

Local radio station 850 KOA Radio quoted witnesses as saying that an individual wearing a gas mask opened fire in a theatre at the Aurora Mall.

The attacker then set off what appeared to be a smoke bomb or teargas bomb.

One witness, Hayden Miller, told Denver's 9News he was in an adjoining cinema when he heard "10-20 shots" and "small explosions".

"We heard people screaming," Mr Miller  said.

He said a voice then came over the PA system and "told us to get out".

"Everyone was running, screaming," he said.

One suspect was in custody, police said. It was unclear whether other suspects were involved.

Brenda Stuart, of 850 KOA radio, told Britain's Sky News that "a lot of people thought the gunshots were part of the movie."

"They heard what they thought were firecrackers," she added, citing witnesses. "Then they saw the bullets flying."

Aurora police spokeswoman Cassidee Carlson told AP: ``The scene is still very active and we have little information for release at this time.''

Swedish Medical Centre spokeswoman Nicole Williams said two people injured at the theatre had arrived at the hospital in critical condition.

She told AP emergency workers had said there could be several more patients.

The shooting happened in cinema 9 of the complex.

Witnesses also reported hearing explosions.

The bomb squad is also on the scene.

Aurora, a suburb of Denver, is not far from Littleton, scene of the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 that claimed 13 lives.

 Check back for updates on this developing story

 

Vis
07-20-2012, 04:27 AM
I just heard there was no evidence of a second gunman on an interview with the chief investigator. They have a suspect in custody.

14 people dead. 50 wounded.

IowaSteeler927
07-20-2012, 06:50 AM
Absolutely makes my stomach churn. There are some sick people in this world. I read that a police officer carried a 9 year old little girl with a gunshot wound to the back, out of the theatre. Simply unbelievable how someone could be so evil. Prayers to the victims, the families, the firefighters, ems personnel, and police officers involved in this situation.

Steelboy84
07-20-2012, 06:55 AM
lunatics and their guns

Vis
07-20-2012, 07:37 AM
Numbers now 12 dead and 38 hurt. Gunman named as James Holmes, 24

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes/t/story?id=16818889#.UAlPs3NCuYQ

Atlanta Dan
07-20-2012, 08:31 AM
The way mass casualty stories unfold in America has taken on a chilling familiarity.

As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg again calls for gun-control efforts from our national leaders and critic Anthony Lane examines whether the shooter in Aurora, Colorado, could have been inspired by the villain in The Dark Knight Rises, it's clear that we as a nation have developed an awful template for reacting to our growing catalog of domestic mass-casualty events.

The age of new media being now well-established, it goes a little something like this:

First we get the shaky camera phone videos and the tweets. Then the distraught eyewitness interviews and 911 call recording. Quickly, the shooter is identified. Politicians issue statements of shock and sorrow. The shooter's parents, if interviewed, are confused and abashed or else hide. The social media forensics begin. People with the same or a similar name as the shooter are harassed. There is speculation he is part of a right-wing group, or an Islamic terrorist, or a former Army veteran. The FBI and the armed forces check their records and issue denials or confirmations. Calls for better gun control efforts are issued once again. Defenders of the Second Amendment fight back immediately, or even pre-emptively. The victims of the shooting are blamed in social media for being where they were attacked. More eye-witness interviews. The shooter's parents are castigated. Survivors speak. Warning signs are identified as the alleged shooter's past is plumbed. We ask if violent movies are to blame for his actions. Or cuts to mental-health services. And talk about what kind of country we are, if we have culture of violence. The death toll fluctuates. International voices from countries where guns are heavily regulated shake their heads at us. People leave piles of flowers and teddy bears at the shooting site. There are candlelight vigils, and teary memorials. Everyone calls for national unity and a moment of togetherness. Eventually, the traumatized community holds a big healing ceremony. It is moving, and terribly sad, and watched by millions on TV or online. A few activists continue to make speeches. The shooter, if still alive, rapidly is brought to trial. There is another wave of public discussion about our failures, and the nature of evil. Politicians make feints at gun-law changes, which fail. And then everyone forgets and moves on. Everyone, that is, except the survivors.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/the-template-of-our-grief/260110/

Yep

Bayz101
07-20-2012, 12:57 PM
Wow...I was just at a midnight premier last night, and trust me, if a lunatic wanted to find a place to go insane, that's it. So many people, and such a small place for all of them to squeeze into.

Atlanta Dan
07-20-2012, 01:43 PM
Wow...I was just at a midnight premier last night, and trust me, if a lunatic wanted to find a place to go insane, that's it. So many people, and such a small place for all of them to squeeze into.

According to the NYPD Commissioner (chief of Aurora PD is former NYPD so the source presumably is reliable), the shooter had dyed his hair red like The Joker

Shooter also appears to have rigged his appartmet with booby traps - "“Chemical elements, incendiary linked together with all kinds of wires,“

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/live-updates-on-movie-theater-shooting-in-colorado/

One seriously f***ed up person

Bayz101
07-20-2012, 01:55 PM
According to the NYPD Commissioner (chief of Aurora PD is former NYPD so the source presumably is reliable), the shooter had dyed his hair red like The Joker

Shooter also appears to have rigged his appartmet with booby traps - "“Chemical elements, incendiary linked together with all kinds of wires,“

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/live-updates-on-movie-theater-shooting-in-colorado/

One seriously f***ed up person

From what I was hearing, one of them had a mask on, looked just like bane. Crazy shit.

Galax Steeler
07-22-2012, 07:03 AM
They shouldn't even waste a trial on this idiot. They should take and put a bullet between his eyes and be done with him instead of wasting peoples tax money.

tanda10506
07-23-2012, 01:41 PM
How the f*** can you shoot a 9 year old? I would agree Galax, but actually putting a bullet in his head would be letting him off the hook. He needs something much more drawn out and painful. I'm sick of people screwing over kids like that. This is the exact reason I carry a handgun on me almost every time I leave the house. I'm am a black belt but there isn't much you can do to a guy gunning you down 10,20, or 30 feet away, and I'll be damned if I ever let my life and my wife's life be at the mercy of some random asshole like this.

Atlanta Dan
07-23-2012, 02:00 PM
I'll be damned if I ever let my life and my wife's life be at the mercy of some random asshole like this.

A congressman who said that The Joker's rampage was an "attack on Judeo-Christian values":noidea: also asked "With all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57476790-503544/gop-rep-links-shooting-to-attacks-on-judeo-christian-beliefs/

The guy was wearing body armor while packing an A-15 with a 100 round clip, a shotgun, and 2 Glocks.

Unless everyone in the theater would have been packing and returned fire (which arguably creates its own set of problems), I respectfully suggest carrying a sidearm is not going to be of much assistance if somone dressed up like the SWAT team and carrying an assault rifle decides to drop by.

Vis
07-23-2012, 02:15 PM
Everyone who carries a gun thinks that in that type of chaos they would be able to put one between the eyes on a quick draw.

PATS16N0
07-23-2012, 04:30 PM
This is really disturbing. It's beyond comprehension how someone can enter a movie theater and start shooting random innocent people like that. I hope this guy fries.
Makes me physically sick to even think about this story.

Would like to throw this creep in a pen with wild animals and watch them rip him limb from limb. Sick %&$! ! !

Vis
07-24-2012, 04:08 PM
If you're going into a movie and see someone with a weapon, do you report it? Refuse to go in because he might start shooting? Go in happily because he must be armed to protect you and stop the other armed guy from shooting?

Fire Haley
07-24-2012, 04:15 PM
Everyone who carries a gun thinks that in that type of chaos they would be able to put one between the eyes on a quick draw.

I dominated Mass Effect 3 - he's nothing

Atlanta Dan
07-24-2012, 09:21 PM
If you're going into a movie and see someone with a weapon, do you report it? Refuse to go in because he might start shooting? Go in happily because he must be armed to protect you and stop the other armed guy from shooting?

In Georgia you ask him or her to pass the popcorn - if you have a weapons carry license (based on his lack of a record last week's shooter in Colorado could have obtained one) in Georgia there are few places you cannot carry - it does not prohibit packing in theaters

http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php

We in the Peach State love our Second Amendment

Vis
07-25-2012, 05:56 AM
In Georgia you ask him or her to pass the popcorn - if you have a weapons carry license (based on his lack of a record last week's shooter in Colorado could have obtained one) in Georgia there are few places you cannot carry - it does not prohibit packing in theaters

http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php

We in the Peach State love our Second Amendment

What will theaters say about it?

Atlanta Dan
07-25-2012, 07:07 AM
What will theaters say about it?

Theater or other private business establishment needs to put up a sign prohibiting firearms

This web site apparently used to provide a llst of locations where you could not bring your gun to assist someone who wanted to take in a movie or go shopping while continuing to enjoy their ability to pack at all times

http://www.georgiapacking.org/gflnol.php

This reflects the local attitude of many that guns should be everywhere

Hours after the horrific shooting in Aurora, Colorado last week, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to Georgia’s ban on carrying concealed weapons in places of worship. Guns rights advocates, along with two Reverends, argued the ban violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but the court disagreed. When the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, Justice Scalia said the ruling should not “cast doubt on . . . laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”....

The Georgia legislature is now considering a bill that would overturn the 11th Circuit’s decision and further relax the state’s concealed carry laws to allow guns in churches, government buildings, schools, and bars, without the consent of property owners
http://politicstoday.biz/193908/court-rejects-challenge-from-reverends-who-want-to-pack-heat-upholds-georgia-ban-on-guns-in-churches/

Vis
07-25-2012, 07:35 AM
Back to my original question. What would you do if you see a gun on the gun heading toward your row?

Atlanta Dan
07-25-2012, 07:59 AM
Back to my original question. What would you do if you see a gun on the gun heading toward your row?

I would report to managment that the patron was carrying and then head out the door before the patron was approached by management (assuming managment did not tell me to mind my own business) - shootings (not always intentional as evidenced by your Texas story) can occur when someone who is carrying is confronted.

There is no way I would confront (or for that matter even question) someone who thought it was A-OK to come into a public place packing

Private citizens have broad rights (constitutional and statutory) to possess firearms and I have a right to steer clear of them

Vis
07-25-2012, 12:23 PM
Did anyone see the tweet by Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto?

"I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice."

What an ass

Atlanta Dan
07-25-2012, 01:30 PM
Did anyone see the tweet by Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto?

"I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice."

What an ass

Yep - Taranto (who has a track record of being a tool) initiaily took exception to the harsh responses to what he described as his "challenging" tweet but now has a column posted that tries to walk back what he now describes as his "ill considered" tweet

We intended this to be thought-provoking, but to judge by the response, very few people received it that way. The vast majority found it offensive and insulting. This column has often argued that a failure of public communication is the fault of the public communicator, and that's certainly true in this case.


http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/james-taranto-aurora-tweet-worthy.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443477104577548173266014782.html?m od=wsj_share_tweet

Stupid tweeting - it's not just a problem for pro athletes:chuckle:

Vis
07-25-2012, 02:01 PM
Yep - Taranto (who has a track record of being a tool) initiaily took exception to the harsh responses to what he described as his "challenging" tweet but now has a column posted that tries to walk back what he now describes as his "ill considered" tweet

We intended this to be thought-provoking, but to judge by the response, very few people received it that way. The vast majority found it offensive and insulting. This column has often argued that a failure of public communication is the fault of the public communicator, and that's certainly true in this case.


http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/james-taranto-aurora-tweet-worthy.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443477104577548173266014782.html?m od=wsj_share_tweet

Stupid tweeting - it's not just a problem for pro athletes:chuckle:

I did find it thought provoking. The thought it provoked was, "What an ass"

Fire Haley
07-25-2012, 07:55 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/531265_480834045279456_963006780_n.jpg

tony hipchest
07-26-2012, 01:46 AM
i find it disturbing that anyone knows that sick scumbags name (and that many more will think i am talking about obama).

