Texas: Shooting-du-jour

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Vis

What you have to realize is that people who are pro-gun (in this context) is that they are not are not pro-gun for the protection the gun provides or for any thought of a cost/benefit analysis. They are simply pro-gun for the wood the gun provides them. So they shrug off the deaths. It's the badass nature of the weapon that makes the woody so good.

Such is public discourse on the subject. Public school has done itself well.

Originally Posted by MACH1

Banning ar14's should be easy since there is no such thing.

Lost in everything I've read, seen and heard since, well, headcases have been shooting people and things up, and lib sphincters have been exploding over same, is an unvarnished perspective of the 2nd Amendment, which BTW is the essence of similar language in state constitutions.

"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."

Those fluent in the King's English can parse these words to readily dispel any perceived relationship to duck hunting, skeet, male enhancement, or movie theater carnage. The words are unambiguous. Their meaning is clear.

Militias, AKA non-professionals, irregulars, armed peeps are necessary if the state is to remain free. That point, ignored in every discussion of the issue, is the mandate to citizens to be armed. Why? Because gubmints aren't to be trusted, and if the peeps want to remain free they need to be armed. Implicit in that statement is that the peeps be armed in a manner equal to the gubmint, or else the amendment is moot. Libs like to invoke "international" law to make their cases in domestic suits. Following that logic it's reasonable to follow the Swiss model of an armed citizenry as their guarantee of freedom. They carry their "assault weapons" wherever they go.

The militia piece mandates the second element of the amendment that the right to bears shall not be infringed. Again, falling back in our defacto language, "infringe" means to violate or transgress. The Framers argued language exhaustively and agreed to these words because they, well, framed the amendment in such a way that future tyrants wouldn't be able to work around it. No "gun laws". No "regulations". No licenses. No clip sizes. No infringement whatsoever. AR-14s, M-17s, AKs, RPGs, F-16's, nukes, whatever. We're not after ducks here. We're keeping would-be tyrants in check.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the superfluous bull@#$% swirling around the latest tragedy. People experience tragedies regardless of gubmints, laws, armed or disarmed citizens, and no amount of human discourse will ever change that. The ultimate tragedy would be to allow the Republic to fail at the hands of a would-be tyrant, his shills, and a numbingly stupid population that lacks the intellect to see what the 2nd Amendments states is their responsibility - be armed.

Guns are icky. Get over it.

[Vis]

Originally Posted by MACH1

Pick and choose pot meet kettle.

Where I'm from when the guns come out it's for hunting and target shooting. People open carry all the time it's nothing to see someone strapped. Does it make me feel like a scared little girl, no. Does it make me fear for my life, no. I understand it's a hell of a lot different in LA but not every place or person with a gun is like LA.


Yay can't wait.




.

My graphic has a source





\

[Atlanta Dan]

Obama's base rallies to support the attempt to repeal the Second Amendment

Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab

It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.

In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”

http://www.infowars.com/communists-c...amas-gun-grab/

And a Georgia representative speaks the truth about what is really going on here

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, an Athens [Georgia] Republican, was asked if his role in Congress is to pull the House Republican leadership to the right – given that he is often voting against their wishes and pushing a more conservative course.

Broun said his cause is far bigger, and tied the conversation to President Barack Obama’s inauguration Monday.

“I think my role is to uphold support and defend our Constitution,” he said. “… The Constitution I uphold and defend is the one I carry in my pocket all the time, the U.S. Constitution. I don’t know what Constitution that other members of Congress uphold, but it’s not this one. I think the only Constitution that Barack Obama upholds is the Soviet constitution, not this one. He has no concept of this one, though he claimed to be a constitutional lawyer.”

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insid...f-chip-rogers/

[ricardisimo]

Originally Posted by SCMom

To your last point, about people with guns not wanting to hang out together...I call BS. We hang out together at gun ranges, and gun shows all the time, no problems (well, except for some random, and atypical accidents like happened last week...but that can be addressed easily). I've never once feared for my life when going out to do some target shooting.