Vis
07-26-2012, 03:54 AM
Using this tragedy for cheap political points is as low on here as it is when the Christian right groups started blaming it on gays or opining which of the victims may get into heaven. What's disturbing, killer, is your crass opportunism after these killings.

Fire Haley
07-26-2012, 07:51 AM
Here's your opportunism ....Obama is using it to come and take everyone's guns...


Obama Calls For Government Action On Guns In The Wake Of Colorado Shooting

Five days after a gunman killed 12 people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater, President Obama spoke at length about the need for government action to reduce gun violence, including hinting at a return to the assault weapons ban and tightening restrictions on gun purchases.

On Capitol Hill, gun control has been a non-starter in the wake of the Colorado shooting. Mitt Romney said in an interview Wednesday that he didn’t see the need for new firearms regulations following the tragedy.

Obama distinguished himself Wednesday in a speech before the National Urban League convention in New Orleans. The president tied Aurora shooting and other high-profile mass shootings in recent years to continuing urban gun violence and said it was time to take greater legislative steps to curb the problem.

“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.”

“What I said in the wake of Tucson was that we were going to stay on this persistently. So we’ve been able to take some actions on our own, recognizing that it’s not always easy to get things through Congress these days,” Obama said.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/obama-calls-for-gun-control-after-colorado.php

-----------------------

he just jumped in it with both feet

Vis
07-26-2012, 08:01 AM
Here's your opportunism ....Obama is using it to come and take everyone's guns...


Obama Calls For Government Action On Guns In The Wake Of Colorado Shooting

Five days after a gunman killed 12 people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater, President Obama spoke at length about the need for government action to reduce gun violence, including hinting at a return to the assault weapons ban and tightening restrictions on gun purchases.

On Capitol Hill, gun control has been a non-starter in the wake of the Colorado shooting. Mitt Romney said in an interview Wednesday that he didn’t see the need for new firearms regulations following the tragedy.

Obama distinguished himself Wednesday in a speech before the National Urban League convention in New Orleans. The president tied Aurora shooting and other high-profile mass shootings in recent years to continuing urban gun violence and said it was time to take greater legislative steps to curb the problem.

“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.”

“What I said in the wake of Tucson was that we were going to stay on this persistently. So we’ve been able to take some actions on our own, recognizing that it’s not always easy to get things through Congress these days,” Obama said.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/obama-calls-for-gun-control-after-colorado.php

-----------------------

he just jumped in it with both feet

It's not playing politics if the law is proposed is to prevent the actual thing that happened. That's the way laws work (when ALEC isn't involved) See a problem - address the problem if you can.

What Obama didn't do is try to be funny about mass murder like the asshole who made the pic you posted.

Fire Haley
07-26-2012, 08:13 AM
" I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.”


Obama don' care - his gang won't be affected by any new laws

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/fladj11/Obama%2013/ObamaGang-BangSignLanguage.jpg

Vis
07-26-2012, 08:20 AM
" I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.”


Obama don' care - his gang won't be affected by any new laws

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/fladj11/Obama%2013/ObamaGang-BangSignLanguage.jpg

Make yet another bash Obama thread for this crap. Don't tie it in to these murders in this thread.

MACH1
07-26-2012, 08:36 AM
Yeah, the only way to fix it is to throw more legislation, regulation at it. Not gonna work.

Vis
07-26-2012, 08:43 AM
Yeah, the only way to fix it is to throw more legislation, regulation at it. Not gonna work.

That's a valid discussion. Some think it can help but nothing will ever stop it. If we want a free society we can't weed out crazy people. I wonder at those who suggest he should have been taken off the streets before this happened. How? Should everyone have weekly mental health evaluations? It's impossible.

No, freedom or safety is always a balancing act and needs to be discussed soberly the way nothing is right now between the parties.

MACH1
07-26-2012, 10:04 AM
That's a valid discussion. Some think it can help but nothing will ever stop it. If we want a free society we can't weed out crazy people. I wonder at those who suggest he should have been taken off the streets before this happened. How? Should everyone have weekly mental health evaluations? It's impossible.

No, freedom or safety is always a balancing act and needs to be discussed soberly the way nothing is right now between the parties.

We can't let whack jobs be the reason they take away freedoms either. Banning guns is not going to solve anything. How many thousands of people were killed in Nigeria where guns are banned. They were all hacked to death by machetes.

The only people that rules and regs affect are the people that actually follow the law.

We should be more like Switzerland in that regards. Certainly don't hear about any gun battles going on there.

Vis
07-26-2012, 10:31 AM
We can't let whack jobs be the reason they take away freedoms either. Banning guns is not going to solve anything. How many thousands of people were killed in Nigeria where guns are banned. They were all hacked to death by machetes.

The only people that rules and regs affect are the people that actually follow the law.

We should be more like Switzerland in that regards. Certainly don't hear about any gun battles going on there.

Who said ban guns? Some types are banned now. Where is that line? That's the discussion. Imagine if he had had a couple of fully automatic uzis. Would you make them legal?

MACH1
07-26-2012, 10:41 AM
Who said ban guns? Some types are banned now. Where is that line? That's the discussion. Imagine if he had had a couple of fully automatic uzis. Would you make them legal?

It's what it's going to lead too. It's that slippery slope thing.

In a state where it is legal: $200 for the tax stamp + background check + a whole lot of money for the gun = you owning an automatic weapon.


Class 3 firearms include machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, destructive devices and Any Other Weapons (AOWs).
The tax for privately manufacturing any class 3 firearms is $200. Transferring requires a $200 tax for all class 3s except AOW’s, for which the transfer tax is $5.
To legally possess a class 3 weapon you must complete a transfer of registration within the NFA registry.
There are two ways for you to legally buy a class 3 gun. The first is by transfer after approval by ATF of a registered weapon from its lawful owner residing in the same State as the transferee. The second is by obtaining prior approval from ATF to make NFA firearms.


Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/10/19/how-to-buy-class-three-weapons/#ixzz21kAaetEu

Vis
07-26-2012, 11:11 AM
It's a slippery slope both ways. Will repealing a restriction currently on the books leade to the legalization of private artillery ownership. Can I have a gun turret with a Mark 7 on the corner of my roof?

Vincent
07-26-2012, 12:52 PM
Yeah, the only way to fix it is to throw more legislation, regulation at it. Not gonna work.

What about "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." is ambiguous? "Infringe" means "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringed). In other words, any and every law that restricts full access to weapons of any kind is unconstitutional. Registration, limitations, restrictions of any kind are verboten under this, our most important amendment. It protects the rest of the amendments.

Make yet another bash Obama thread for this crap. Don't tie it in to these murders in this thread.

I'm always very suspicious of these isolated crazy incidents because of who stands to gain from them.

Vis
07-26-2012, 01:04 PM
What about "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." is ambiguous? "Infringe" means "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringed). In other words, any and every law that restricts full access to weapons of any kind is unconstitutional. Registration, limitations, restrictions of any kind are verboten under this, our most important amendment. It protects the rest of the amendments.



I'm always very suspicious of these isolated crazy incidents because of who stands to gain from them.

No one gains from this. Many people lost everything. But are you suggesting that the star chamber that masterminded the 9/11 fraud did this as well? :jawdrop:


Hey, aren't you willing to attack Iran to stop them from getting nukes? On the otherhand you are in favor of any American citizen being allowed to have one under your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, even Muslim American citizens. That is your position?

Vincent
07-26-2012, 01:13 PM
Should everyone have weekly mental health evaluations? It's impossible.

Just liberals (http://www.libertymind.com/). And its a justifiable expense.

No, freedom or safety is always a balancing act and needs to be discussed soberly the way nothing is right now between the parties.

According to the 2nd Amendment, there's nothing to discuss, soberly or otherwise.

We should be more like Switzerland in that regards. Certainly don't hear about any gun battles going on there.

Legend has it that when the Swiss visited upon the krauts thet they'd lose their officer corps in the process of invading Switzerland, they would-be invaders rethought the merits of Switzerland's sovereignty.

A Columbine or Aurora wouldn't happen in Switzerland because the citizens are armed and carry as part of their service obligation.

MACH1
07-26-2012, 01:25 PM
even Muslim American citizens

Am I missing something? Is there a special law that prevents them from legally owning guns?

Vincent
07-26-2012, 01:27 PM
No one gains from this. Many people lost everything. But are you suggesting that the star chamber that masterminded the 9/11 fraud did this as well? :jawdrop:

What are you drooling about?

Hey, aren't you willing to attack Iran to stop them from getting nukes? On the otherhand you are in favor of any American citizen being allowed to have one under your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, even Muslim American citizens. That is your position?

Attacking Iran wouldn't be advisable or would happen under this "administration". Such activity should be left to adults. I would, however, applaud the assassination of Iran's leadership, which recent history suggests is within the "administration's" capability. No, that wouldn't gain my vote.

But interestingly, we may have swerved onto "common ground". I don't think it's a good idea that any citizen posses nukes. Witness the easily amused and their fireworks.

And no, I oppose any muslim possessing any weapon more lethal than a butter knife. Their behavior betrays them.

Vis
07-26-2012, 01:38 PM
What are you drooling about?



Attacking Iran wouldn't be advisable or would happen under this "administration". Such activity should be left to adults. I would, however, applaud the assassination of Iran's leadership, which recent history suggests is within the "administration's" capability. No, that wouldn't gain my vote.

But interestingly, we may have swerved onto "common ground". I don't think it's a good idea that any citizen posses nukes. Witness the easily amused and their fireworks.

And no, I oppose any muslim possessing any weapon more lethal than a butter knife. Their behavior betrays them.

Parsing your post, you don't think some American citizens have the same Constitutional right you do based upon a religious test. So much for your signature or any allegiance you ever claimed to the constitution. I guess you pick and choose the parts you like.

You draw the line on the 2nd amendment at nukes at least. What about mustard gas? Bunker busters? Napalm?

Vincent
07-26-2012, 02:06 PM
Parsing your post, you don't think some American citizens have the same Constitutional right you do based upon a religious test. So much for your signature or any allegiance you ever claimed to the constitution. I guess you pick and choose the parts you like.

If those citizens are muslim, no. As long as we are at war with islam, its foolish to allow your enemy to bear arms. We're not without precedent.

Fort Hood wouldn't have happened if we had the clarity and leadership to remove muslims from the armed forces and disarm muslim citizens. They are our enemies by their own declarations and actions.

You draw the line on the 2nd amendment at nukes at least. What about mustard gas? Bunker busters? Napalm?

Parental caution strongly advised.

SteelCityMom
07-26-2012, 04:28 PM
If those citizens are muslim, no.

According to the 2nd Amendment, there's nothing to discuss.

Sorry, but by your own words, you contradict yourself. What you are suggesting is more in line with liberal thinking than Constitutional conservative thinking. (I know better than everyone else, so things should be my way...screw the Constitution.)

You can have all the hatred and bias you want, and spout all the rhetoric you please, but you don't get to go deciding who is protected by the Constitution based on religious practices. And neither should our government.

Atlanta Dan
07-26-2012, 05:51 PM
What about "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." is ambiguous? "Infringe" means "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringed). In other words, any and every law that restricts full access to weapons of any kind is unconstitutional. Registration, limitations, restrictions of any kind are verboten under this, our most important amendment. It protects the rest of the amendments..

Really?

This passge is from the majority opinion of Justice Scalia (no wild eyed liberal activist) in the District of Columbia v. Heller decison in 2008 that held the District of Columbia's virtual ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment. (this quote is from pp. 54 and 55of the linked opinion)

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”....

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

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

That pasage seems to indicate there a lots of restrictions on weapons possession, including banning personal ownership of the AR-15 The Joker used in Aurora, that would not violate the Second Amendment

I'm always very suspicious of these isolated crazy incidents because of who stands to gain from them.

So you think Eric Holder may be behind this to divert attention from Fast and Furious?:noidea:

Keep in mind what prompted the Fast and Furious fiasco to get started

Just 200 miles from Mexico, which prohibits gun sales, the Phoenix area is home to 853 federally licensed firearms dealers. Billboards advertise volume discounts for multiple purchases.

Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich."

By 2009 the Sinaloa drug cartel had made Phoenix its gun supermarket and recruited young Americans as its designated shoppers or straw purchasers. Voth and his agents began investigating a group of buyers, some not even old enough to buy beer, whose members were plunking down as much as $20,000 in cash to purchase up to 20 semiautomatics at a time, and then delivering the weapons to others.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

The fact that the Mexican drug cartels use Arizona as their one stop weapons shopping siteindicates there may be some problems taht flow from an unrestricted firerms market that could be more tightly regulated without coming close to breaching the Second Amendment.

Vis
07-26-2012, 06:17 PM
So you think Eric Holder may be behind this to divert attention from Fast and Furious?
.

Romney thinks it was the soviet union.

Vincent
07-26-2012, 07:16 PM
According to the 2nd Amendment, there's nothing to discuss.

Sorry, but by your own words, you contradict yourself. What you are suggesting is more in line with liberal thinking than Constitutional conservative thinking. (I know better than everyone else, so things should be my way...screw the Constitution.)

You can have all the hatred and bias you want, and spout all the rhetoric you please, but you don't get to go deciding who is protected by the Constitution based on religious practices. And neither should our government.

Mom, we've been round and round on the [slur] thing and this could go another 1,000 posts like the last time. As I have said in the past, the only people I actually hate are terrorists and those that aid and abet them, and for all the reasons that I stated.

With that as context, islam has purposed itself to destroy Israel and the United States, their words, not mine. Their domestic elements have posited that they could take down this country with as few as 8 million inside. They ( the people that run islam) seek to use our liberty and laws against us, sort of weaponizing our own societal construct. Common sense would suggest that if you are dealing with an enemy that has plainly stated that they will use your own societal construct as a weapon against you, that you might want to revisit their "rights" just as was done with the Nisei and every citizen that has turned felon.

To those that their message was lost on, they declared war on us. They have vowed our destruction. Everything they do is to that end, so say they. I believe that they are serious because all indications are that they entirely lack humor in any form. I am hopeful, but not very confident, that my countrymen will realize this before it is too late and the liberties of the other 99% are lost to our own complacency and stupidity.

ricardisimo
07-26-2012, 07:31 PM
If those citizens are muslim, no. As long as we are at war with islam, its foolish to allow your enemy to bear arms. We're not without precedent.

Fort Hood wouldn't have happened if we had the clarity and leadership to remove muslims from the armed forces and disarm muslim citizens. They are our enemies by their own declarations and actions.
Wow. A new low has been reached. And of course we're not without precedent, Vinny. We've got some real beauts to resurrect, if precedent is all it takes.

Mom, we've been round and round on the muzzie thing and this could go another 1,000 posts like the last time.

OK, so now a new low has been reached. The dear lord knows I don't mind lively debate, but we're going to keep it civil. Have whatever misguided notions you want about other people, but you will not be calling then by derogatory terms on this website. Thank you.

Vincent
07-26-2012, 07:34 PM
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

And like every word that was written by the framers, the words of the 2nd Amendment were carefully weighed and chosen.

"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." means that said right will not be infringed.". "Will not be infringed" is infinitely broad and unrelenting regardless of who has weighed in on it since. It is the same as saying "Thou shalt not". It leaves no wiggle room. It kills all subsequent rationalization.

A militia is a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. It is the balance to governmental power. The framers correctly stated that armed citizens are necessary to the security and freedom of the state. So they very deliberately framed that the right of the citizens to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be compromised - in any way. No restrictions. No regulation. No denial of classes of weapons. No licensing. And the militia was to be regulated by the states.

Politicians hate this stuff because it serves to keep them in check. By design.

Wow. A new low has been reached. And of course we're not without precedent, Vinny. We've got some real beauts to resurrect, if precedent is all it takes.

Said the anarchist that denies God but wonders why God hates amputees. Always nice to hear from you Ric.

ricardisimo
07-26-2012, 07:40 PM
And like every word that was written by the framers, the words of the 2nd Amendment were carefully weighed and chosen.

"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." means that said right will not be infringed.". "Will not be infringed" is infinitely broad and unrelenting regardless of who has weighed in on it since. It is the same as saying "Thou shalt not". It leaves no wiggle room. It kills all subsequent rationalization.

A militia is a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. It is the balance to governmental power. The framers correctly stated that armed citizens are necessary to the security and freedom of the state. So they very deliberately framed that the right of the citizens to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be compromised - in any way. No restrictions. No regulation. No denial of classes of weapons. No licensing. And the militia was to be regulated by the states.

Politicians hate this stuff because it serves to keep them in check. By design.



Said the anarchist that denies God but wonders why God hates amputees. Always nice to hear from you Ric.
:hatsoff:

And for the record, I think Vinny's correct: the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear... which is why it has to be repealed.

Atlanta Dan
07-26-2012, 07:57 PM
And like every word that was written by the framers, the words of the 2nd Amendment were carefully weighed and chosen.

"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." means that said right will not be infringed.". "Will not be infringed" is infinitely broad and unrelenting regardless of who has weighed in on it since. It is the same as saying "Thou shalt not". It leaves no wiggle room. It kills all subsequent rationalization.

A militia is a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. It is the balance to governmental power. The framers correctly stated that armed citizens are necessary to the security and freedom of the state. So they very deliberately framed that the right of the citizens to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be compromised - in any way. No restrictions. No regulation. No denial of classes of weapons. No licensing. And the militia was to be regulated by the states..

Not certain whether you are lumping in Justice Scalia with the other "politicians" or not.:noidea:

Just for giggles why don't you read Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (the 4 dissenters wanted to uphold the DC handgun rule as constitutional) and reconsider whether your absolutist view of the Second Amendment really reflects the views of the Founders. Scalia prides himself as being an originalist when it comes to interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, as noted in this lecture at the University of Virginia

Examining what the Founders meant when writing the Constitution is the best method for judging cases, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday during a lecture sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression.

“My burden is not to show that originalism is perfect, but that it beats the other alternatives, and that, believe me, is not difficult,” Scalia said.

Originalism suggests that the Constitution has a static meaning, Scalia said. ...

Even the most ardent non-originalist will have to resort to historical inquiry at times to understand legal concepts like the writ of habeas corpus or cases of admiralty, he said.

Scalia pointed to District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 Supreme Court case in which several D.C. residents challenged the District’s ban on handguns and restrictions on other firearms. Defenders of the law said the right to “bear arms” as outlined in the Second Amendment had an exclusively military meaning, but a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court showed the meaning was different by looking at historical texts.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm

Justice Scalia concluded in Heller that the Second Amendment enacted by the Founders provides ample room for restrictions upon the bearing of arms. You obviously disagree with him, but he seems to be pretty well versed on the issue andsome credible citations to scholarly support for your view (that does not mean newsmax:wink02:) would be appreciated.

:drink:

Atlanta Dan
07-26-2012, 09:32 PM
The Joker has been having a tough week in jail

‘Dark Knight’ shooting suspect claims amnesia

The accused mass murderer keeps asking ‘Why am I here?’ a jail staffer reports....also complaining about the food at the Aarapahoe County Detention Center

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/exclusive-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-james-holmes-claims-amnesia-article-1.1122289


‘Dark Knight’ massacre suspect wants to know how the movie ended

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/exclusive-dark-knight-massacre-suspect-movie-ended-article-1.1121478

But some other apparent lunatics like his look :noidea:

'Dark Knight' shooting suspect ... is one of the most hated men in America, but some people on Twitter seem to think he's the country's newest heartthrob.

A flood of tweets describing [him] as “hot” or “cute” rebounded across the Internet :banging:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-suspect-james-holmes-hot-twitter-users-article-1.1121706

Note - I refuse to post the name of that murderer

Atlanta Dan
07-29-2012, 12:00 PM
So they very deliberately framed that the right of the citizens to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be compromised - in any way. No restrictions. No regulation. No denial of classes of weapons. No licensing. And the militia was to be regulated by the states.

In accordance with his holding in the Heller case, Justice Scalia had this to say about the Second Amendment and regulations of firearms on Fox News Sunday today

SCALIA WARNS: GUNS MAY BE REGULATED

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwHlHh_mfUHo0juIS1REoD1cX1mxsQW oPdnAOkox_O2K4fejiyRw

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

ricardisimo
07-29-2012, 09:18 PM
I tried to have iPower delete posts back far enough so that some of Vinny's less savory comments would disappear, but alas... :noidea:

Vincent
07-30-2012, 07:20 AM
In accordance with his holding in the Heller case, Justice Scalia had this to say about the Second Amendment and regulations of firearms on Fox News Sunday today

SCALIA WARNS: GUNS MAY BE REGULATED

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwHlHh_mfUHo0juIS1REoD1cX1mxsQW oPdnAOkox_O2K4fejiyRw

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

He's wrong.

Discuss.

Vis
07-30-2012, 11:25 AM
ThinkProgress ‏@thinkprogress

Alleged Aurora shooter James Homes faces 142 counts (24 first degree murder, 116 attempted first degree murder)


__________________________________________________ _________________________________________




Colorado movie theater shooting suspect charged with 142 counts

[Updated at 12:17 p.m ET] James Holmes, the man accused of opening fire this month inside an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, has been officially charged with a total of 142 counts, including first degree murder in relation to the shooting.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/what-charges-will-colorado-movie-theater-shooting-suspect-face/

Vincent
07-30-2012, 11:48 AM
ThinkProgress ‏@thinkprogress

This "progress" that your ilk speak of is toward what?

Vis
07-30-2012, 11:51 AM
This "progress" that your ilk speak of is toward what?

twitter domination

Vincent
07-30-2012, 12:06 PM
twitter domination

That milestone was passed on Twitter's second day. Progressivism's shills lean further "forward". Toward what?

Vis
07-30-2012, 12:24 PM
That milestone was passed on Twitter's second day. Progressivism's shills lean further "forward". Toward what?


Away from you

Vincent
07-30-2012, 12:27 PM
Away from you

The fiery darts of your rapier wit tear at my quaking soul.

Toward what?

Vis
07-30-2012, 12:30 PM
The fiery darts of your rapier wit tear at my quaking soul.

Toward what?


That wasn't a joke. Progress away from those who think like you think.

Vincent
07-30-2012, 12:31 PM
That wasn't a joke. Progress away from those who think like you think.

You describe flight. Where is the progress?

Vis
07-30-2012, 12:33 PM
You describe flight. Where is the progress?

Putting away the ugly past is always progress. You delight in the ugliness. You don't need a list, you know what I mean.

Vincent
07-30-2012, 12:35 PM
Putting away the ugly past is always progress. You delight in the ugliness. You don't need a list, you know what I mean.

I like progress as much as the next guy. But you haven't sold me.

Toward what?

Vis
07-30-2012, 12:37 PM
Not trying to sell you on anything. You're beyond hope. Argue your ugly beliefs with someone else.

Atlanta Dan
07-30-2012, 12:38 PM
He's wrong.

Discuss.

If Justices Scalia and Alito are not in your corner (the holding in Justice Scalia's Heller decision that firearms cabe be regulated without violating the Second Amendment was reiterated in Justice Alito's majority opinion in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010) your interpretation of the Second Amendment clearly is an outlier

Believe whatever you care to but wishing the Second Amendment bars any regulation of firearms does not make it so

When I cited to his decsion in Heller last week I thought I was correctly describing Justice Scalia's views on this issue, but he helpfully removed all doubt during his appearance on Fox News Sunday yesterday

Maybe Justice Scalia lurks but does not post on Steelers Fever Forum and wanted to clear up some of the unusual interpretations of the original intent of the Founders in enacting the Second Amendment that he read here last week:noidea:

:drink:

Vincent
07-30-2012, 12:39 PM
Not trying to sell you on anything. You're beyond hope. Argue your ugly beliefs with someone else.