We are not Iceland (or I should say, we don't have Iceland's gov't). If we ever plan to overthrow our gov't, it's not going to be with pots and pans lol. And you're right...we have staved off nothing. And efforts to do so have been small, unorganized, and ineffective. My point still stands though. You're utopian dream of fixing our gov't with words isn't going to happen either, or else it would have been fixed a long time ago. It's just the way it is with tyrannical superpowers.

My point was regarding neighborhood association and PTA meetings, labor unions, city council meetings, etc. If you think guns help in any of those settings, well, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not sure how much social change one can expect from a shooting range or gun show. And I think you're missing the point of the examples from Iceland, Czechoslovakia and Occupy. Rather than snickering and dismissing them we should be expanding from where they left off.

[MACH1]

Funny you mention city council meetings.


Councilman tries to pass a motion to disarm citizen at meeting, when it fails he walks out like a whiny little baby.
[YOUTUBE]kKpLhNiC8zg[/YOUTUBE]

[SCMom]

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

My point was regarding neighborhood association and PTA meetings, labor unions, city council meetings, etc. If you think guns help in any of those settings, well, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not sure how much social change one can expect from a shooting range or gun show. And I think you're missing the point of the examples from Iceland, Czechoslovakia and Occupy. Rather than snickering and dismissing them we should be expanding from where they left off.

That's up to the local communities to decide whether they want people to be allowed to carry in those places or not. That's not for the federal gov't, or you or me alone, to decide. I'm not saying they would help or hinder. I'm saying it probably wouldn't make a difference.

Not all social change comes from PTA meetings and city council meetings either. Sometimes, when a change in gov't is needed, things happen outside of those venues....usually where people who are interested in changing what the gov't is doing tend to gather.

I'm not missing the point on what Iceland did (and don't get me started on Occupy...they are a bad example of peaceful revolution). And I'm certainly not snickering and dismissing them. I'm saying that the US is the dominant world power though, and if peaceful tactics were going to work, they would have worked already. Corporations and money are running the country right now, with weapons to back them up. Defending yourself with words against a police state is just going to leave you sitting to rot, or worse. History has proven this.

As always, I understand your point of view. And I'm not trying to say you're bad or wrong for feeling that way (well, maybe a little wrong ). I wish the solutions were as easy as you feel they are. We're not rallying against some two bit gov't though.

[BlaZeQuietly]

Yeah it was hand guns in the VA tech shooting... thats not really my point though it WAS a bushmaster at newtown, thats a fact im pretty sure. Whatever, it really doesnt matter, we can ban guns, I don't think it will make much of a difference, there will still be just as much gun crime. I'm just saying theres no reason anyone needs to own an ar-15, whether its going to make a difference with murder rates, or mass shootings, whatever, they should not be allowed, all they are good for is killing a bunch of people real fast. Shot guns, Rifles etc are just fine to defend your self or go hunting, you don't need an ar-15, just like you dont need a ball of coke, whatever.

[SCMom]

Originally Posted by BlaZeQuietly

Yeah it was hand guns in the VA tech shooting... thats not really my point though it WAS a bushmaster at newtown, thats a fact im pretty sure. Whatever, it really doesnt matter, we can ban guns, I don't think it will make much of a difference, there will still be just as much gun crime. I'm just saying theres no reason anyone needs to own an ar-15, whether its going to make a difference with murder rates, or mass shootings, whatever, they should not be allowed, all they are good for is killing a bunch of people real fast. Shot guns, Rifles etc are just fine to defend your self or go hunting, you don't need an ar-15, just like you dont need a ball of coke, whatever.

Maybe I DO need a ball of coke.

No, but I do need weed, and it's none of the gov'ts business. Those fuckers can stuff it.

And as it's been mentioned many times over, the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. I feel we've given up enough freedoms to the gov't. It HAS to stop somewhere, or it will stop nowhere.