Argue what? Just asking progress toward what?

Vincent
07-30-2012, 12:41 PM
IMaybe Justice Scalia lurks but does not post on Steelers Fever Forum and wanted to clear up some of the unusual interpretations of the original intent of the Founders in enacting the Second Amendment that he read here last week:noidea:

:drink:

What about "shall not be infringed" needs interpretation? Parse the words anyway you like.

Vincent
07-30-2012, 12:47 PM
I tried to have iPower delete posts back far enough so that some of Vinny's less savory comments would disappear, but alas... :noidea:

The rich irony that inside an anarchist lies a totalitarian waiting for his "opportunity".

ricardisimo
07-30-2012, 03:28 PM
The rich irony that inside an anarchist lies a totalitarian waiting for his "opportunity".
... I'm waiting for the irony part.

Atlanta Dan
07-30-2012, 06:02 PM
What about "shall not be infringed" needs interpretation? Parse the words anyway you like.

It's not me doing the parsing - who you got to back up your view?:noidea:

tony hipchest
07-30-2012, 07:03 PM
who you got to back up your view?:noidea:militants, militia, and those who wack out and terrorize comminities, shoot up theaters, schools, luby's, mccdonalds etc...

Vincent
07-30-2012, 09:33 PM
It's not me doing the parsing - who you got to back up your view?:noidea:

The 100 or so million law abiding, tax paying Americans that quietly go about their affairs in understanding that the Republic was bequeathed to them and that it is their responsibility to bequeath it to their descendents.

militants, militia, and those who wack out and terrorize comminities, shoot up theaters, schools, luby's, mccdonalds etc...

You know me better than that Tony.

ricardisimo
07-31-2012, 02:44 AM
The 100 or so million law abiding, tax paying Americans that quietly go about their affairs in understanding that the Republic was bequeathed to them and that it is their responsibility to bequeath it to their descendents.
That's a non-answer and you know it. Either demonstrate that a majority of voting adults in the US support your view of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment (they don't), or that the pertinent legal authorities do so (there appears to be some doubt).

I still support your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and so want it repealed entirely. Take that for whatever it's worth... I think you're spot-on in your reading.

Vincent
07-31-2012, 07:11 AM
That's a non-answer and you know it. Either demonstrate that a majority of voting adults in the US support your view of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment (they don't), or that the pertinent legal authorities do so (there appears to be some doubt).

I still support your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and so want it repealed entirely. Take that for whatever it's worth... I think you're spot-on in your reading.

What I, or whatever number of my countrymen, or any number of judges think of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. It says what it says for precisely the reason that there is no ambiguity to invite opinion. "Shall not be infringed" shuts the door on any further discussion short of repeal. So that makes my answer an irrelevant answer, not a non-answer. :stickout:

But for the esoteric in our midst, http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf, pages 26 and 27 provides the history of how the framers arrived at that specific language and why. The rest of the document is a good resource of the background.

And it concludes...

"English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the
only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these
premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands
of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the
public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged
to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be
abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group
trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical
government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute[/I]
[I]that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English
theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed
population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since
such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would
comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common
public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms,
thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create
a right for other (pg.1039) governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a
free state, just as it says."

Perhaps there lies our common ground Ric, that we don't trust gubmint.

MACH1
07-31-2012, 08:37 AM
That's a non-answer and you know it. Either demonstrate that a majority of voting adults in the US support your view of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment (they don't), or that the pertinent legal authorities do so (there appears to be some doubt).

I still support your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and so want it repealed entirely. Take that for whatever it's worth... I think you're spot-on in your reading.

If you have the 2nd amendment repealed the 1st would probably go with it. Just as they're working on the 2nd, the 1st trying to limit speech.

tony hipchest
07-31-2012, 09:03 AM
If you have the 2nd amendment repealed the 1st would probably go with it. Just as they're working on the 2nd, the 1st trying to limit speech.why repeal the 1st amendment? there are already reasonable restrictions in place. :noidea:

you cant yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you cant call your boss a fuktard w/o repercussions etc.

MACH1
07-31-2012, 09:58 AM
why repeal the 1st amendment? there are already reasonable restrictions in place. :noidea:

you cant yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you cant call your boss a fuktard w/o repercussions etc.

Thats not exactly what I meant and you know it. Just like I'm not suppose to carry a gun into a bank, school or my work place.

Atlanta Dan
07-31-2012, 10:56 AM
Thats not exactly what I meant and you know it. Just like I'm not suppose to carry a gun into a bank, school or my work place.

I think Vincent believes you should be able to do that since the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is absolute:noidea:

And as far as restricting the carrying of guns into the workplace, the Tennessee NRA has some thoughts on that

GOP leaders in Nashville infuriated the NRA this year by refusing to go along with a bill to prevent businesses from banning guns on their property, and now the group is using its deep pockets to try to unseat one of them. Elsewhere, NRA-backed measures also ran into Republican roadblocks in Georgia, Alabama, Idaho and North Carolina this year.


http://www.timesnews.net/article/9049133/some-tennessee-gop-lawmakers-in-the-crosshairs-of-the-nra

MACH1
07-31-2012, 11:18 AM
I think Vincent believes you should be able to do that since the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is absolute:noidea:

And as far as restricting the carrying of guns into the workplace, the Tennessee NRA has some thoughts on that

GOP leaders in Nashville infuriated the NRA this year by refusing to go along with a bill to prevent businesses from banning guns on their property, and now the group is using its deep pockets to try to unseat one of them. Elsewhere, NRA-backed measures also ran into Republican roadblocks in Georgia, Alabama, Idaho and North Carolina this year.


http://www.timesnews.net/article/9049133/some-tennessee-gop-lawmakers-in-the-crosshairs-of-the-nra

I'm kinda on the fence with that one. If the business wants to allow it then they should be able too if they want the liability of that decision.

Vincent
07-31-2012, 11:18 AM
I think Vincent believes you should be able to do that since the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is absolute:noidea:

Common sense dictates that what one carries and where one carries it is situational. My argument throughout is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Personally, I don't carry arms anywhere. To this point it hasn't been necessary.

Regardless, the framers correctly left no room for interpretation or insipid situational dialog on the subject. The Amendment protects the liberty of the citizens and their state by virtue of armed citizens balancing the military capability of the central gubmint. Pols have always had a problem with that.

This isn't deep. And one would think that free men and women would instinctively understand and embrace what the framers did here instead of arguing against the ONLY thing that ensures their own liberty. But public school has done its job well.

Atlanta Dan
07-31-2012, 11:40 AM
I'm kinda on the fence with that one. If the business wants to allow it then they should be able too if they want the liability of that decision.

I believe the NRA is taking the position it is not a matter of the private property owner having the discretion to allow the weapon on the property - the NRA apparently is taking the position the property owner must allow the weapon on the property - private property rights must bow before the all powerful Second Amendment

Vis
07-31-2012, 11:42 AM
I believe the NRA is taking the position it is not a matter of the private property owner having the discretion to allow the weapon on the property - the NRA apparently is taking the position the property owner must allow the weapon on the property - private property rights must bow before the all powerful Second Amendment


But the property owner can pull out an AK and shoot the employee with the CCP so it evens out.

Atlanta Dan
07-31-2012, 11:42 AM
Common sense dictates that what one carries and where one carries it is situational. My argument throughout is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Personally, I don't carry arms anywhere. To this point it hasn't been necessary.

Regardless, the framers correctly left no room for interpretation or insipid situational dialog on the subject. The Amendment protects the liberty of the citizens and their state by virtue of armed citizens balancing the military capability of the central gubmint. Pols have always had a problem with that.

This isn't deep. And one would think that free men and women would instinctively understand and embrace what the framers did here instead of arguing against the ONLY thing that ensures their own liberty. But public school has done its job well.

Do not want to misstate your position - do you contend someone has the right under the Second Amendement to carry a gun into a bank or a school - if not isn't that an infringement on the right to bear arms?

Atlanta Dan
07-31-2012, 11:44 AM
But the property owner can pull out an AK and shoot the employee with the CCP so it evens out.

Small consolation to the unarmed customer caught in the crossfire:chuckle:

Vincent
07-31-2012, 12:22 PM
Do not want to misstate your position - do you contend someone has the right under the Second Amendement to carry a gun into a bank or a school - if not isn't that an infringement on the right to bear arms?

As I have stated, what you, or I, or the courts, or anybody anywhere in the Republic has to say about the 2nd Amendment is moot. It says in plain English what the framers long deliberated - "shall not be infringed".

It is stupefying to me that people insist on searching for loopholes to the ONLY thing that protects their own liberty - testimony to the generations of minds that have been destroyed by public schools and "higher" "education".

On this particular planet bad things happen everyday. Sometimes bad things happen to nice people. There is no guarantee of outcome. Sometimes its tornadoes. Sometimes hurricanes. Sometimes meteors or 100 year wars. Sometimes psychotic a$$holes shoot people, or shoot up schools, or theaters, or military bases. If anything, a free mind would conclude from the "man made disasters" that being armed, and even carrying might be a good idea, y'know, just that extra edge in a pinch that gets you home safely. But no, our minds are so destroyed by the endless river of leftist bull@#$% from "schools" and the media that many of us can't navigate our way out of an open paper bag. Thankfully many of our countrymen retain the clarity to keep and bear arms to ensure the liberty of the rest of the numbskulls. Y'know, kinda like being responsible citizens.

You wanted to understand my "position" on the 2nd Amendment? If I infer anything that isn't written in the amendment, it is that responsibility - to keep and bear arms. I could argue that because I don't carry, that I'm being irresponsible. I quietly admire the Swiss model from a distance.

http://cdn3.mixrmedia.com/wp-uploads/ziggytek/blog/2011/08/apple-store-assault-rifle-lr.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg/450px-Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg

A citizen with a SG 550 over his shoulder is a reassuring sight. One wonders how Aurora might have gone of a dozen or so of the patrons were similarly equipped for an evening at the cinema.

Atlanta Dan
07-31-2012, 12:41 PM
As I have stated, what you, or I, or the courts, or anybody anywhere in the Republic has to say about the 2nd Amendment is moot. It says in plain English what the framers long deliberated - "shall not be infringed".

It is stupefying to me that people insist on searching for loopholes to the ONLY thing that protects their own liberty - testimony to the generations of minds that have been destroyed by public schools and "higher" "education"

Spare me the insults about anyone who disagrees with you being ignorant with regard to issues of constitutional law (I know who will be getting points in a battle of wits between you and Antonin Scalia) and please answer this question with a yes or no answer

If a public school attempts to prohibit a 14 year old from coming to class with a loaded AR-15 is that contrary to the Second Amenment rights of that student?

Vincent
07-31-2012, 01:01 PM
Spare me the insults about anyone who disagrees with you being ignorant with regard to issues of constitutional law (I know who will be getting points in a battle of wits between you and Antonin Scalia) and please answer this question with a yes or no answer

If a public school attempts to prohibit a 14 year old from coming to class with a loaded AR-15 is that contrary to the Second Amenment rights of that student?

This isn't personal Dan. Who you or I agree with or disagree with could not be less relevant. It's not a chess match or battle of wits with a Justice. It is the black and white, unavoidable, bedrock reality that the 2nd Amendment says what it says for the reasons the framers said it.

While you or I might question the practicality of a 14 year old coming to class with a loaded AR-15, such instances have no bearing on the validity or efficacy of the amendment. The framers had sufficient understanding of the human psyche, and the attendant foresight to express the amendment such that it precludes subsequent nefarious attempts to destroy our liberty through case law.

Atlanta Dan
07-31-2012, 01:38 PM
This isn't personal Dan. Who you or I agree with or disagree with could not be less relevant. It's not a chess match or battle of wits with a Justice. It is the black and white, unavoidable, bedrock reality that the 2nd Amendment says what it says for the reasons the framers said it.

While you or I might question the practicality of a 14 year old coming to class with a loaded AR-15, such instances have no bearing on the validity or efficacy of the amendment. The framers had sufficient understanding of the human psyche, and the attendant foresight to express the amendment such that it precludes subsequent nefarious attempts to destroy our liberty through case law.

Vincent - with all due respect you are the one who has personalized this discussion with observations such as this:

And one would think that free men and women would instinctively understand and embrace what the framers did here instead of arguing against the ONLY thing that ensures their own liberty. But public school has done its job well.

and this:

It is stupefying to me that people insist on searching for loopholes to the ONLY thing that protects their own liberty - testimony to the generations of minds that have been destroyed by public schools and "higher" "education"....
But no, our minds are so destroyed by the endless river of leftist bull@#$% from "schools" and the media that many of us can't navigate our way out of an open paper bag.

But getting back to the question to which you still have not provided a yes or no answer - am I correct that it is your interpretation of the Second Amendment that a public school, as a governmental entity that is subject to the Bill of Rights in general and the Second Amendment in particular, cannot bar a student from coming to class with a loaded AR-15?

:drink:

Vincent
07-31-2012, 02:06 PM
But getting back to the question to which you still have not provided a yes or no answer - am I correct that it is your interpretation of the Second Amendment that a public school, as a governmental entity that is subject to the Bill of Rights in general and the Second Amendment in particular, cannot bar a student from coming to class with a loaded AR-15?

"What If" can be great fun at parties, or on long drives. In this case it serves only to erode the security of a free state and the liberty of it's citizens.

The amendment doesn't contemplate any such nonsense one way or the other. Why then would I advance an opinion?

I might ask the question "Dan, would you allow your child to attend school with a gun, or any form of weapon?". See, now there it would become personal. So I wouldn't.

Am I under oath here or something? OK. We didn't allow our children to take their weapons to school out of consideration to the other children and the teachers. Youngsters can have short fuses, and well, weapons in class could be an unnecessary distraction. Although I think the kids at Ma'alot (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/15/newsid_4307000/4307545.stm) would disagree. Or Columbine, for that matter.

Atlanta Dan
07-31-2012, 02:43 PM
"What If" can be great fun at parties, or on long drives. In this case it serves only to erode the security of a free state and the liberty of it's citizens.

The amendment doesn't contemplate any such nonsense one way or the other. Why then would I advance an opinion?

I might ask the question "Dan, would you allow your child to attend school with a gun, or any form of weapon?". See, now there it would become personal. So I wouldn't.

Am I under oath here or something? OK. We didn't allow our children to take their weapons to school out of consideration to the other children and the teachers. Youngsters can have short fuses, and well, weapons in class could be an unnecessary distraction. Although I think the kids at Ma'alot (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/15/newsid_4307000/4307545.stm) would disagree. Or Columbine, for that matter.

I am not trying to put you under oath

As someone as well read as you are probably is aware, hypotheticals are a standard method by which an advocate's position is questioned in order to determine the principles underlying an argument. You may recall how that works if you followed the oral arguments on the health care law before the Supreme Court this spring. Cases and controversies are the means by which the extent and limits upon rights have been established since the founding of the Republic..

If a government can act to not allow children to take guns to class, isn't that an infringement on the right to bear arms that you contend is absolute? I assume you agree that the same Second Amendment standard applies to federal, state, and local governments (that is the holding in Heller and McDonald. While parents and caretakers can place restrictions upon their children's use of firearms, the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights only applies to governmental actions.

And if infringing the rights of students to bear arms at school does not violate the Second Amendment, since avoiding the "unnecessary distraction" of having loaded weapons in class is something that a government can regulate in the not unlikely event some parents are unaware of or perhaps encourage kids taking guns to school, doesn't that mean that the Second Amendent right to bear arms can be infringed and that the extent to which it can be infringed is the real test? That is the position of Scalia and Alito that you appear to contend is contrary to the intent of the Founders.

Or is your position that if someone is concerned about kids bringing guns to school they better hope a private citizen stops that from happening because there is nothing the federal, state, or local government can do to stop teenagers from carrying assault rifles to class?

Vincent
07-31-2012, 03:08 PM
isn't that an infringement on the right to bear arms that you contend is absolute?

Or is your position that...

I contend nothing. My position is that the 2nd Amendment is forthright and unambiguous in what it states - that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm simply agreeing with the framers.

Vis
07-31-2012, 03:19 PM
I contend nothing. My position is that the 2nd Amendment is forthright and unambiguous in what it states - that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm simply agreeing with the framers.


but refuse to apply it to the real life situation Dan posits. That's a luxury the courts don't have.

Atlanta Dan
07-31-2012, 03:20 PM
I contend nothing. My position is that the 2nd Amendment is forthright and unambiguous in what it states - that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm simply agreeing with the framers.

Who is parsing language now? Your position is a contention:chuckle:

And your position is that if a school district bars a student from walking into class with a loaded AR-15 that school district is infringing upon that student's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment as established by the Framers.

Just making sure I am not twisting your words:drink:

Vincent
07-31-2012, 03:30 PM
but refuse to apply it to the real life situation Dan posits. That's a luxury the courts don't have.

What business is it of the courts?

Just making sure I am not twisting your words:drink:

Let me streamline it you. I agree with the framers. Other than that. I don't have a position aside from my inference that the amendment mandates that we be armed as responsible citizens.

Atlanta Dan
07-31-2012, 03:54 PM
What business is it of the courts?.

Ummmm .... its called judicial review .... it is how the plaintiffs in Heller and McDonald were able to challenge under the Second Amendment the restrictions upon possesion of firearms imposed by the District of Columbia and teh City of Chicago.

As the Supreme Court reiterated this past term in striking down portions of health care law as unconstitutional

“The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Let me streamline it you. I agree with the framers. Other than that. I don't have a position aside from my inference that the amendment mandates that we be armed as responsible citizens.

But what about irresponsible citizens that shoot up schools. Nothing can be done by the gummint to keep guns off school property?:noidea:

And FWIW Scalia and Alito have held the Framers do not agree with you - it is your opinion the right to bear arms under the Second Amendemnt is unrestricted but that is all it is - an opinion and one that is contrary to the preponderance of legal scholarship and Supreme Court precedent

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Vis
07-31-2012, 03:57 PM
Dan, he's playing his game. He's not interested in a legitimate discussion.

Who says the sky is blue?

SteelCityMom
07-31-2012, 04:41 PM
And I still have to add (carrying over from the last discussion), that you truly do not believe in 2nd amendment absolutes, Vincent, or else you wouldn't say things like no Muslim in America should be allowed to own a gun. Not only would you accept that government restriction, but you actually are a proponent of it. (No, I don't want to get into the debate again as to why you feel that way)

I'm a big supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I feel you only support it completely when it suits your ideological needs.

You can't argue that the 2nd amendment is absolute in one breath and then talk about taking that right away from a certain group of law abiding citizens. It just doesn't work that way, and certainly does nothing to strengthen your argument.

And just to play devil's advocate here (though I do not agree 100% with this interpretation...I agree with it somewhat), here is an argument for why restrictions can be placed on gun owners.

"Not an Absolute Personal Right

The right to "keep and bear arms" as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment is related to and a part of the right of the people to defend themselves when necessary, both collectively and individually. It is not an absolute personal right because there are no absolute rights. As Jefferson wrote:

"All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by law." --Thomas Jefferson: Official Opinion, 1790.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right which the people must be free to exercise in order to accomplish a specific purpose. If the Amendment was intended to make the right to bear arms a personal right in any and all cases, it could easily have used "person" instead of "the people" just as it did in the 5th Amendment when referring to the rights of individuals, and have had the 2nd Amendment read, "no person shall be denied the right to keep and bear arms." This, indeed, would be similar to the wording that Jefferson used in his proposed draft of the Virginia Constitution:

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Va. Constitution with (his note) added, 1776.
Of course, Jefferson added the note (which is usually omitted by gun proponents) "within his own lands or tenements" in his final draft. As a personal right, some such limitation would be reasonable, and to limit a personal right to one's own lands or tenements would serve two purposes: it would guarantee the right to own the arms for possible use in a militia, and it would allow free and reasonable use to the individual for all legitimate purposes. If the 2nd Amendment were a personal right, then anyone and everyone could "keep and bear arms" indiscriminately. But when Congress stated the right to bear arms as a people's right, it implied that the people could themselves put in place some control over the exercise of this right in order to fulfil their own purposes. Congress was fully able to distinguish between people and a person when identifying rights, and did so on many occasions. But they made this a People's Right, incorporating into it the purpose that would be associated with the people's exercise thereof and leaving the possibility of other limitations that would not defeat the stated purpose.

Limitations on the Right to Bear Arms

Such personal rights as an individual has to keep and bear arms must coordinate with the principle use, i.e., the purposes of national defense and, under proper regulations, personal defense, hunting, and any other legitimate use of firearms. As a people's right, it is meant to serve a people's purpose. Therefore, there is no reasonable grounds for claiming an individual right to possess arms that serve no legitimate "people's purpose." Being denied the right to carry a concealed weapon, for example, does not necessarily infringe (i.e., defeat or frustrate) the legitimate purposes for bearing arms. Therefore, a law forbidding concealed weapons does not violate the 2nd Amendment, and the people through their legislature may restrict the carrying of concealed weapons if they so choose.

Only our inherent and inalienable rights exist independently of any government, and even those may be modified by law, although they may not be taken away entirely. To abridge or modify is not to take away altogether; it is to make reasonable regulation. While owning a gun is not an inherent and inalienable right, it is a right recognized by the Constitution. It may be modified and should be regulated by law, but it cannot be eliminated. To assume that any form of regulation whatsoever is a denial of this right flies in the face of the interpretation given to every other Constitutional right, none of which are absolute; all are subject to reasonable restriction to protect equally the rights of other persons.

Therefore, all ordinary citizens should be guaranteed the right to arms for all legitimate purposes. Gun ownership could properly be denied for any person convicted of a serious crime, for mentally incompetent persons, even for any person unfamiliar with the proper use of firearms. The people are not denied the right to keep and bear arms by intelligently regulating individual use. Persons who are members of a "militia" under the control of the people themselves through their elected officials, such as a National Guard, could be authorized to use weapons of war of all kinds appropriate for such a militia. Other citizens unattached to a "well regulated militia" have no legitimate reason to have or use hand grenades, machine guns, assault rifles, etc. For many people, the desire to own all kinds of firearms is understandable. Even Jefferson had this interest:

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to G. Washington, 1796.
But reasonable restriction on their use, while recognizing the purpose of the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, is in order for these modern times when arms have come to mean a whole new dimension of weapons from those the Founding Fathers contemplated at the time they gave us our Bill of Rights, and when the circumstances they contemplated for the use of weapons has completely changed.

http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29.htm

Vincent
07-31-2012, 05:05 PM
Who says the sky is blue?

And in this case a blue sky equates to "shall not be infringed".

Vincent
07-31-2012, 05:12 PM
You can't argue that the 2nd amendment is absolute in one breath and then talk about taking that right away from a certain group of law abiding citizens.

Are people that have declared war on us law abiding citizens?

tony hipchest
07-31-2012, 05:31 PM
Are people that have declared war on us law abiding citizens?:huh:

isnt it the radical GOPers that have essentially declared war on liberals? i dont hear all this talk of overthrowing the government and how our world and greatest country is coming to an end when the right has power in washington.

MACH1
07-31-2012, 06:03 PM
Anyways back to property/business owners, it should be their right to allow or deny what gets carried onto the property. Using common sense of course.

Vis
07-31-2012, 06:49 PM
Are people that have declared war on us law abiding citizens?

I declare Steelers fans will destroy the government!!!


Now they can arrest Vincent.

SteelCityMom
08-01-2012, 08:28 AM
Are people that have declared war on us law abiding citizens?

Sorry, but you're wrong.

The people you are referring to are not US citizens. And even in the instances of US Muslims 'saying' they've declared war (I'd love to see real documentation of that), that does not mean it goes for all of them.

Wars are declared by countries, not religions or singular people.

If a law abiding citizen (meaning someone who has never committed a felony), wants to purchase a gun, that is their right. Being Muslim doesn't change that.

And again, good luck rounding up all the people who believe in an idea.

MACH1
08-01-2012, 08:48 AM
Sorry, but you're wrong.

The people you are referring to are not US citizens. And even in the instances of US Muslims 'saying' they've declared war (I'd love to see real documentation of that), that does not mean it goes for all of them.

Wars are declared by countries, not religions or singular people.

If a law abiding citizen (meaning someone who has never committed a felony), wants to purchase a gun, that is their right. Being Muslim doesn't change that.

And again, good luck rounding up all the people who believe in an idea.

Kinda have to argue with that one.

The Crusades.

The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by Pope Urban II and the Catholic Church, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Bayz101
08-01-2012, 08:53 AM
Wow. Went pretty far back for that one. :sofunny:

Vis
08-01-2012, 09:09 AM
Kinda have to argue with that one.

The Crusades.

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


The Pope controlled the whole church and the Vatican is a country. He could speak for the whole religion. No one speaks for Islam in that way. The Pope can't even wield that kind of power now.

MACH1
08-01-2012, 10:08 AM
Vatican didn't become a state until 1929.

Vis
08-01-2012, 10:12 AM
Vatican didn't become a state until 1929.


The Lateran Pacts didn't give the Vatican it's independence from Italy, they gave Italy it's independence from the Vatican.

Vincent
08-01-2012, 10:56 AM
Wars are declared by countries, not religions or singular people.

Wars are declared by anybody that wants to declare them. In the case of our furry little friends, the war has been declared repeatedly by numerous of their "notables", most notably and recently the muslim brotherhood, they, the rulers of Egypt.

As a related aside, you may have noted that the occupant of the White House, after having traveled to Egypt to bow to the mullahs, allowed ours and Israel's only partner for peace in the Middle East to fall into the hands of those who had declared war on us. But I digress.

The Pope controlled the whole church and the Vatican is a country. He could speak for the whole religion. No one speaks for Islam in that way. The Pope can't even wield that kind of power now.

The muslim brotherhood speaks for islam. Watch for it. It's coming to a neighborhood near you.

SteelCityMom
08-01-2012, 12:36 PM
Wars are declared by anybody that wants to declare them. In the case of our furry little friends, the war has been declared repeatedly by numerous of their "notables", most notably and recently the muslim brotherhood, they, the rulers of Egypt.

As a related aside, you may have noted that the occupant of the White House, after having traveled to Egypt to bow to the mullahs, allowed ours and Israel's only partner for peace in the Middle East to fall into the hands of those who had declared war on us. But I digress.



The muslim brotherhood speaks for islam. Watch for it. It's coming to a neighborhood near you.

Sorry, but you are still mistaken.

Formal wars (we're not talking about informal terms like, 'I declare a war of words with you') are not just declared by anybody who wants to declare them. They are declared by nations. People make threats, nations declare war.

But again, I'm still waiting to hear your plan on disarming all US Muslims, and how it would be effectively implemented.

Vis
08-01-2012, 12:56 PM
Sorry, but you are still mistaken.

Formal wars (we're not talking about informal terms like, 'I declare a war of words with you') are not just declared by anybody who wants to declare them. They are declared by nations. People make threats, nations declare war.

But again, I'm still waiting to hear your plan on disarming all US Muslims, and how it would be effectively implemented.


First he will force them to wear some sort of symbol on their shirts.

MACH1
08-01-2012, 01:14 PM
First he will force them to wear some sort of symbol on their shirts.

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/158061_8103318119_643725192_n.jpg

Just Kidding! Couldn't help it.

Vincent
08-01-2012, 01:15 PM
Sorry, but you are still mistaken.

Formal wars (we're not talking about informal terms like, 'I declare a war of words with you') are not just declared by anybody who wants to declare them. They are declared by nations. People make threats, nations declare war.

Perhaps you missed the last century. And those that preceded it. If memory serves, we were involved in two declared wars, yet at war for nearly every minute of the 20th Century.

Depending on who you talk to, there are between 30-140 wars going on this afternoon, none of which were "formally" declared, and most involving muslims by their own declaration. Countless dead and maimed. Evidently nobody cares..

Was the recent "activity" in Libya a war? We didn't declare anything, yet we were militarily involved in a regime change that got a lot of folks killed and maimed. The team we supported felt that they had declared war. And again as a related aside, yet another nation was ceded by the acquiescence of the White House to the muslim brotherhood.

Is the unpleasantness in Syria a war? Have those at odds with Assad's regime declared war? How many have been killed or maimed in that misunderstanding? Why did Russia send their navy to Tartus?

Japan declared war on us on December 8th 1941, AFTER they destroyed Pearl Harbor.

Civilized nations formally declare war, much like the redcoats marched politely into our ambushes, and the BEF marched dutifully into German machine guns.

WTF does a declaration of war have to do with anything other than to allow politicians to stick their faces into situations they mismanaged?

But again, I'm still waiting to hear your plan on disarming all US Muslims, and how it would be effectively implemented.

I didn't advance a plan to disarm muslims. What I said was...

As long as we are at war with islam, its foolish to allow your enemy to bear arms. We're not without precedent.

Fort Hood wouldn't have happened if we had the clarity and leadership to remove muslims from the armed forces and disarm muslim citizens. They are our enemies by their own declarations and actions.

Vincent
08-01-2012, 01:25 PM
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/158061_8103318119_643725192_n.jpg

Just Kidding! Couldn't help it.

Nah...

http://bacolicious.s3.amazonaws.com/bacon.png

SteelCityMom
08-01-2012, 01:37 PM
Perhaps you missed the last century. And those that preceded it. If memory serves, we were involved in two declared wars, yet at war for nearly every minute of the 20th Century.

Depending on who you talk to, there are between 30-140 wars going on this afternoon, none of which were "formally" declared, and most involving muslims by their own declaration. Countless dead and maimed. Evidently nobody cares..

Was the recent "activity" in Libya a war? We didn't declare anything, yet we were militarily involved in a regime change that got a lot of folks killed and maimed. The team we supported felt that they had declared war. And again as a related aside, yet another nation was ceded by the acquiescence of the White House to the muslim brotherhood.

Is the unpleasantness in Syria a war? Have those at odds with Assad's regime declared war? How many have been killed or maimed in that misunderstanding? Why did Russia send their navy to Tartus?

Japan declared war on us on December 8th 1941, AFTER they destroyed Pearl Harbor.

Civilized nations formally declare war, much like the redcoats marched politely into our ambushes, and the BEF marched dutifully into German machine guns.

WTF does a declaration of war have to do with anything other than to allow politicians to stick their faces into situations they mismanaged?



I didn't advance a plan to disarm muslims. What I said was...

:doh:

I'm sorry, but WTF are you even going on about now?

So all these wars you just posted about...were they just entered into willy nilly by anyone?

A declaration of war is, by definition, a formal announcement by a sovereign or state of the beginning of hostilities against another.

Most of what you stated as war are not actual wars, but operations and the like.

And using one example to state why muslims shouldn't be allowed to bear arms is not good for your argument either, because then someone who is anti-gun can turn around and say that the Aurora shooting would not have happened if all guns were made illegal. See the holes in your logic here? Probably not.

You may not have stated that you have a plan to disarm all muslims, but if that's what you want (and by your own words, I don't think assuming that is a stretch), you have to have some kind of plan in your mind for how it would be done. So how would the government even effectively go about doing that without turning into Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia?

Atlanta Dan
08-01-2012, 01:56 PM
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
Robert Heinlein

I suppose who is teaching and who is annoyed by that teaching in this thread depends on your point of view :chuckle:

Vis
08-01-2012, 02:00 PM
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
Robert Heinlein

I suppose who is teaching and who is annoyed by that teaching in this thread depends on your point of view :chuckle:

Quote time? I like this one:

“The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it”
― Lawrence M. Krauss (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1410.Lawrence_M_Krauss)

Vincent
08-01-2012, 02:01 PM
Most of what you stated as war are not actual wars, but operations and the like.

So wars are only wars when party A declares war on party B? Are the killed and maimed aware of this? Does party B need to return the gesture? If neither party declares war, is it a war? Did we declare war on Great Britain in what we call our "Revolutionary War"? Did they declare war on us?

Is the muslim brotherhood, as a caliphate, declaring jihad on us any different than Venezuela declaring war on us, other than Venezuela's inability to carry it out?

You don't have the vaguest clue what is going on in the world, do you? Don't feel bad. Few do.

SteelCityMom
08-01-2012, 02:53 PM
So wars are only wars when party A declares war on party B? Are the killed and maimed aware of this? Does party B need to return the gesture? If neither party declares war, is it a war? Did we declare war on Great Britain in what we call our "Revolutionary War"? Did they declare war on us?

Is the muslim brotherhood, as a caliphate, declaring jihad on us any different than Venezuela declaring war on us, other than Venezuela's inability to carry it out?

You don't have the vaguest clue what is going on in the world, do you? Don't feel bad. Few do.

Call it whatever you want, a group of extremists vowing to destroy something does not equal one nation going to war or battle with the other. That's a group of people making threats, and it doesn't hold for ALL of the people in that group. Again, we're talking about a religion/idea here, not a nation. The 'war on terrorism' is not the same as WWII. It is an unwinnable 'war' because it's basically fighting a shared idea, and not a nations army. You'd think people would have figured that out by now.

If the muslim brotherhood does indeed win as many seats as they want in Egypt, and then attack America...then no, there isn't any difference to Venezuela declaring war on us.

And yes, I know what's going on in the world today...I just choose not to gobble up every piece of propaganda I come across as holy scripture and spew it out the other end.

Still, you have not answered how arms could effectively be kept out US muslims hands.

Atlanta Dan
08-01-2012, 03:09 PM
You don't have the vaguest clue what is going on in the world, do you? Don't feel bad. Few do.

Those few perhaps numbering at least one less than your count:coffee:

Vincent
08-01-2012, 03:25 PM
If the muslim brotherhood does indeed win as many seats as they want in Egypt, and then attack America...then no, there isn't any difference to Venezuela declaring war on us.

Mom, seriously, if the sovs didn't attack us, nobody is going to wage an assault on the United States. "Mutually Assured Destruction" ring a bell? There is no possibility of surviving such a folly, much less winning it. That's 2nd generation warfare. We're in and moving past 4th gen warfare into what the strategerists call "hybrid warfare". And that is what islam wages against us.

Islam has so deeply penetrated both parties, "education", and the media in this country that a significant number of our countrymen can't imagine that we were attacked on 9/11 or why its an affront to build a mosque across the street from the atrocity. That is the product of 4th gen warfare. That is what lost Viet Nam for us and what will do us in if we don't pull our heads out of our asses and start making some sane decisions, the likelihood of which is slim and none.

Still, you have not answered how arms could effectively be kept out US muslims hands.

Again, what I said was "As long as we are at war with islam, its foolish to allow your enemy to bear arms.". There is no possibility of disarming muslims in the United States short of interning and deporting them all. A country that considers such an idea as madness doesn't have the stomach for that. And they know it.

Interestingly, our gubmint proclaims that returning combat veterans, people that call themselves patriots, religious folks and people that take issue with globalism are terror threats. There is a much greater likelihood that the gubmint will seek to disarm them before they would ever risk "offending" practitioners of "the religion of peace".

SteelCityMom
08-01-2012, 05:35 PM
Mom, seriously, if the sovs didn't attack us, nobody is going to wage an assault on the United States. "Mutually Assured Destruction" ring a bell? There is no possibility of surviving such a folly, much less winning it. That's 2nd generation warfare. We're in and moving past 4th gen warfare into what the strategerists call "hybrid warfare". And that is what islam wages against us.

Islam has so deeply penetrated both parties, "education", and the media in this country that a significant number of our countrymen can't imagine that we were attacked on 9/11 or why its an affront to build a mosque across the street from the atrocity. That is the product of 4th gen warfare. That is what lost Viet Nam for us and what will do us in if we don't pull our heads out of our asses and start making some sane decisions, the likelihood of which is slim and none.

Don't agree with you, but not going to debate it because I'm pretty sure we've been over this at some point too. It also wasn't where I was trying to get the conversation to go either, and know whatever I say won't change your opinion.



Again, what I said was "As long as we are at war with islam, its foolish to allow your enemy to bear arms.". There is no possibility of disarming muslims in the United States short of interning and deporting them all. A country that considers such an idea as madness doesn't have the stomach for that. And they know it.

Interestingly, our gubmint proclaims that returning combat veterans, people that call themselves patriots, religious folks and people that take issue with globalism are terror threats. There is a much greater likelihood that the gubmint will seek to disarm them before they would ever risk "offending" practitioners of "the religion of peace".

That is why we can't allow the government to take away 2nd amendment rights from anyone who is law abiding...even if those persons are part of a religion in which exstremists have vowed to destroy the nation. As long as everyone is afforded that one right, all others cannot be completely stripped. It's the price of freedom.

And I for one am happy to be one of those that doesn't have the stomach for stripping US citizens of their rights.

I only asked because you seem like you would be in favor of such an action, and that doesn't really jibe with the notion that the 2nd amendment is absolute. You would be willing to accept that 'unless' part of it...I am not.

tony hipchest
08-01-2012, 07:47 PM
what a great song. this song perfectly sums up what those 18th century muzzle loaders had in mind when they drafted the holy constitution-


"Violence rules. Guns are cool, and weve got guns in our schools...."

nV5cqfuY-mQ

tony hipchest
08-01-2012, 07:52 PM
First he will force them to wear some sort of symbol on their shirts.:sofunny::doh:

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/158061_8103318119_643725192_n.jpg

Just Kidding! Couldn't help it.:toofunny:

tony hipchest
08-01-2012, 08:33 PM
This isn't personal Dan. Who you or I agree with or disagree with could not be less relevant. It's not a chess match or battle of wits with a Justice. It is the black and white, unavoidable, bedrock reality that the 2nd Amendment says what it says for the reasons the framers said it.

While you or I might question the practicality of a 14 year old coming to class with a loaded AR-15, such instances have no bearing on the validity or efficacy of the amendment. The framers had sufficient understanding of the human psyche, and the attendant foresight to express the amendment such that it precludes subsequent nefarious attempts to destroy our liberty through case law."the framers... the framers..."

CCcX3BlP4bw

i love guns as much as the next guy (because guns are cool, feel good to shoot, and its an awesome power to be able to quickly take a life and blow shit up) but i cant buy this weak argument about the 18th century muzzle loaders being infalliable and omnipotent. they sure missed the boat on the whole "all men are created equal unless they are a savage or slave" thingy.

i get that we are supposed to take up our arms and kill our fellow citizens (i.e. the gubmint) as soon as the 2nd ammendment is changed. sounds real good on paper. but to me it kinda strikes me the same as the death penalty. many people are for it. but for every 1000 people that are in favor of it, how many dozen would actually be willing to flip the switch and take extinguish the life.

since you are obviously the expert and well versed in the muzzle loader's intentions and thought process, please allow me to become edjumicated.

-where would the muzzle loaders buy their pea shooters? (i assume they couldnt just drive down to wal mart and pick one up or get one off the street corner for a $20 sack of crack)

-do you have any numbers on what the gun ownership per capita was back then? if i had to guess, and this is a pure guess, i would say 1 gun per household of 4 persons? :noidea:

- what was the cost of a pea shooter relative to a persons monthly or annual income?

-is it fair to assume that a gun was likely a mans most valuable possession (besides a house, farm, horse etc.)? is it possible their pea shooter cost more than their main mode of transportation? I honestly dont know.

-

SteelCityMom
08-01-2012, 08:54 PM
Gotta say, I'm not the biggest proponent of banning all assault weapons (meaning weapons beyond semi-automatics), but this article does a pretty decent job of breaking down the argument and explaining why the government does indeed have a right to reasonably make restrictions on gun ownership.

The Jeffersonian Perspective
Commentary on Today's Social and Political Issues
Based on the Writings of Thomas Jefferson


Gun Control

The right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, is a right with a purpose. The 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."

The mind of the Founders had different sensitivities than ours molded under the legacy they have won for us. They were intensely aware that they were presenting to the world something new: a nation of people who govern themselves. Thus, the government and the nation itself was the responsibility of every able-bodied man. And to fulfill that responsibility in an essentially hostile world, it was necessary that each man be armed and capable of defending the nation against invaders, or even against usurpers who might take over the government. For the safety of the nation, then, it was imperative that no governmental authority have the capacity to disarm the people for any reason whatsoever. That is the vital interest that the 2nd Amendment sought to protect.

It is difficult to translate this responsibility and concern into modern terms. Times have changed, and it would be easy to allow one's biases one way or another to intrude when contemplating the stretch that one must make to bring the 2nd Amendment into the 20th century. Moreover, if we acknowledge the deterioration of modern society and the number of people with warped minds who acquire fully automatic weapons and use them for illegitimate purposes, we must also recognize an entirely new dimension that must enter into our calculations. We must look carefully, therefore, at the interests the amendment was designed to protect.

No one in America today owns guns on the off-chance that he might need to use them defend his country against an invading enemy. Our country has developed in such a way that it does not rely on a militia of all the citizens as a first line of defense. Rather, most legitimate gun owners today want them for hunting animals (usually for food) and for protecting their property, their persons, and their family against harm. Many want them as collectors items and as part of a hobby. No doubt, these reasons were the main reasons why the early citizens of this country also wanted to own firearms.

The thought that individuals in this country might need weapons to guard against the possibility of their own government becoming a despotic force that can only be subdued by the citizens taking arms was not realistic nor justifiable, in Jefferson's view. As long as the basic features of our republic are still intact, there are means by which change may be brought about peaceably. Jefferson thought that there was nothing that should induce citizens under such a government to rise up against it, and felt that a proper society must have laws in place to deal with such an uprising should it occur.

"In a country whose constitution is derived from the will of the people directly expressed by their free suffrages, where the principal executive functionaries and those of the legislature are renewed by them at short periods, where under the character of jurors they exercise in person the greatest portion of the judiciary powers, where the laws are consequently so formed and administered as to bear with equal weight and favor on all, restraining no man in the pursuits of honest industry and securing to every one the property which that acquires, it would not be supposed that any safeguards could be needed against insurrection or enterprise on the public peace or authority. The laws, however, aware that these should not be trusted to moral restraints only, have wisely provided punishments for these crimes when committed." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806

This could never be justification for disarming the people, of course. Whereas there may be no present cause for insurrection, that does not mean that at some future time such a necessity will not arise. Were our republican institutions undermined by despotism, armed insurrection may be the only means for the people to restore self-government, just as it was in our Revolution.

"To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. Papers, 1:429
Assuming that we have a republican government which is reasonably responsive to the people, the question then arises, Is any form of regulation and control of firearms justified in America today? This much seems clear: The right of a free people to defend themselves is just as essential today as it ever was. The real dangers faced by the citizen of today are every bit as threatening as those faced by the citizens of the early years of this republic. The right, therefore, to keep and bear arms for hunting and for defense is a right that should be fully protected and never infringed upon.

But does that right mean that a citizen has the right to own any kind of firearms whatsoever? Is there any justification for the government restricting certain types of firearms, and if so, on what basis?

There are no rights that are absolute. In his draft of the Virginia Constitution (1776), Jefferson included the provision that "no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" but added the note, "within his own lands or tenements." This was many years before the 2nd Amendment, of course, but the principle is clear: The right to keep and bear arms is not infringed as a right if the use is restricted to what is reasonable and proper to fulfill the purpose of that right.

No right may be claimed for activity that is part of a crime or an intent to commit a crime. Having outlined the legitimate reasons for owning firearms, it is reasonable to propose that firearms that do NOT fulfill those legitimate needs, that are only or mainly suited for criminal activity, can and should be carefully regulated by the government. No one's rights are being infringed upon IF that person has the right to "keep and bear" arms for hunting, for defense, and as collector's items.

Based on that reasoning, Assault weapons, Machine guns, Hand grenades and any other type of weapon of mass destruction not essential for defense could be banned by the government without infringing any legitimate right. For persons genuinely interested in defense, those kinds of weapons are in many instances actually inadequate and dangerous to have around. Certainly, they are of no use when hunting game. In fact, it is likely that in a confrontation between one person with an AK-47 assault rifle and another with, say, a Smith & Wesson 38/357, where there is no sizeable distance involved, the person with the revolver would be able to bring it to bear and fire at least the first crucial shots more quickly and accurately. The AK-47 is capable of firing more shots and at a much faster rate, of course; but it cannot be brought to bear as quickly, and the man with the pistol would likely get off the first crucial and decisive ones.

The real advantage to the assault style rifles is their ability to be converted easily into fully automatic machine guns, and the availability of clips or drums which would allow far more shots that the average sporting rifle or pistol. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter how many bullets you have if you cannot deliver the first crucial ones before the other guy can. A disadvantage of the assault rifle for ordinary defense is that the bullets may go from their target through doors and walls, with unintended consequences. While still a possibility, this is far less likely with most handguns. The AK-47 would be more effective for mass murder, but the pistol would be the first choice for defense.

The problem is to find a reasonable, rational solution. A total ban of all weapons, or no ban whatsoever, is neither reasonable nor rational.

http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco06.htm

ricardisimo
08-02-2012, 03:15 AM
As I have stated, what you, or I, or the courts, or anybody anywhere in the Republic has to say about the 2nd Amendment is moot. It says in plain English what the framers long deliberated - "shall not be infringed".

It is stupefying to me that people insist on searching for loopholes to the ONLY thing that protects their own liberty - testimony to the generations of minds that have been destroyed by public schools and "higher" "education".
You honestly believe that gun ownership is the only thing preserving our democracy, such as it is? What is occurring in these totalitarian states?
CountryLicensing of gun owners?Registration of firearms?Other RestrictionsHouseholds with firearms (%)Total Intentional Gun Death Rate per 100,000
Japan Yes Yes Prohibits handguns with few exceptions 0.6 % 0.07
Singapore Yes Yes Most handguns and rifles prohibited 0.01% 0.24
U.K. Yes Yes Prohibits handguns 4.0 % 0.4
Netherlands Yes Yes 1.9 % 0.55
Spain Yes Yes Some handguns and rifles are prohibited 13.1 % 0.74
Germany Yes Yes 8.9 % 1.44
Italy Yes Yes N/A 2.27
Israel Yes Yes N/A 2.56
Australia Yes Yes Banned semiautomatics unless good reason 16.0 % 2.94
Canada Yes All guns by 2003 Assault weapons and some handguns 26% 3.95
France Yes Yes, except sporting rifles 22.6 % 5.48
Switzerland Yes Yes 27.2 % 5.74 6.2
Finland Yes Yes 50 % 6.65
USA in some statesHandguns in some statesSome weapons in some states 41% 13.47

On the other side of this, I'd like you to look at these countries whose gun ownership is closest to ours (although, admittedly, no one comes close to us) and tell me the pattern you see here. This must be the delicious irony you were speaking of earlier:

Country Guns per 100 residents (2007) Rank (2007)
United States 88.8 1
Serbia 58.2 2
Yemen 54.8 3
Switzerland 45.7 4
Cyprus 36.4 5
Saudi Arabia 35 6
Iraq 34.2 7
You'll pardon me if I :huh: and :rofl:

ricardisimo
08-02-2012, 03:21 AM
And I want to repost a sentiment I had from earlier which iPower (probably on purpose, of course) deleted: Guns are a military weapon, not a political tool. They accomplish nothing in the political realm, except perhaps to silence discourse by fear (as in, take a peek at the other countries with high guns-per-capita totals).

MACH1
08-02-2012, 08:26 AM
And I want to repost a sentiment I had from earlier which iPower (probably on purpose, of course) deleted: Guns are a military weapon, not a political tool. They accomplish nothing in the political realm, except perhaps to silence discourse by fear (as in, take a peek at the other countries with high guns-per-capita totals).

And thats a good thing?
It a lot easier to control and silence an unarmed population.

Again it just as easy to find stats to make any point.

Britain is a country with stronger gun control laws than the United States, and lower murder rates. But Mexico, Russia and Brazil are also countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States -- and their murder rates are much higher than ours. Israel and Switzerland have even higher rates of gun ownership than the United States, and much lower murder rates than ours.

Even the British example does not stand up very well under scrutiny. The murder rate in New York has been several times that in London for more than two centuries -- and, for most of that time, neither place had strong gun control laws. New York had strong gun control laws years before London did, but New York still had several times the murder rate of London

Meanwhile, murder rates in the United States declined during the same years when murder rates in Britain were rising, which were also years when Americans were buying millions more guns per year.

The real problem, both in discussions of mass shootings and in discussions of gun control, is that too many people are too committed to a vision to allow mere facts to interfere with their beliefs, and the sense of superiority that those beliefs give them.

Any discussion of facts is futile when directed at such people. All anyone can do is warn others about the propaganda.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/07/24/news_versus_propaganda/page/full/

MACH1
08-02-2012, 08:45 AM
MAHATMA GANDHI, PEACEFUL REVOLUTIONARY
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the
Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

THE DALAI LAMA
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back
with your own gun.”

JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take
arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of
their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that
freedom."
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the
right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the
essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the
fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever
be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important
declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be
ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second
Amendment will always be important."

Vincent
08-02-2012, 10:39 AM
You honestly believe that gun ownership is the only thing preserving our democracy, such as it is?

We're a Republic, Ric. We've been over this.

And no, I don't think gun ownership is the only thing preserving our Republic. The ballot is the first line of defense. The gun is the last resort. But take the gun away and there is nothing to defend the vote. Sort of like the old adage "If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."

Conversely, "If the muslims put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence". :chuckle:

Vincent
08-02-2012, 10:48 AM
THE DALAI LAMA
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”

COMMON SENSE
"If someone repeatedly vows to annihilate you, it would be reasonable to separate them from their weapons."

JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take
arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of
their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that
freedom."
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the
right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the
essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the
fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever
be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important
declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be
ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second
Amendment will always be important."

That guy needs to be on the no-fly list. Whudda freekin loon!

ricardisimo
08-03-2012, 01:34 AM
And thats a good thing?
It a lot easier to control and silence an unarmed population.

Again it just as easy to find stats to make any point.

Britain is a country with stronger gun control laws than the United States, and lower murder rates. But Mexico, Russia and Brazil are also countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States -- and their murder rates are much higher than ours. Israel and Switzerland have even higher rates of gun ownership than the United States, and much lower murder rates than ours.

Even the British example does not stand up very well under scrutiny. The murder rate in New York has been several times that in London for more than two centuries -- and, for most of that time, neither place had strong gun control laws. New York had strong gun control laws years before London did, but New York still had several times the murder rate of London

Meanwhile, murder rates in the United States declined during the same years when murder rates in Britain were rising, which were also years when Americans were buying millions more guns per year.

The real problem, both in discussions of mass shootings and in discussions of gun control, is that too many people are too committed to a vision to allow mere facts to interfere with their beliefs, and the sense of superiority that those beliefs give them.

Any discussion of facts is futile when directed at such people. All anyone can do is warn others about the propaganda.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/07/24/news_versus_propaganda/page/full/

No, it's not a good thing. Guns silence debate. It doesn't matter if they're in the hands of the government or private citizens. They are anathema to a healthy political climate.

As far as people being too committed to an idea to notice facts, it would help if you weren't posting links from the ultra-right to support your claims... and an editorial, no less! I'm sure I could find some commentary from CommonDreams or some Episcopalian website to poo-poo guns just as easily. Instead, look at those lists of nations ranked by gun ownership, look at the nations ranked by gun homicides, look at the nations that regulate or ban guns and those who don't.

Look who our neighbors are on those lists and look who are neighbors are not. Then tell us what are mere ideas and what are facts.

We're a Republic, Ric. We've been over this.

And no, I don't think gun ownership is the only thing preserving our Republic. The ballot is the first line of defense. The gun is the last resort. But take the gun away and there is nothing to defend the vote. Sort of like the old adage "If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."

Conversely, "If the muslims put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence". :chuckle:
OK, so we're a republic, and not a democracy (although the ballot is the mark of a democracy, much like a constitution is the mark of a republic, so I'm not sure why you're zig-zagging here). Why is that pertinent? Demonstrably vibrant democratic republics around the world regulate gun ownership with gusto, while the countries that lean most heavily on firearms in their culture are us and all of those Muslim monarchies and dictatorships you so despise. Americans are more Muslim than they care to admit, evidently.

Which raises a thought that I've had for some time now, that you are to Muslims what the rabid homophobe is to gays: a closet case. Your conversion is imminent, no doubt.

Vincent
08-03-2012, 09:37 AM
OK, so we're a republic, and not a democracy (although the ballot is the mark of a democracy, much like a constitution is the mark of a republic, so I'm not sure why you're zig-zagging here). Why is that pertinent?

Don't know that it is or isn't. I generally reference that we're a representative republic anytime someone says we're a democracy. There is nothing at all "democratic" about our Republic except that we elect our representatives. They do our bidding in the state houses and congress. In fact, our state representatives select the electors that actually elect the president. The framers set the Republic up this way because they understood that democracy is mob rule, and that we wouldn't have survived long under mob rule.

Which raises a thought that I've had for some time now, that you are to Muslims what the rabid homophobe is to gays: a closet case. Your conversion is imminent, no doubt.

Just to keep you up to date, the [slur] have followed the fanooks' lead and coined the term "islamophobe". If you follow their thinking, folks that take issue with islam are frightened by islam and thereby :"phobic". Its every bit as valid as "homophobes" being "afraid" of homos, if you will. And so, if I'm following you here, you're suggesting that as "homophobes" are frightened of homos and that they will themselves will become homos, that my destiny is to become a muzzie.

Thin.

ricardisimo
08-04-2012, 03:29 AM
No. Thin is judging and damning a billion people because the propaganda machine tells you to do so, and especially when you're judging them for characteristics found much more readily within your own.

I would like to ask you again to refer to people respectfully. Please edit out your little derogatory terms for Muslims, or I'll be tempted to do it for you. There is no hate speech allowed on this site, as per the CoC (http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=46595), the founder and the new owner... and me, if I have anything to say about it.

You know full well how I feel about believers, including Christians. And yet you will never read me referring to them as anything but "Christians".

Vincent
08-04-2012, 07:23 AM
No. Thin is judging and damning a billion people because the propaganda machine tells you to do so, and especially when you're judging them for characteristics found much more readily within your own.

Who judged and damned a billion people? Or one, for that matter?

I would like to ask you again to refer to people respectfully. Please edit out your little derogatory terms for Muslims, or I'll be tempted to do it for you. There is no hate speech allowed on this site, as per the CoC (http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=46595), the founder and the new owner... and me, if I have anything to say about it.

You give some people a title and they go all Politburo on you. Is the pressure of office wearing on you Ric? And you people went on about the previous SF administration being nazis.

Define "hate speech" in terms other than things you disagree with.

You know full well how I feel about believers, including Christians. And yet you will never read me referring to them as anything but "Christians".

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. :bowdown: :rolleyes:

ricardisimo
08-05-2012, 08:07 PM
Who judged and damned a billion people? Or one, for that matter?
Oh, please... you have stated in this very thread that you only hate terrorists and those aid and abet them, followed immediately by some third-grade level explanation of how Muslims fit that description, they've declared war on us, vowed our destruction, whatever. Which obviously excuses your bigotry completely. "I only hate terrorists; who could possibly object to that???"

If we want to go back and pick through the "New York Mosque" threads and such, we'd be sure to find all sorts of lovely sentiments from your keyboard. No one here is fooled. Maybe at the other forum, but not here.

You give some people a title and they go all Politburo on you. Is the pressure of office wearing on you Ric? And you people went on about the previous SF administration being nazis.

Define "hate speech" in terms other than things you disagree with.
Thankfully, I have almost nothing to do here as a mod, other than ban spammers, so no, "the pressure of office" is not wearing on me, thank you very much. Furthermore, I enjoy disagreeing with you and others. It's fun. I assume it's fun for you as well.

What I do not enjoy is trying to engage people who insist on debasing themseves and others by using slurs in their arguments, be they racial, gender, ethnic, religious or what have you. I shouldn't have to tell a grown-up such as yourself that not only is it tasteless, not only is it against forum rules, but it strips bare you and your arguments, right down to desperate bigotry... you're weakening your own arguments. Lose the slurs.

There are terms we do not allow members to use in reference to women (except Mom, that is); there are terms we do not allow in reference to African-Americans, or towards Asians, Jews, etc., etc. The same applies to Muslims. There is a basic, low-level respect that you and all members here are obliged to show everyone else on these boards (whether they be fellow members or visitors).

And you will hopefully be able to set down your ego for a second - along with your thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks against me - to see that I am not asking you to edit your arguments, with which I do indeed strongly disagree. You can believe anything you want about anyone. I don't really care, and I'll surely enjoy debating it with you. Just lose the slurs. Edit them out on your own, or I will do it for you.

Steelboy84
08-05-2012, 11:02 PM
And thats a good thing?
It a lot easier to control and silence an unarmed population.

Again it just as easy to find stats to make any point.

Britain is a country with stronger gun control laws than the United States, and lower murder rates. But Mexico, Russia and Brazil are also countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States -- and their murder rates are much higher than ours. Israel and Switzerland have even higher rates of gun ownership than the United States, and much lower murder rates than ours.

Even the British example does not stand up very well under scrutiny. The murder rate in New York has been several times that in London for more than two centuries -- and, for most of that time, neither place had strong gun control laws. New York had strong gun control laws years before London did, but New York still had several times the murder rate of London

Meanwhile, murder rates in the United States declined during the same years when murder rates in Britain were rising, which were also years when Americans were buying millions more guns per year.

The real problem, both in discussions of mass shootings and in discussions of gun control, is that too many people are too committed to a vision to allow mere facts to interfere with their beliefs, and the sense of superiority that those beliefs give them.

Any discussion of facts is futile when directed at such people. All anyone can do is warn others about the propaganda.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/07/24/news_versus_propaganda/page/full/



Truer words were never spoken.


http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=89852

:coffee:

Vincent
08-06-2012, 11:10 AM
If we want to go back and pick through the "New York Mosque" threads and such, we'd be sure to find all sorts of lovely sentiments from your keyboard. No one here is fooled. Maybe at the other forum, but not here.

Y'know that titanic mosque thread was at the "other" forum. Mom had 151 posts. I had 114. You had 81.

My favorite pejorative was "My buddy is marketing mined prayer rugs. The prophets are going through the ceiling." Whudda freekin bigot.

The mosque thread here wasn't as lively. I only had 2 posts in that one.

Bayz101
08-06-2012, 01:12 PM
Truer words were never spoken.


http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=89852

:coffee:

Goodbye. :wave: