Right-wing’s false claims that Obama will take away guns ‘has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.’
Right-wing’s false claims that Obama will take away guns ‘has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.’
In Pittsburgh today, a gunman wearing a bulletproof vest opened fire on police officers who were responding to a domestic disturbance call, killing three of them. Many bloggers have noted that the shooter, 23-year old Richard Poplawski, irrationally feared for “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.” In a presciently-timed op-ed, Charles Blow warns of the disturbing escalating rhetoric of right-wingers like Chuck Norris, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, and others:
Lately I’ve been consuming as much conservative media as possible (interspersed with shots of Pepto-Bismol) to get a better sense of the mind and mood of the right. My read: They’re apocalyptic. They feel isolated, angry, betrayed and besieged. And some of their “leaders” seem to be trying to mold them into militias. [...]
At the same time, the unrelenting meme being pushed by the right that Obama will mount an assault on the Second Amendment has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms. According to the F.B.I., there have been 1.2 million more requests for background checks of potential gun buyers from November to February than there were in the same four months last year. That’s 5.5 million requests altogether over that period; more than the number of people living in Bachmann’s Minnesota.
Coincidence? Maybe. Just posturing? Hopefully. But it all gives me a really bad feeling. (Where’s that Pepto-Bismol?!)
John Cole wrote, “Sure, crazy people do crazy things. But that doesn’t make it responsible to encourage them, which is what a lot of really foolish people are doing right now for purely political reasons.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Politicians need to stop using fear. Period.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:49 pmOh, and pundits. Fear sells, no doubt, and fear creates ratings which fills the pockets of pundits, like Beck.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:52 pmPrepare to see an explosion of right wing violence. I’ve been predicting this since it became clear that Obama would win the election.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:54 pmo.k. this is getting really creepy.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:55 pmJon Stewart was right.
The right wing pundits are hurting America — more literally, they are causing death and mayhem.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:55 pmThis was, of course, EXACTLY what the NRA & GOP wanted out of this deal of crazy incitement and ginning up hatred of Dems & Obama:
More guns sold and more GOP votes.
Doesn’t matter if it comes at the price of a few lives.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:12 amdamn.
good story faiz.
thank you.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:12 amSince this will no doubt be an integral part of some arguments tonight, let’s all be clear on what, exactly, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution says.
You may now continue your civilized discussion.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:13 ami just finished reading about the five children and their father dead in washington…
what the hell is going on… is it worse or not?
ca-razy sick…
April 5th, 2009 at 12:13 amRecessions and the accompanying econmic distress always seem to fuel a increased wave of violence. But this feels different. And very scary. With the nut jobs on hate radio and hate t.v., the NRA and members of the American Taliban ratcheting up the fear and hate towards President Obama, I fear it will only get worse.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:19 amI disagree. Its likely the three policemen, who lost their lives, doing their duty, were religious and politics played little part.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:20 amJeebus, I think we’ll be seeing more family murder/suicides in the coming months.
People are desperate.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:21 amThose people died for ratings.
The ratings of the right wing ranters who are saying lies and scaring unstable people.
Those people died for ratings!!!!
April 5th, 2009 at 12:21 amWhat happened to beating swords into plowshares?
April 5th, 2009 at 12:21 amI’d also add that its not just the irrational fear that Obama will “take away your guns” thats driving this, its also that the right wingers are also fear mongering about immigration and the fear that Obama will open the US/Mexico Border. combine the two, and you have a powder keg thats just waiting for a incident to blow the lid off of it.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:22 amThe most ridiculous part of all this is that the Constitution was written more than 200 years when it was necessary to bear arms. America is an entirely different place now. We don’t need rifles and handguns to protect us from wild animals on the farm nor do we need them to protect our homes since we have police and home security systems now. Guns are unnecessary in all aspects of modern-day American life.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:24 amThey are confused. This is what happens, I think, when media becomes reality to some. When those in power use media as some wizard of oz BS to garner power.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:24 amPeople who use guns for the wrong reason are sick. There are a lot of violent crimes where guns are used. But the truth is, we can’t do anything about it. More regulations won’t help. People willing to break the law and kill innocent people are going to break the law to get guns. Taking away guns would only disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them at the mercy of criminals.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:25 amSomething I forgot to include.
Why does the NRA and much of right take this part of Constitution so literally yet ignore the many aspects of the separation of church and state? Or ignore civil rights like the right to privacy?
April 5th, 2009 at 12:26 amObama should, I think, come out say we dont want guns in the hands of criminals but we understand the need to protect ones self, legally.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:28 amGG says:
As usual, GG misses the point and drops a turd bomb on the thread.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:28 amBack under your bridge, Troll.
I agree we shouldn’t have guns in the hands of criminals. I understand that felons, no matter the crime they committed, cannot own firearms.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:30 amJim Wolf359, so what is the point that I’ve missed?
April 5th, 2009 at 12:31 amThe first thing that came to mind when I read this piece was the political cartoon in the New York Post depecting the dead chimp.The suggestion gave me a uneasy feeling. The right wing in this country has been pandering on the fears of people for 8 years. Think back to the 2004 election, or more lately to Cheney’s remarks a week ago. This election of President Obama has set into motion some of the best this country can offer. Look at the acceptance he has received in Europe, as well as in this country. There is a deep and ugly side and I afraid it has guns, and plenty of them. It appears the Republican right wing is willing to open this pandora’s box. The Republicans have to pay the piper for bungling the economy (Reaganomics) and a host of Bush/Cheney shinanigans.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:32 amIt appears this is their way out. Screw the democracy, they aren’t take ownership of their bungling. They want the power.
The country has been wondering who is the leader of the Republican party, I give you Dick Cheney!
Does Obama want to take away guns? I’m assuming that he doesn’t.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:32 amLike that guy said – it wouldn’t be fair to blame right-wing propaganda for Poplawski slaying these police officers, based on one witness’s comments. Plenty of people have heard the far-right talking points on TV and radio, and only a small handful have been driven to violence so far. Most people apreciate that it’s just entertainment. On the other hand, you could argue that one death is too many.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:34 amScumbag gun dealers are using this false fear as a marketing gimmick.
Scumbags taking advantage of nitwits and sociopaths.
-GSD
April 5th, 2009 at 12:35 amgimmegimme Says:
People who use guns for the wrong reason are sick. There are a lot of violent crimes where guns are used. But the truth is, we can’t do anything about it. More regulations won’t help. People willing to break the law and kill innocent people are going to break the law to get guns. Taking away guns would only disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them at the mercy of criminals.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:25 am
With all due respect, I disagree. Taking away the guns would even the playing field. You see, the reason a gun is so popular as a weapon to kill someone is one of proximity. You can kill someone who is way over there from a safe distance (assuming your untended victim does not have his own gun aimed at you), and not have to put yourself in close proximity to your victim, where he might overpower you. While the criminal may not lose the desire to commit a crime, he would be less likely to put himself in danger by having to get closer to his victims.
In a way, it’s the exact same reason we don’t want other countries to have nuclear weapons, with missiles capable of reaching us. It would mean they could harm us from a long distance away.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:37 amgimmegimme Says:
“Does Obama want to take away guns? I’m assuming that he doesn’t.”
April 5th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Then why’d ya say:
gimmegimme Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 12:39 am“..Taking away guns would only disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them at the mercy of criminals.”
April 5th, 2009 at 12:25 am ?
I agree, if cowards didn’t have guns, they would be less likely to attack someone. But the point I was making is that someone who thinks it is okay to kill someone innocent will have no problem breaking the law to get a gun.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:40 amNo. The laws are geared toward keeping guns from criminal hands and not toward keeping guns from the hands of the abiding.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:45 amIt should be obvious there is a great need for “well regulated militias” for the security of those on both ends of the gun. They need protection, security and to feel a part of something. WAntS, step up and establish one in your part of the country, it is your civil duty or oversee the haps around you and yours.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:45 amThat’s my opinion on the issue, Jane. Someone willing to take what Limbaugh says as fuel to kill innocent people isn’t a republican or democrat, they’re an idiot.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:45 amThen crack down on handgun manufacturers who find gun shows where they can dump off excess guns they produced, flooding the black market with these “easy-to-get” guns.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:47 amXisithrus, Hemiptera, I agree. However, criminals still get guns, they break the law and get guns. That isn’t going to change.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:49 amWe could try enforcing the laws,
What a concept…
April 5th, 2009 at 12:50 amWayne…..your painfully ignorant post tells all you have no clue what the ATF rules are in this country or how the gun industry works in the slightest of ways…..WOW!
April 5th, 2009 at 12:52 amWayne, I’ve never been to a gun show. I’d imagine those handgun manufacturers are breaking the law. They should be cracked down upon.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:52 amI own guns. Each time I purchased one, I went through a background check. I have a common name, so I usually wait about three days for my name to clear. That way they can make sure they aren’t breaking the law in giving me one.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:53 amSlappyBastinado Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Well, maybe rather than being a SlappyBastard, you would enlighten us — with applicable links, of course.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:55 amFurthermore, any time I have been pulled over with a gun in my vehicle, the officer has checked the gun and made sure I was in compliance with laws and allowed to carry it.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:56 amgimmegimme……thank you!
April 5th, 2009 at 12:56 amI do not believe it was the framer’s intent that we have a standing army, such as we do now. Once a war was completed and the treaties signed, and life adjusted to the new rules, the army raised to fight the war would no longer be needed.
So, in the event a foreign nation launched an invasion into one of states, the Constitution gave the people in those states the right to form their own well-regulated militias, in order to repel invasion until a federal army could be raised. But nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say that this right applies to an individual, or single person, but rather to “the people”. If “the people” decide they want all militia member’s guns stored at an armory, that would be their right.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:57 amWayne, so you do believe guns should be taken away from individuals.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:59 amSlappyBastinado Says:
Wayne…..your painfully ignorant post tells all you have no clue what the ATF rules are in this country or how the gun industry works in the slightest of ways…..WOW!
April 5th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Are you telling me that it is not possible to go to a gun show and buy a gun out of the back of someone’s pickup, and not have to go through the waiting period?
April 5th, 2009 at 1:00 amWayne, we should crack down on those breaking the current laws. We should not take guns away from those in compliance with laws.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:02 amBullshit. That person IS an idiot, to be sure, but it’s also incredibly likely that he’s a Republican as well.
Being an idiot and being a Republican are not mutually exclusive conditions. In fact, they seem almost like synonyms sometimes.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:02 amThe idea that a democrat is naturally smarter and more enlightened has gotten old. We’re having a civil conversation stating opinions. If that’s a problem, I’ll go elsewhere.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:05 amZoodo your own research at the ATF site….better yet apply for a firearms dealers license…..its only $150.00. its fun to jump through the governmental hoops and you get to meet county, city and federal agents in the process, pay a little more here and there fill out lots of forms and get interviewed multiple times at your place of residence… you even get fingerprinted up to 3 times and much much more…………….
April 5th, 2009 at 1:05 amThese goppers and their lies… that Obama will take guns away.
With internet increasing in use, where one can find the real facts, think the goppers are running scared as they get caught doing what they only know how to do… lie, cheat, smear?
Wouldn’t they love to control the internet as they do radio and TV.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:06 amSlappyBastinado Says:
Zoodo your own research at the ATF site…
April 5th, 2009 at 1:05 am
You made the allegation, provide the proof — that’s how it works around here.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:08 amGuns weren’t much of an issue during the campaign so where have the nuts come up with the notion that Obama is out to gut the 2nd amendment? It will be interesting to learn what the “domestic disturbance” was all about. The shooter is said to have fired at least 80 rounds. That doesn’t have the earmark of a domestic disturbance. Something else is at play here.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:08 amAre you telling me that it is not possible to go to a gun show and buy a gun out of the back of someone’s pickup, and not have to go through the waiting period?
==================================================
Its easier than that, depending on the state laws just pick up a Nickle ad and buy one from a private citizen……..just a hint if I were you I would not make a transaction like that at a gun show however in some states it is completely legal. BUT NOT FROM A MANUFACTURE. Different rules apply nationaly.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:09 am#
gimmegimme Says:
Wayne, so you do believe guns should be taken away from individuals.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Okay, here goes. My friends here may disagree with me, and I respect them for that. I grew up in, and spent most of my life in, New York State. I have friends out there from Western states that have a different culture and mindset than my own. I understand that.
The way I see it, other than for self-defense reasons, do you actually need a firearm of some kind? My friend’s co-worker used to have to hunt to find food for his family. He had to be very good with his shots because he could not afford to buy many shells. He used his gun to feed his family, and I certainly support his right to own his gun for that purpose.
Another friend of mine bought an AK-47 right before it was illegal to do so. To my knowledge, he does not belong to any gun clubs, nor does he occasionally go as someone’s “guest”, so he has some place to shoot his gun. He has plenty of property to do his shooting. Does he need that gun? No. Should it be taken away? In exchange for payment, so as not to violate the “Takings Clause”, yes. I know that shooting things is fun, but he can go to a virtual shooting gallery for fun. (Should be good money in opening one of those now, shouldn’t it?)
Handguns were made for one purpose – to kill other human beings. Private citizens do not read them.
I believe that police officers should be allowed to carry guns. This would be in order to protect us from bad people.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:11 amZoo dont take my word for it….simply contact tha ATF and have them send you a packet for “firearms dealers” its only a few clicks away………….. or read…..
April 5th, 2009 at 1:13 amhttp://www.atf.gov/regulations/index.htm
“private citizens do not need them”. (duh)
And I messed the the italicizing. Sorry.
I hate to post and run, but the sleeping pill is about to take effect, and I would rather be near my bed when it does. Good night, sweryouuturrrwaaakl;z/d
April 5th, 2009 at 1:14 amSlappyBastinado Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Well, if you don’t know, you shouldn’t have brought it up.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:17 amThe point is, no matter where the gun comes from, someone who wants to kill another person with a gun will find a way to get a gun. What will intimidate that person from killing the other is if the other has a gun.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:17 am“The point is, no matter where the gun comes from, someone who wants to kill another person with a gun will find a way to get a gun. What will intimidate that person from killing the other is if the other has a gun.”
So are you saying the 3 police officers did not have guns? Quit playing video games, they are not real.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:23 amI don’t like video games.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:24 amI didn’t say it would stop people from killing, but it would be a deterrent to someone who is afraid to die. If the person is on a suicide mission, then I definitely want a gun.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:25 amJust like the death penalty is a deterrent. Oy…
April 5th, 2009 at 1:28 amAnyone as stupid as that idiot in Pittsburg SHOULD have his firearms taken from him. Pencils, pens, scissors, butter knives, and toothpicks as well.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:29 amVideo games aside, in real life I can shoot a rabbit on a dead run at 100 yards distance. Then I can gut it, take it home, and eat it for supper. Who needs a video game?
April 5th, 2009 at 1:29 amI really hope I don’t live in your neighborhood. If someone else has nuclear weapons, do you want one of those as well? Where does it stop? How many situations have you been in that required you to protect yourself with a gun?
April 5th, 2009 at 1:30 amAny of these crazy people who kill others deserve their firearms taken away. What about the rest of us?
April 5th, 2009 at 1:31 amThe crazy people will just take your gun away from you, and kill you with it — and your entire family.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:32 amOr when your children are impulsive teenagers, they will shoot themselves with your gun.
It wouldn’t be the first time…or the last.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:38 amPersonally, I value my children more than I value my gun rights.
But that’s just me — a filthy liberal.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:39 amI have been in one situation where I was glad I had a gun for protection. There was a dispute between my neighbor and me. He said one road to my house was the right of way. The purchase documents to my land said it was another. This dispute went on in court for a long time until one day, the neighbor blocked off both roads to my house and threatened my brother with a baseball bat when he tried to come to my house. Of course that got the police involved. Charges were pressed and he was forced to clear my right of way. Later that night, after some heavy drinking, my neighbor came into my yard and proceeded to pound on my windows and yell. He then tried to open my front door. I grabbed my gun and called the police. I told them I was in my house, but that if the door opened, I would fire. They told me to stay put and sent the officers. I lived in a rural area, so it took about 15 minutes for them to arrive. They arrested the neighbor and he’s still in jail. Turns out he was outside pounding on my windows, holding his gun. He was a felon already, not allowed to have firearms, so he went back to jail.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:41 amSo in reality, you did not need the gun.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:45 amWe had better take away steak knives, baseball bats, automobiles, gasoline, and chain saws. As for those teenagers, we had better put them in straight jackets.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:47 amgimmegimme Says:
“…What will intimidate that person from killing the other is if the other has a gun.”
April 5th, 2009 at 1:17 am
That’s what Mike Huckabee said (this was well after he dropped out of the race.) He also said that he thought it would be a good idea for NYC if everyone on the subway, for instance, were armed. I’ll paraphrase, “don’t you think that a potential mugger would have second thoughts if he knew the other guy had a gun?”
Yeah. Tourists would just love to visit NYC then, huh?
April 5th, 2009 at 1:48 amIt was a threatening enough situation to make me realize the need for one. What would I have done had he broken in and I didn’t have a gun? The gun put me, the innocent person, in control of the situation. If the door was kicked in, one shot from my high powered rifle would end the confrontation.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:50 amI see ‘if’ used a lot in your reply. What if he got so mad at you he shot himself? What if he did not have a gun? What if he had a rocket launcher? Can you see how throwing ‘if’ into the situation can spiral into nonsense? So let’s not play the ‘if’ game. As for being in control, it sounds more like your phone call put the police in control. Your gun never came into play.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:56 amI knew a family who thought like gimmeboy. The wife shot the husband through the front door, when he rattled the doorknob after realizing he’d forgotten his key.
Accidents happen; Tragedies happen; and all gimme’s logical fallacies combined won’t shield him against them.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:58 amA thought to the democrats as I’m leaving–My mother is Canadian. She married my father, an American and they raised their family. They loved children, so they had 10. BTW, no welfare comments about the 10 kids, my dad worked hard and never took a handout from anyone. Anyways, every one of us is a Canadian/American, meaning we can choose to live either place. In Canada they have social healthcare, higher tax rates, and stricter gun laws. Needless to say, we all choose to live in the U.S. Maybe you liberals should consider Canada.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:58 amgimme is a bit defensive about his large family, isn’t he?
No wonder he chose that moniker.
I’ve found Canadians to be very happy and friendly people. I can see why gimme wouldn’t want to live there.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:00 amWayne Ant Schneider Says:
Handguns were made for one purpose – to kill other human beings. Private citizens do not read them.
I believe that police officers should be allowed to carry guns. This would be in order to protect us from bad people.
*****
I’m glad there are other people who feel that way besides me.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:06 amI’m probably going to catch flak for this, but part of me is glad these things are happenning. Hear me out before anyone thinks im some monster… These nutcases going berzerk and committing extreme acts of violence are probably the “new pearl harbor” necessary to reveal to the world what a bunch of kooks and crazies the republican party truly has as its base these days. I personally think Bachmann, Beck, and others like him should say exactly what thier thinking, because if someone acts heinously enough by being provoked by thier words and idea..well..thier ideas are going to become kryptonite and the political poison they peddle will thereafter make them pariahs and voters will abandon them in droves….Some some may say I’m hoping these crazies commit acts of violence and well, honestly, I am…because I think its going to prevent ALOT more violence down the line…if some random shootings and massacres prevent someone who thinks like Dick Cheney from ever coming to power again in our lifetime, I think its an acceptable price for society to pay..how many people have died because right wing idealogy in its current forms isnt viewed as the poisonous potion it so truly is?
April 5th, 2009 at 2:07 amgimmegimme, sounds like you live in a lovely area. I’ll bet they’re all republicons down there! Sick and tired of your fear mongering. Knock it off already!
April 5th, 2009 at 2:10 amJust heard another news story on the radio about a father that just shot and killed his children. What a tragedy. Would you suggest if the kids have had guns they could have killed their father before he shot them? Just writing that question makes me ill.
And from what I know of my fellow posters, I don’t believe any of them would have made any of the comments you brought up. Projection on your part? Maybe. You still have not answered the point that your gun played no part in your protection in your story.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:10 amGimme, I have a couple of quick questions before you bugger off:
-had you ever been aware that your neighbor owned a gun?
-if so, when the police came over for the baseball-bat incident, did you mention to them that the neighbor had a gun, which could be a concern if the neighbor decided to escalate his threats?
-did the neighbor know that you owned a “high-powered rifle”?
-if you pressed charges at the time of the baseball-bat incident, did the police not check him for priors?
-what was the neighbor doing while you were waiting 15 minutes for the police, i.e., was he continuing to yell and pound the windows, shouting threats, or what? Or did you tell him that you had called the police and that they were on their way?
Just curious.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:11 am> and never took a handout from anyone
yeah, pappy paved his own roads. when he needed a letter mailed he travelled across the country to do it himself. and he never got any of that edumacation which the government at least partially funds in almost every institution in this country..
April 5th, 2009 at 2:11 am>We had better take away steak knives
Take a look at japans spree killers. They almost all used knives..aside from having many, many more uses than guns, knives are an awful lot less efficient at taking human life, which is because thats not what (most of) them are designed to do..
April 5th, 2009 at 2:16 amChoco, you have a point but it won’t be easy for this awakening to occur since the right wing controls the media. Unfortunately, we’d need too many shootings for the message to penetrate the many thick skulls out there. I think in not so many words, Bachmann and the other loons are calling for the assassination of our president rather than random shootings. That’s the message I’m getting anyway.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:22 amChocolate Jesus Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 2:07 am
I usually agree with most of your comments, but I’m going to respectfully give you some of that ‘flak’. I realize that what you’re saying re: a “new Pearl Harbor” is not exactly the same as PNAC’s terrifying vision of their “new Pearl Harbor”. But it’s not that huge a leap, and any step toward that leap makes us no better than Neocons. I cannot condone that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. Nor can I ever see the senseless deaths of innocents as anything other than a horrible tragedy.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:35 am> Bachmann and the other loons are calling for the
> @ss@ss1nat10n of our president rather than
> random shootings.
Oh I hear ya. However, doing that is much much harder than wanting to do it, and i think people who would be inspired and inclined to do such a thing would probably “settle” for alot of less serious but still headline grabbing heinous acts.
I honestly believe that the only way anyone takes Obama out is if someone rich and powerful wants it done. I dont think the kind of person whose listening to michelle bachman and hearing the voice of god is going to have a chance to get close to the president..the rich plotters would find a patsy, of course, but well,…you only need one patsy, and even if every rich wing violence espousing mouthpiece with a microphone shut his pie hole tommorow, you could still find at least one patsy..but I digress..
For instance, there were 2 white suprememists nabbed recently for planning a series of violent acts which were supposed to culminate in getting obama..however they didnt have an actual plan on how they were going to get to obama..and in fact what they had planned to do before trying to get obama would have drawn such an enormous amount of attention to them that they would have had a hard time avoiding being killing or captured by the police within a few hours, let alone have a chance to get to the president …I’m not going to mention their plans but lets just say that if they hadnt been arrested before they had begun to carry them out, the republican party as we know it would probably be completely politically extinct in 2010..
April 5th, 2009 at 2:54 amand yes your right even mass violence doesnt necessarily shock people but if the acts are heinous enough, and commited against innocent enough persons..oh yeah, it will wake people up and let them see what sorts of people these politicians really have as thier supporters. if michelle bachman had starting talking about “armed revolution” the day after a white christian militiaman was discovered to have attacked the oklahoma federal building and killed dozens of children..she’d probably wouldnt even be a congresswoman for remainder of the week, or ever again
> Nor can I ever see the senseless deaths
> of innocents as anything other
> than a horrible tragedy.
Oh i hear ya, I’m sure alot of people who usually agree with me will disagree with me about this, but my utilitarianism leaves me to simply compare body counts. In neither case do I find myself morally culpable. I’m not making beck say things that might provoke people to do things, nor I am going to aid or abet anyone who might be so inclined. Nor did I start or support any of the wars which were waged by people Glen Beck helped elect. So I guess morally I can simply hope for the outcome which results in the least death and suffering in the world.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:58 am>I realize that what you’re saying re:
> a “new Pearl Harbor” is not exactly
> the same as PNAC’s terrifying vision
> of their “new Pearl Harbor”.
> But it’s not that huge a leap,
No your right..whats thay saying about fighting monsters without becoming one? The only difference, and I think its a relevant one, is that, unlike the members of PNAC, I did not and will not undertake or engage a series of actions which let the “catalyst” occur…I dont beleive all the conspiracies theories about 9-11, but I do think that not only did the past foriegn policy decisions of PNAC memebers help create the islamic militism which contributed to 9-11, but I also think they knew 9-11 was going to occur and did nothing to stop it. since its the governments obligation to protect thier citizens from attack, even thier mere inaction was a criminal act..
April 5th, 2009 at 3:03 amAll other contraptions designed to kill with such ease are normally eventually banned are they not?? I can’t even find firecrackers anymore. So what is so special about guns and bullets? Somehow it’s A-OK to sling a killing machine if it’s a gun of some sort. Is it that connection to the violent troubles of the old west? Fantasies out of Holywood movies?
April 5th, 2009 at 3:13 amRight Wingers all over the world are the cause of all troubles. They always turn to violance. People like Bachmann should be in jail. And where are the McCains of the Republicans? Why aren’t they saying anything to stop this?
April 5th, 2009 at 3:16 am.
Wayne,
Thanks for the quote of Article 2 @#8!
And at #43, the second portion of ArtI Sec8.12 could also be read: “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” notice nothing is said about new appropriations being agreed too so as to continue ongoing duties of that militia, NO?…
… Maybe?
However, my concern is in the first part of that provision…
… Just HOW has Congress “RAISED” that support for these Armies but from our future welfare? But then, just how is Congress maintaining OUR future welfare as is enumerated in their Oath? You know… as in “PRESERVE”? But I’m just splitting hairs, maybe?…
… NO?
Too bad accountability is “OFF THE TABLE”!
WWJD? (what would Jesus draw)…
… But a line in the sand?
Eh, Big “D”? No gun required, NO?
p.s. Wayne,
I agree, Gandhi never needed a gun.
.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:22 amI think it is time to hold the NRA accountable for their propoganda. A friend of mine told me that she hates Obama because he is going to tax ammunition. Personally, I think they should tax the hell out of ammunition. The said story is that all of the people I know that are buying up guns and ammunition do not have an education beyond high school nor do they have the ability to think outside the box. I am ashamed of my friend whom I’ve known for over 30 years. She is a friend of the NRA. I think all victims of violent gun crimes ought to hold the NRA accountable for spreading propoganda.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:43 amMost of the shootings I’ve read about recently were carried out by people who had lost their jobs. Maybe better safety nets would help prevent people from snapping.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:05 amContrary to the belief of gun apologists, the Second Amendment was not created to secure the individual right to bear arms. It was written to help the South keep control of its slaves:
“The citizen militias of the South were the primary means the government (i.e., the white land owners) had to maintain control of the slave population. The Southern slave owners were terrified that Congress would use its power to call forth the state militias to place the militias under federal command, thus preventing the state command from taking the swift action necessary during the slave rebellions that broke out often enough to be a constant worry. Virginia in particular made it quite clear that it would not ratify the Constitution without an understanding that it would be amended to make clear the states’ authority to maintain such militias.”
Xe
April 5th, 2009 at 5:25 amThe MSM is fueling this gun nonsense. This guy was crazy it had nothing to do with right/left wing.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:51 amAs the FoxNews demographic will attest, there is no shortage of suckers and idiots…
April 5th, 2009 at 8:37 amCan there be any doubt that the 2nd amendment is the biggest threat to the personal safety of the American people. When I heard the Pittsburgh killer was afraid that Obama was going to take away his guns, we have to lay the blame for this at the feet of Fox News, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and Michelle Bachmann. There needs to be an emphasis on regulating fire arms. There should be laws that if you have a gun it must be locked in a safe at all times including when being transported by car. New laws should include severe penalities for gun that are not in safes, and can only be used in designated ranges and hunting areas that have video surveillance.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:44 amaplbotm Says:
“The MSM is fueling this gun nonsense. This guy was crazy it had nothing to do with right/left wing.”
Right. blasting away at cop over a perceived threat from a democrat president has nothing to do with left wing/right wing. no more so than the guy who blasted up a church because he hated liberals. give me a freaking break
April 5th, 2009 at 8:46 amI’m a progressive liberal, I voted for Obama, and I’m a gun owner. I do not and have never supported the NRA because they back waaaay too many right-wingers. For some reason some folks seem to believe that Obama’s intention to reinstate the assault weapons ban is just right wing fear mongering disinformation, but to quote the White House website, under Agenda>Urban>Crime and Law Enforcement, “[Biden and Obama] also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.” That’s not spin. It’s our new administration’s actual statement of intent, and I do not support it. In response, people are purchasing AR15, AK47 and other such weapons in droves. What I’m finding interesting (and somewhat unexpected) in my state is that it’s not just the hard core “militia types,” either. Even politically moderate and left leaning gun enthusiasts are buying up guns and ammo for fear of later scarcity.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:48 amThere’s a quote I recently came across in “Armed America” a book by photographer Kyle Cassidy which features photos of individuals and families at home with their guns. One of the subjects, Kevin, explains his gun ownership this way: “As a Jewish American I am cognizant of the fact that six million of my people were turned into air pollution in the 30’s and 40’s. As a civil rights advocate I know that at some point words are not going to be enough when people are kicking down your door to pull you out of your house because you’re Jewish, or Black, or gay. You can’t be pro civil rights without being pro gun. It’s hypocritical to deny someone the most basic of all human rights, which is the right to defend yourself.”
That statement really resonates with me as a liberal. How many instances in history can you point to where a subjugated population (majority or minority) was able to rise up and liberate themselves from tyrrany without either actual armed resistance or the threat thereof from either an internal or external source? Not too many, I bet.
For staunchly anti-gun liberals it might seem like a great victory if the new Democratic administration were to enact measures severely limiting or outright banning civilian gun ownership and then begin to collect the bulk of registered weapons from law abiding citizens, using the rationale that if there are fewer guns there will be fewer gun crimes. We all know Obama’s a good guy, so what’s the worry, right? OK, now imagine a few years down the road, and American citizens aren’t allowed to own guns anymore, and Obama is no longer in office. What happens when the electorate gets all stupid again (because that DOES happen from time to time, doesn’t it?), and ends up electing someone like Sarah Palin (or worse), who, with the best of intentions (bless her heart) starts fomenting hatred leading to the rounding up of folks who she sees as abominations to her god? Well, as Kevin stated above, “you can’t be pro civil rights without being pro gun.”
Just sayin…
This incident in Pittsburgh was an awful tragedy that indeed had connections to right-wing goups. By all accounts the shooter was a control freak and mentally disturbed, but some Pittsburgh media accounts state Richard Poplawski was into Alex Jones’ Web site and joined Stormfront, a Web site for far-right groups. He was a conspiracy theorist who bought into the idea that guns would be banned. After what he did, perhaps police groups will join to help raise support for just such a ban, at least against assault rifles by private citizens who don’t need AK-47s to hunt anything except human beings.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:51 amBeing a biker, I have lived in the shadow world with crooks,thugs and crazies. For all the folks out their who think packing is going to make crooks, thugs and crazies think twice are deluding yourself. The thug will always have the advantage, because he knows what he’s going to do and you don’t. Unless you are walking around with your piece locked and loaded in your hand, nine times out of ten the thug will end up with your piece and if your lucky you won’t be dead. Most all crooks, thugs and crazies don’t care one way or another if your packing. The only difference it makes is if they shoot sooner instead of later.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:53 amJohn Cole should be one to talk. Last year he went batsh** during the primaries. And that whole “Recreate ‘68″ crew that threatened to burn down Denver was insane.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:55 amGood Morning TaylorM:
I’m a dragonfly.
Do you think conservatives are an endangered species?
April 5th, 2009 at 9:10 am.
So it’s war, then? Well, I guess it’s time to clean out the rat’s-nest known as the American right-wing. Finish the job we started with the Civil War, after which we let the Klan take over the South. Enough bullsh*tting around with “blue-dogs” and “bipartisanship.” These people are traitors, not Americans, they only mean to do us all harm, all for their own profit. Shut ‘em down, for good this time. Too many good people have died at their hands.
They’re also responsible for this hysterical DOMA nonsense. If your State is not on this list, your tax dollars will be going to lawyers for years to come. If your State is on the list, you’ll reap the benefits for all those years and more. Basic Constitutional law, simple justice and real-world economics. Gay marriage will be legal by 2012, in every civilized State. The rest will rot.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:11 am.
I completely agree with the NRA’s insistence on strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment. And I strongly believe we should adhere to the intent of the framers of the constitution. And because of that, I believe everyone has the right to own a smooth-bore front loading musket. Weapons developed since 1789 are a different story.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:20 amThe only difference it makes is if they shoot sooner instead of later.
This whole comment deserves to be read in every Right-wing pulpit in the country.
If you are packing a gun, you HAVE to be ready to use it.
“Use” it means ‘point and shoot’ it.
No more than 10 percent of the people in this country can do that.
That means that, if you are among the other 90%, and you pack a loaded weapon, the chances are VERY good–99 in 100–that it will be take from you before you steel yourself to pulling the trigger, when/if you should encounter the kind of situation for which you are packing that weapon in the first place, and that it will be turned against you.
If you are not prepared to kill an adversary, it is STUPID to carry a gun. And you’d be surprised at how many people AREN’T prepared for that…
April 5th, 2009 at 9:26 amThe lunatics of the media are bad enough, no doubt, but when a representative in congress calls for Americans to be armed and dangerous, she needs to be censured at the least. Her party and her state need to come down on her hard.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:29 amOn the bright side, at least there’s one segment of the economy that’s booming…
Here’s an idea – let’s start a rumor that Obama plans to ban the automobile. The auto industry will be rescued overnight!
April 5th, 2009 at 9:29 amFor Taylor @ 101
April 5th, 2009 at 9:30 amThoughtful and well-written, but it comes down to this. I don’t want to live in a country where the civilian population is allowed to pack enough heat to militarily overthrow an oppressive government. That is not our path to salvation. Our path is to keep electing the good guys. It is only when our democracy fails that we will fail. But we won’t be able to shoot our way out.
Puppyjive Says:
Personally, I think they should tax the hell out of ammunition.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:43 am
________
Me too. I’m a total proponent of the Chris Rock gun control plan…
April 5th, 2009 at 9:33 amI went to a gun show here is Minneapolis two weekends ago. Its always a bit of challenge, but this time I just couldn’t take it. I had to leave. Everwhere I heard these fools talking about Obama taking thier guns. They cite raising amunition and gun production being backed up as proof. They ignore the effect high matrerials prices had on ammo and manufacturing or they say that those prices have come down, again ignoring the lag time between materials prices falling and production lines or that once dealers raise prices on ammunition it will take a lot to bring them back down, but if they were smart enough to understand these things they would’t be wingnuts.
It is getting ugly out there.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:33 amarbereshe Says:
Why does the NRA and much of right take this part of Constitution so literally yet ignore the many aspects of the separation of church and state? Or ignore civil rights like the right to privacy?
The same way the Fundies are so willing to selectively read and interpret the bible. It serves their purpose to forward their own agenda, facts and truth be damned.
PEACE
April 5th, 2009 at 9:34 amTaylorM Says:
OK, now imagine a few years down the road, and American citizens aren’t allowed to own guns anymore, and Obama is no longer in office. What happens when the electorate gets all stupid again (because that DOES happen from time to time, doesn’t it?), and ends up electing someone like Sarah Palin (or worse), who, with the best of intentions (bless her heart) starts fomenting hatred leading to the rounding up of folks who she sees as abominations to her god? Well, as Kevin stated above, “you can’t be pro civil rights without being pro gun.”
This will never happened by thinking this way you’re simply scaring yourself into believing another idiot will be president in the year 2016 or so and that there will be a ban for all guns in the Obama Administration. Both will never happened.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:34 amIt always makes me laugh when I hear people say we need guns to protect us against a government gone bad. I always ask, hows that AK47 gonna work for you against that F16 and Abrams tank? They never have an answer.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:38 amAnd the ban on guns from my understanding was for automatic-rifles or assualt weapons and stuff.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:38 amWich means you still can buy a 9mm legaly but not AKs and stuff.
I say that if someone really needs to carry a gun so they can use it against “the bad guys” then they should join the police or the military.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:39 amThe cold blooded, premeditated murder of policemen in Pittsburgh is an act of domestic terrorism fomented by right wing lies and propaganda against President Obama. The right wing media has crossed the line from political discourse to treason and are endangering the lives of the citizens of our country. I have seen list of advertisers posted in blogs – can anyone make a list available on the site so we can contact them to ask them to stop supporting armed aggression against our government?
April 5th, 2009 at 9:45 amI wonder what all the gun buyers would think if it was discovered that the Bush administration had kept track of who bought what at every gun shop and gun show. All those video cameras for security purposes made that an easy task.
Dragonflies don’t pack heat generally.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:53 amahumbleopinion Says:
The cold blooded, premeditated murder of policemen in Pittsburgh is an act of domestic terrorism fomented by right wing lies and propaganda against President Obama. The right wing media has crossed the line from political discourse to treason and are endangering the lives of the citizens of our country.
Agreed. What happened in Pittsburgh was the epitome of a coward. He put on a bullet-proof vest, called 911 and claimed a domestic dispute in progress, then grabbed his AK47 and high-powered rifle and hid in his window to pick of the very people willing to come to his home to protect him and his family.
The only good that could come from that situation is to pass legislation to outright ban all AK47’s, and make it illegal to retain ownership of such. Fcuk the NRA if they don’t like it. There is simply no purpose for such weaponry other than to kill high numbers of people in a short period of time.
I have seen list of advertisers posted in blogs – can anyone make a list available on the site so we can contact them to ask them to stop supporting armed aggression against our government?
Actually, many blogs simply subscribe to advertising and are not responsible for the specific ads that run on their blog. By clicking on specific ads, the ad sellers is better able to target the audience of that blog with products/service they may be more likely to purchase.
PEACE
April 5th, 2009 at 10:09 amI have said and I maintain that the Right wing neo conservative republican party is the most dangerous threat America has ever faced. Their goal is to turn this Country into an imperialistic state where the chosen few (white evangelical Christians) have all the rights and power and the masses are slaves to their demands. Make no mistake these people would have absolutely no seconds thoughts of eliminating the non believers, hell just listen to Glenn Beck. He is openly calling for a revolution in 2012.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:11 amIs this what LaPiere and the NRA want? What f’n purpose does an AK-47 have other than what Poplawski did in Pittsburgh? besides shoot up toilets. These gun nuts (I don’t mean hunters and collectors)listen to the vitriol coming from the extremists and this is what happened. This nitwit really believed someone was coming to take his guns away. Gun owners have been bombarded with this bullsh*t for so mny years they still believe it! How many years and they still have their guns. Maybe had the Republicans not let the assault rifle ban maybe this meathead wouldn’t have had the fire power to do the damage he did. 14 people in Binghamton, NY. 5 children in Washington State. 3 police in Pittsburgh. Jesus Christ! When are these a$$holes going to wake up!! GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!
April 5th, 2009 at 10:12 amIt’s very difficult for Americans to believe, but we are in the early stages of a civil war. Wingnuts with guns are being fed militaristic propaganda and they are taking up arms. This is nothing new, this has been going on for many years, but with the economy flagging, and the Republican Party on its knees, we can expect more violence.
We also need to be concerned because wingnuts tie their religion into their politics, and many of them believe these are the end times. Many of them believe that they are all going to magically disappear at the beginning of the end, so they will do what they can to hasten their dogmatic Armageddon
April 5th, 2009 at 10:17 amWouldn’t it be ironic if all those concentration camps, I mean – detention centers built – by Bush ended up being filled with Rush’s Ditto-Heads, gun toting Hockey Moms and reich-wing Evangelical Christian extremists?
April 5th, 2009 at 10:21 amIt’s odd that the gun huggers were never concerned while all of their other rights were being stripped away for the last 8 years. Just give them their guns and then take away their bullets.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:21 amIt’s certainly starting to feel that way, Levi.
I hate to say it, but perhaps it’s time to take the whacked-out rhetoric of Beck and Limbaugh and Orally seriously instead of just as a source of comedy.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:23 am“If I had a rocket launcher”…
April 5th, 2009 at 10:23 amIf I had a rocket launcher
April 5th, 2009 at 10:28 amI’d launch it in the mor-ning
I’d launch it in the ev-ning,
All over this land!
Levi the Dungbeetle Says:
While I agree that their is a slight chance that their can be a civil war, in the end the Far-right will be gone for good and a new possibly better (more moderate) Republicans will rise ,ofcourse if that happens at what cost possibly many lifes of innocent.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:29 amIn the long run, it’s a very good thing, assuming that there are enough people left to call a nation. The most radical elements of the fascist Republicans either get killed or imprisoned, and we carry on without them.
I don’t always agree with the actions of the police, as it is their duty to enforce laws that I do not consent to, but I want to mention how thankful I am that they are there to take a bullet for me. It is men like these that give their lives to protect the lives of others that are truly American heroes.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:37 amralph the wonder locust Says:
I hate to say it, but perhaps it’s time to take the whacked-out rhetoric of Beck and Limbaugh and Orally seriously instead of just as a source of comedy.
Ralph, I’m getting that feeling, too. We are in amazingly stressful times. The deadly recipe consists of the wingnuts being able to link unemployment, huge bailouts, massive deficits, increased government programs and the [false] threat of increased taxes with an African-American president and the possibility of gay rights, immigration reform, restoration of constitutional rights and a willingness to talk with perceived enemies all while advocating “armed insurgency” by the “American Taliban” who seek “revolution”.
These bigoted blowhards, pundits and everything Fux are doing exactly what Hitler did in the 1930’s: “The ones responsible for your pain and our nation’s pain are the black people who took out the subprimes mortgages (disproved) that collapsed the economy, the brown people who are taking your jobs here in your country (disproved, it’s the corporation owners shipping jobs to brown people around the world they can pay slave wages) the illegals who are getting all the free food, healthcare and shelter that you can’t get, and all the other brown people around the world who aren’t christians.”
Throw in some gay bashing because it’s such a good fomenter and the guns come out the solve the hatred.
I’m sick just writing this. Gotta go ride bikes with me kid and stop thinking of this sh!t.
PEACE
April 5th, 2009 at 10:41 am“I don’t believe in guarded borders and I don’t believe in hate
April 5th, 2009 at 10:57 amI don’t believe in generals or their stinking torture states”…
I can understand using the inflammatory rhetoric during the campaign. The GOP has long used fear as one of their primary get-out-the-vote efforts. What doesn’t make sense is continuing with the rhetoric after the election. The game is up now. There is no effort to take away people’s guns. However, I suppose if your only news source is FOX and Limbaugh then you wouldn’t have any idea what is actually happening in Washington. I would appeal to the decency of the people fanning the flames of violence to tone down the rhetoric, if I thought they had any decency.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:03 amTroubled individuals fueled by inflammatory rhetoric from the NRA and right wing radio provocateurs like Beck, Savage,Hannity and Rush, respond like Pavlov’s dogs.Hearing the warnings about increased governmental control of guns is for the aberrant personality both a nightmare and dream come true.Their paranoia needs fueled and reinforced in order to justify twisted visions of contemporary America as a real battleground over issues of race and immigration. It allows them to declare themselves guardians of an imagined culture and requires the need to be armed up and ready for the inevitable conflagration.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:05 amYou say “false claims by the right”. I don’t see how they are false, given a documented anti-gun voting record in Illinois.
Also look at which groups did and did not support him in the election.
Finally, is the writer saying that he is pro-gun? Are you sure that you do not also want to take away private gun ownership as well?
Gun control is a well-meaning but dangerous goal. It will give the government ALL the power. The main reason to allow private gun ownership is not protection against criminals but protection against an overreaching government. No, I am not talking about anything near what the US has ever been. But..taking guns away from private citizens has been one of the first steps in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and other states that have violated the basic human rights of people.
I know you want to reduce violence, but the way to do that is through jobs (notice how violence rises in poor economic times and in poor residential areas), education, and opportunity.
Thanks for listening.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:07 amThe NRA is really more interested in raising money for their leadership and electing Republicans. They are more a part of the party apparatus than they are an actual issues group. They used to campaign for politicians friendly to their cause on both sides of the aisle, but today largely only support Republicans. In the last election there was no anti-gun candidate, but they still supported McCain and simply stepped up their rhetoric into tin-foil hat territory to explain why.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:09 amThe NRA does not only support Republicans, you have obviously not seen a list of candidates they supported in the last election. It’s just that more Republicans support gun ownership. In Illinois they actually mistakenly supported a Democrat in my district that just voted on an anti-gun measure. They support plenty of pro-gun Democrats in downstate Illinois.
They did not actively support McCain. They did warn about Obama.
Please at least look up the facts. Please. I am begging you. Do not become a Democrat version of Rush Limbaugh.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:13 ami meant to ask about this last night:
Xisithrus, Hemiptera Says:
I disagree. Its likely the three policemen, who lost their lives, doing their duty, were religious and politics played little part.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:20 am
what the hell does that mean?
i do not detect even a hint of irony…
April 5th, 2009 at 11:13 amand the unsubstantiated claims are uncomfortable to me…
I dont understand some of the things you said, I am not a regular on these things, only occasionally use them.
I am not going to spend time searching right now. Obama has only been President two months, he has not established a huge record as Pres. All I can do is look at his past record, and it appears anti-gun.
Now I am waiting – what do you personally believe about guns. It seems strage to me that people who are probably very anti-gun are so strongly saying that Obama is pro-gun. I just dont understand that.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:18 amGun control is a well-meaning but dangerous goal. It will give the government ALL the power. The main reason to allow private gun ownership is not protection against criminals but protection against an overreaching government.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:19 am—
So doesn’t this argue for private ownership of rocket launchers, nuclear warheads, and fighter aircraft? I think you are sincere but come on the idea of a bunch of pitchfork armed citizens battling an evil government is sort of archaic in the modern world. If I am to believe that my government is going to get so out of control as to engage me in actual warfare why would I think a few guns would give me the edge?
jimmy, the false claims are that Obama wants to take away your guns.
Support for reasonable gun control measures only means “wants to take away your guns” in the minds of folks who can’t deal with anything resembling nuance, just respond to clearly delineated, black-or-white choices.
The fact is no responsible public official or candidate has made such a proposal, in my awareness, ever. Certainly not on a national level.
But gun manufacturers recognize a powerful marketing gimmick when they see one. What do gun manufacturers, like an manufacturer, seek to do? Increase sales. What has this false rhetoric served to accomplish? Increased sales.
You do the math.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:21 amjimmy,
What Exactly was this “anti gun measure” that your representative voted in favor of….and did it pass?
From the reports I’ve Read, the Obama Administration has DROPPED its efforts to reinstate the Assault weapons ban.
The ban was eliminated in 2004.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:22 amI understand your point about pitchforks, I actually do. But yes, I think guns are the way to battle an evil government. Nuclear weapons would destroy huge innocent populations, which is not the goal. (This is VERY theoretical) but if they come after you and me to take our freedom, it will still be on a one-by-one basis, even in this modern, very technological world.
Thank you for responding in a kind way.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:23 amBadger,
Thank you for the respectful response. The ban was not eliminated in 2004, it simply expired and Bush did not renew it. Basically nothing was done, and it went away because it was only good for 10 years.
HB48 would have required all firearm transfers to be through a federally license dealer. It failed 55-60 in Democrat-controlled Illinois.
Based on this ABC News article, it actually DOES appear that the current administration wants to reimpose the assault weapons ban
April 5th, 2009 at 11:34 amhttp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
but if they come after you and me to take our freedom,
April 5th, 2009 at 11:35 am—-
Tell me what this would look like? Would it invlve telling me I can’t smoke pot, have abortions, choice to die, freedom to marry a memeber of my same gender? Tell me about these freedoms an imaginary evil government might take from me
gimmegimme Says:
People who use guns for the wrong reason are sick. There are a lot of violent crimes where guns are used. But the truth is, we can’t do anything about it. More regulations won’t help. People willing to break the law and kill innocent people are going to break the law to get guns.
I agree that may be the case for the criminally minded. But most of these acts were committed as an act of passion. I doubt that the people who kill their family went out and bought a gun expressly for that purpose. They used the gun because it was available to them because they bought it thinking it would make them safe. The fact is most people who own guns are in more jeopardy of themselves or their families being harmed by the gun than a bad guy.
After the massacre at the immigrant center, many gun nuts said something stupid like, if the people in the center had a gun, they would have killed the bad guy. The truth is they more than likely would have killed an innocent. Unless you practice with a gun on a regular basis, you are unlikely to have the skills to hit a particular human who isn’t standing right in front of you.
I fear for our country. Right wingers are trying to foment an armed rebellion and when it happens they will disavow any responsibility.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:35 amWith all due respect, jimmy, the way to battle an evil government is to not elect evil people in the first place. And certainly not to re-elect them once they’ve been elected.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:35 amMoth “I have a CWL, carry a pistol every day, and go to the shooting range every weekend”
- and I am the paranoid one? LOL even when I lived in a rough area of Chicago I trusted my neighbors.
(sorry I dont know how to do the cool quote thing)
April 5th, 2009 at 11:36 amPlease explain your reasoning in stating that “The ban was not eliminated in 2004, it simply expired “? It seems like a petty distinction without a difference.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:36 amjimmy69 Says:
Based on this ABC News article, it actually DOES appear that the current administration wants to reimpose the assault weapons ban.
Reimposing the assault weapons ban IS NOT taking away the public’s right to bear arms. It is only taking away their right to bear arms that have only one purpose, to kill and to kill rapidly. Do you think the guy who shot the two police officers in the face would have been able to do that with a handgun? Why in the world would you want a regular Joe on the street to be able to own a gun that can kill numerous people within seconds?
April 5th, 2009 at 11:39 amjimmy69 Says:
I understand your point about pitchforks, I actually do. But yes, I think guns are the way to battle an evil government.
So you are saying that if the “evil” government was out to get you, you really think that owning guns will protect you and your family? You are an idiot. If the “evil” government really wanted to get you, do you think they would just go away and leave you alone if you took a shot at them? The only thing it would do would be to get you and your family killed.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:41 amralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
jimmy69 Says:
I understand your point about pitchforks, I actually do. But yes, I think guns are the way to battle an evil government.
With all due respect, jimmy, the way to battle an evil government is to not elect evil people in the first place. And certainly not to re-elect them once they’ve been elected.
——Sir, I definitely agree with you.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:41 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
——————————————————————————–
jimmy69 Says:
Based on this ABC News article, it actually DOES appear that the current administration wants to reimpose the assault weapons ban.
Reimposing the assault weapons ban IS NOT taking away the public’s right to bear arms. It is only taking away their right to bear arms that have only one purpose, to kill and to kill rapidly. Do you think the guy who shot the two police officers in the face would have been able to do that with a handgun? Why in the world would you want a regular Joe on the street to be able to own a gun that can kill numerous people within seconds?
——-I was only clearing up something for badger, not saying anything else.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:41 amralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
jimmy69 Says:
Badger,
Thank you for the respectful response. The ban was not eliminated in 2004, it simply expired and Bush did not renew it. Basically nothing was done, and it went away because it was only good for 10 years.
Please explain your reasoning in stating that “The ban was not eliminated in 2004, it simply expired “? It seems like a petty distinction without a difference.
——-Its not a big distinction, I was just clarifying
April 5th, 2009 at 11:43 amGuys, thanks a lot for the respectful exchange of ideas. I really have to get going, I have a report to finish up for my client.
Maybe Ill see you back on these boards sometime.
Cheers!
April 5th, 2009 at 11:44 amI don’t care what any of the lunatics in the NRA say, guns DO kill people.
People use guns to kill other people so they don’t have to put themselves in close proximity to the person they want to kill.
While other Amendments to the Constitution grant persons individual rights, the Second Amendment grants “the people” the right to own guns, but collectively, not individually.
My fear is that there are too many people in this country who want to have legal ways to kill other people. Guns make that easier to do. And that’s why guns are dangerous to have around.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:45 am>arbereshe: Why does the NRA and much of right take this part of Constitution so literally yet ignore the many aspects of the separation of church and state? Or ignore civil rights like the right to privacy?
Probably because there is NOTHING in the Constitution that mandates a seperation of Church and State. It says that the government can’t mandate a State sponsored religion (Amendment 1). And I’m not exactly sure what privacy rights the NRA has been trying to take aways so if you could please elaborate.
>arbereshe: Guns are unnecessary in all aspects of modern-day American life.
Not sure where you’re from but, I know many rural families that use their guns to hunt to provide the family meat for the winter. Do we tell these people that can’t have guns anymore to feed their families? Do you take away the guns? If so isn’t that violating ones right to privacy? It’s also HIGHLY illegal under Amendment 4 of the Constitution (the unreasonable search and siezure AKA privacy one).
Just wondering.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:47 amLike I said before the gun controle issue was because he voted in the passed on banning assault weapons, it was posted on the RNC page on December or something, but it’s misleading.
If it’s true that he’ll ban assault-weapons, means you still can buy a 9mm legaly but not AKs, and other automatics.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:47 amThose aren’t under assault weapons category.
So I really don’t see how anyone can say that they’re taking away your guns, so everyone has AKs nowadays?
That’s a good find, jimmy, but no one here is saying that Obama is an NRA candidate.
We’re saying that the inflamed rhetoric that “he wants to take away your guns” is false and irresponsible.
A ban on assault weapons in private hands makes sense to a lot of people. In fact, in 2004 when the ban was about to expire, the right-wing Washington Times reported that a strong majority favored the ban. Also in favor are law enforcement officials and organizations.
The same kind of logic that extrapolates from the narrow policy decision to support a ban on assault weapons all the way to “wants to take away our guns” is exactly the same kind of logic that could support an extension from opposing gay marriage to “wants to kill all gays”.
The simple fact is, this imaginary attack on gun ownership is all in the fevered heads of pundits who earn their living by inciting their audience and gun manufacturers who reap greater profits through induced paranoia.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:48 amjimmy69 Says:
I am not going to spend time searching right now. Obama has only been President two months, he has not established a huge record as Pres. All I can do is look at his past record, and it appears anti-gun.
So jimmy, tell us why we should give anything you say credence when you are not willing to do some research before you say something that is not true. The only people you have heard from that say Obama is anti-gun is the NRA and the right wing nut jobs. If you can do some research and show us where Obama has ever said or done anything that advocated taking away your guns, then come back and talk. Until then, you really do need to STFU because you haven’t a clue.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:49 am08Dariana Says:
——————————————————————————–
If it’s true that he’ll ban assault-weapons, means you still can buy a 9mm legaly but not AKs, and other automatics.
–Sorry, one more clarification before I go…it is a ban on SEMIAUTOMATIC “assault rifles”, not automatics. Automatics (machine guns) have been illegal since the 1930’s.
Cheers!
April 5th, 2009 at 11:52 amWayne Ant Schneider Says:
While other Amendments to the Constitution grant persons individual rights, the Second Amendment grants “the people” the right to own guns, but collectively, not individually.
And this is the reason why the NRA has so assiduously avoided taking the right to bear arms to the Supreme Court. They know that they will lose, even with the conservative bent of the SC. Most right wing gun nuts think that the SC has already decided this matter (hence the numerous posts to that affect on these kind of posts), but that has not happened and won’t happen if the NRA can help it.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:54 amjimmy69 Says:
–Sorry, one more clarification before I go…it is a ban on SEMIAUTOMATIC “assault rifles”, not automatics. Automatics (machine guns) have been illegal since the 1930’s.
Cheers!
So, you think people should be able to own semi-automatics? And what purpose do they have other than to kill. You never did answer my question about whether the two police officers would be dead today if the shooter had nothing other than a hand gun. One officer may be dead, but he would have been dead before he could have gotten off the second shot.
And please don’t say “cheers” to us on such a horrific subject. It makes you out to be what you probably are, a very sad and scary human being.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:56 amBilbo,
Thanks. Perhaps you know the answer to this (but I’m not asking you to do the research; I’ll do it when I have the time.)
Isn’t it correct that the famous Thompson Machine Gun (favored by 1930s gangsters) – a/k/a “Tommy Gun” – was effectively “banned” when the government imposed a prohibitively high tax on each gun? And didn’t the SCOTUS rule that the Second Amendment did not grant individuals the right to own any kind of gun they wanted, and that they upheld the high cost of the stamp you needed to get to own such a Tommy Gun?
If my facts are in error, then I welcome anyone to point me to the links proving me wrong. I’d like to be told more than simply that I’m wrong, I’d like to be told why. Thank you.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:02 pmjimmy69 Says: Reimposing the assault weapons ban IS NOT taking away the public’s right to bear arms. It is only taking away their right to bear arms that have only one purpose, to kill and to kill rapidly.
This is true and I’m really not sure what one hunts with an AK-47 other than people, but the issue is more what would be DEFINED as an assault weapon. If you define it as being an AK-47/Uzi/M-16 I don’t think there would be much argument, but if you define it generally enough than ANY rifle could be considered an assault rifle by the definition (and be subject to being banned) that’s where the fear is.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:02 pmGlancing over the comments, it sounds like there is agreement that certain guns can be banned. (”Assault” weapons, Thompson machine guns, etc.) Therefore, the Second Amendment does not guarantee that individuals can own any kind of gun they want. (I’m pretty sure it doesn’t guarantee you the individual right to own a thermo-nuclear weapon.)
So, even if it were true that the government wanted to take away our guns (which it does not want to do), then how would this violate the Second Amendment?
April 5th, 2009 at 12:07 pmjimmy69 Says:
It doesn’t matter you can still buy a normal GUN, you know the NONESEMIAUTOMATICS .
April 5th, 2009 at 12:08 pmBecause it doesn’t fall under that category, what’s your point?
While it is true that Candidate Obama supported an Assault Weapons Ban, which EXPIRED in 2004,… and perhaps still feels that way…
….as reported in Newsweek…”Justice officials were instructed to DROP the issue, according to administration and congressional aides who asked not to be named due to political sensitivities.”
“Last Year Democrats received 20% of the nearly $1.2 million that the NRA pumped into congressional coffers- more than Twice what it gave to Dems just six years earlier.”
IMHO, President Obama doesn’t want to DERAIL his economic Agenda with divisive issues like Gun Control….that probably wouldn’t even pass.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:10 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says:
Bilbo,
Thanks. Perhaps you know the answer to this (but I’m not asking you to do the research; I’ll do it when I have the time.)
Isn’t it correct that the famous Thompson Machine Gun (favored by 1930s gangsters) – a/k/a “Tommy Gun” – was effectively “banned” when the government imposed a prohibitively high tax on each gun? And didn’t the SCOTUS rule that the Second Amendment did not grant individuals the right to own any kind of gun they wanted, and that they upheld the high cost of the stamp you needed to get to own such a Tommy Gun?
If my facts are in error, then I welcome anyone to point me to the links proving me wrong. I’d like to be told more than simply that I’m wrong, I’d like to be told why. Thank you.
That may well be true. But what the NRA is avoiding is a fight over whether or not the Second amendment says that individuals have the right to own a gun.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pmThis is gtetting to be an old story, but we as law abiding citizens should have the right to keep and own arms. I do not agree with carrying them all the time but to have them in our homes and to carry if carrying large amounts of cash gold or other valuable items yes we should be able to carry. I served my country and feel if we ever should be invaded by terorist or others we the people would be the ones who would have to defend our freedon as we can not even depend on the police in some areas to do it for us! I had a man trying to come through my front door and threatening me and my family and the cops told the wife they would be there in about 45 min, well what am I susposed to do throw stones and rice at him???? well I got my rifle and told him try to come in niow. He ran off and I feel my right saved my family. I will always support my right to own!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 5th, 2009 at 12:29 pmThe question I have to ask is:
“Where were these nutjobs when the Republican White House and Republican controlled Congress passed the Patriot Act, giving the government the right to enter their homes and seize their guns w/o a warrant, tap their phones w/o a warrant, and imprison them w/o due process?”
April 5th, 2009 at 12:46 pmIsn’t it correct that the famous Thompson Machine Gun (favored by 1930s gangsters) – a/k/a “Tommy Gun” – was effectively “banned” when the government imposed a prohibitively high tax on each gun? And didn’t the SCOTUS rule that the Second Amendment did not grant individuals the right to own any kind of gun they wanted, and that they upheld the high cost of the stamp you needed to get to own such a Tommy Gun?
=====================================================
These guns were never “banned” completely, in simple terms. There are many around today but require what is called a “Class III” license and are called NFA weapons. The license is more of a “title” like your car. These “machine guns” which will fire as long as the trigger is depressed are STRICTLY controlled by the ATF. Here are the rules…….
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIF1.html
April 5th, 2009 at 12:57 pmI had expected more from this thread. It must be the fact that the days have grown longer and the sun is shining…
April 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pmLastly, States determine if Class 3 weapons may be legally owned or kept in that state HOWEVER law enforcement agency’s can obtain wavers almost with impunity…….. just like dope finds its way into prisons these illegal weapons find there way into society…………with simple tools and a hand book that are sold everywhere one can make there own machine gun with little trouble…….one would be amazed at the number of these illegal weapons that are out there……..just go to youtube and watch hillbilly’s film themselves with illegal weapons………..
April 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pmThem Righties sure do scare easy, for all the tough-guy talk and belligerent posturing they do.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pmIt’s not just politicians; the gun lobby/ distributors/ gun- industry pundits (yes, Neil Knox was one who recently died) and silly-*ss gun blogs have been pushing this mantra.
The gun industry is creating panic- buying through “artificial shortages” and started doing so after the Patrick Purdy shooting when several Chinese rifles, then “all” assault -type weapons became unobtainable as hoarding began.
It’s silyl and predicable but –’Cletus n’ Jetro don’t want “the gummint taking are guns away.” Gun dealers, distributors, and manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:31 pmAnother thing- fear a legal, and always- legal hunting rifle in the hands of someone who’s shot before more than some sub- moron “spraying and praying” with an “assault” weapon.
Machine guns are highly over-rated. Other than maybe an H&K MP5 in the hands of someone with a half- hour’s worth of training, which is virtually unobtainable most will not do more than spray a bunch of lead while climbing up to the sky, and real machine guns are prohibitively expensive and highly regulated with a government paper trail of ownership.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:35 pmMugsy (181) –
That’s diffrunt.
April 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pmthem’re tayurris’s.
185-
April 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pmmostly old, fat, white dudes who live out their Walter Mitty fantasies and obsess over their paranoia with all the various people who’ll break into their trailer and steal their John Wayne commemorative plate set.
In regards to the policemen being shot and killed in Pittsburgh you are all missing the point. It has nothing to do with the type of weapon he had it has to do with the fact that he was afraid that Obama was going to take away our guns which is being spewed by Lou Dobbs and others in the media and all over the internet conspiracy sites.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:03 pmfinally! i was wondering when that point would be brought up!
ralph the wonder locust Says:
[...]
A ban on assault weapons in private hands makes sense to a lot of people. In fact, in 2004 when the ban was about to expire, the right-wing Washington Times reported that a strong majority favored the ban. Also in favor are law enforcement officials and organizations.
i remember well the discussions and fact checking and pushbacks dealing with the lies and misinformation thrown around during the fight to continue the ban…
law inforcement was a very vocal proponent of the ban, but dubya didn’t care about ANY blue collar issue… i seem to recall he even cut back on the number of police officers…
April 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pmNeoconsrscum……shouldn’t you call yourself “Neoscrotum”? I tend to think that you are a graduate student, about 29, still live with your mom and have bedwetting issues. You really have bought into the propaganda that other bedwetting, Chicken Little liberals have offered up to you. Not that the Republicans haven’t tried to sell their propaganda, too! Just remember 82,000,000 guns are in America and most of them don’t belong old, fat white “dudes”. Why don’t you read another Star Trek novel before mommie calls you for your cookies and milk, you gutless piece of Left Wing horse dung!!
April 5th, 2009 at 2:12 pmrwjman Says:
Does the ‘rwj’ stand for “right-wing jackass”?
April 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pmThe problem with a hands off approach to the 2nd Amendment is that weapons have evolved. A high capacity handgun gives one the firepower of a platoon in the 18th century. A high capacity semi-auto rifle would enable a single person to hold off any number of 18th century soldiers so long as the ammo held out. I am virtually certain that the framers of the Constitution had no intention of enabling private citizens to acquire the firepower needed to take out a small town. The 2nd Amendment needs to evolve.
It seems incredibly obvious, to me, that; if multiple mass-murders are being committed with legally purchased weapons? It’s time to examine the laws regulating their purchase.
And, the notion of carrying weapons for self-defense is, largely, a myth. Have our more dogmatic “defenders” of unrestricted gun ownership ever wondered why it’s national news when someone actually manages to thwart a crime by virtue of their weapons? It’s because it’s such a rare, and unlikely, event.
It’s time to stop selling military-type weapons to all and sundry. They have too much capacity for destruction in the hands of psychopaths and psychopaths are too hard to identify before the fact. And the only sacrifice needed to limit the carnage is to infringe on fun and the survival fantasies of apocalyptic freaks.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:21 pmNeoconsrscum, I do believe rwjman has a crush on you! Love at first bite.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pmrwjman
April 5th, 2009 at 2:23 pmjealous of education much? I hold too grad degrees and haven’t lived with my folks in years. In fact I was out of there long before I finished my BS. Anyway I still sense I can kick your proud to be bluecolor ass without needing a firearm. My brains and hands is all I will need…
too?
April 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pmrwj – it’s your side with the wet bottoms.
clue up, tough guy.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pmI’m not sure that anyone who is lame-brained enough to fall for this phony hysteria is someone I want armed to the teeth…
April 5th, 2009 at 2:43 pmdbadass, one of those degrees must be in math! :)
April 5th, 2009 at 2:43 pmanother PMSD sufferer checks in…
somebody’s putting a lot of crank on the streets these days, just when i thought law enforcement was gaining an edge by tracking precursor chemicals…
wonder where it’s coming from – who’s cooking it?
April 5th, 2009 at 2:45 pmWow, where to start? First of all, if you have two grad degrees, rwjman, you must have used spell check a lot, because you don’t know how to spell.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:46 pmPete, did the framers of the constitution envision the internet, television and radio? Free speech avenues. So you think we need to closely regulate them? Self defense is not a myth. It happens often. However, the main stream media has no interest in reporting it. Check out some of the research done by John Lott before you make such an ignorant statement.
The assault weapon ban was a joke. So called “assault weapons” are nothing more than semi auto rifles. No more, no less, other than they are styled after military rifles. The ban did nothing to decrease crime statistics such as gun related homicides. Not all the police supported the ban. A handful of vocal liberal police chiefs did, and the left wing press was giddy to throw that on the front page. For those who say the “assault weapons” have no purpose, once again you are wrong. Many are used for shooting competitions.
To those who say the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean an individual has the right to own a weapon and that the NRA doesn’t want to bring that fight up in court, you are wrong. The Supreme Court affirmed that right last fall when they ruled in favor of Heller in Heller vs DC. The 2nd Amendment is not about being “allowed” to keep a rifle or shotgun for hunting. It is about an individuals right to own and possess a weapon for self defense, pure and simple. The good thing about the left wing irrationals is they always look for someone to blame except those responsible and they only want the Bill of Rights to apply to those they choose. Keep drinking the koolaid.
It is about an individuals right to own and possess a weapon for self defense, pure and simple
— So why can’t I have that switchblade and rocket launcher?
April 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pmpure and simple is rarely either…
Sorry, rwjman, I meant to say “dbadass” must have used spell check. My error and apologies!
April 5th, 2009 at 2:50 pm“It is about an individuals(sic) right to own and possess a weapon for self defense, pure and simple.”
Then why do we bother having police?
April 5th, 2009 at 2:51 pmWow you guys really reach for irrational arguments, do you not? Jane, surely you jest.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:53 pmjust the facts,
Thank you for giving me a hint to where to look for the ruling you mentioned. (You could have helped a little by providing it).
All I can say is they got it wrong. They’ve gotten other SCOTUS decisions wrong in the past, too, so I am not completely worried.
But since the decision is 157 pages long, I will have to read it another time.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pmNo, I’m not joking. Aren’t police supposed to be there to protect people? Whom are we defending ourselves against with possible deadly force?
April 5th, 2009 at 2:57 pmMore fun facts from Hume’s Ghost:
(hyperlinks in original)
There’s more via Crooks and Liars:
Great…that’s a great customer for the panic-buying paranoid racist republican manure-spreaders, also known as Palin’s base…
April 5th, 2009 at 3:03 pmIF there were “many examples” of people defending themselves with firearms, the NRA would not fail to make sure they were at the top of the headlines.
IF someone comes to take guns away, it’s going to be a pack of Righties, using our own military, looking to do away with potential opposition to their neo-fascist authority.
Wingnuts, and their reactionary myths about gun control, are hysterical and incoherent.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:05 pmSO a Righty idiot would rather die in the streets due to his own imaginary fears, than be alive today, happily polishing his gun.
Sad, what those Righty demagogues do to the people they manipulate.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pmIf it does break down in this country for whatever reason, the people on this blog can just shoot words out of their mouth like: “nutcase! zealot! Gun Crazy! Loony! Pyscho! rwj! Fear monger!” That should really defend you and your family against those 2nd amendment nastys. Hey, try using harse language against rapists, car jackers, drug runners, home invaders and get used to fighting with your weapon of choice if you beleive in that strong enough, prove it.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:09 pmjust the facts Says:
Are manual guns semi-automatics?
April 5th, 2009 at 3:12 pmIf they’re not, does that mean even if their were a ban on semi-automatics that people still can buy guns?
I just want you to know that I understand the mixing-up-names strategy. But first you’ll tell us it was a case of your mind thinking one thing while your fingers typed something different. Then, like Rush’s tool, Michael Steele, you’ll it explain it was just a ploy to drag me and others like me out.
Did I get that right.
Did you know that my faimly, Libellulidae, is the largest among dragonflies. We’re known as skimmers. Our larvae thrive in scummy ponds, maybe that’s why I’m attracted to you.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:21 pm1. Information doesn’t kill people. Killers with weapons kill people.
2. That’s why I said it’s “largely a myth”.
3. The “assault weapon ban” didn’t go far enough. However it did receive widespread support from police and, though my memory isn’t what it once was, I don’t recall them being used in the repeated episodes of mass carnage we are seeing in recent times.
4. I have participated in several shooting competitions. None of them required multiple high-capacity clips and all would have been just as competitive if military weapons were prohibited.
“Assault weapons” is an unfortunate term. High-capacity weapons in military calibers are the specific problem I think needs rational debate. My own plan would be to outlaw “man-killing” military calibers like 9mm and .223.
These rounds are useless for hunting, are designed to kill people, are available in large quantities at a low price, and are inferior to legitimate hunting rounds in self defense. If I knew I were going to be shot, I would take a FMJ military round over a hunting round. Personally, if I reached for a gun to defend myself? I would grab my trusty twelve gauge.
The type of weapon I would like tighter regulations on are handguns, rifles, and carbines with multiple large clips. I would like to see weapons limited to one, five round, clip. Clips would only be sold with a weapon and would share its serial number. If the clip wears out or breaks? I would propose that one would be required to go to a gun dealer and surrender the old clip for the new.
That’s the point where I would begin a debate and would be open to conflicting opinions. But we can’t continue to ignore the very real problems posed by high-capacity weapons.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:22 pmThat should really defend you and your family against those 2nd amendment nastys.
But I thought they were all “law-abiding citizens”.
And why would they want to kill us?
April 5th, 2009 at 3:23 pmenternet1 Says:
“If it does break down in this country for whatever reason…”
April 5th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
“for whatever reason”, like if right-wing talking heads incite enough legal gun-owners to become murderers?
April 5th, 2009 at 3:26 pmHERE ARE A FEW COMMENTS AND IDEAS-
GUNS, GUN OWNERSHIP AND GUN OWNERS NEED NEW AND COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS! REGULATIONS WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM GUN OWNERS, BOTH LEGAL AND ILLEGAL GUNS, FROM THE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION THESE WEAPONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR(THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS KILLED AND WOUNDED BY PRIVATE GUN OWNERS).
MULTIPLY THE WORLD TRADE TOWERS DEATHS BY 10 AND YOU GET A NUMBER CLOSE TO THE NUMBER OF SHOOTING DEATHS THERE ARE A YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES. HOW MANY CITIZENS WILL BE MURDERED USING GUNS BEFORE AMERICANS WAKE UP! THIS IS A MAJOR HEALTH CARE ISSUE AS WELL, AND IT COSTS OUR COUNTRY’S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR!!! WHAT WILL IT TAKE BEFORE AN HONEST DISCUSSION CAN TAKE PLACE. THE PRESENT GUN LAWS ARE NOTHING SHORT OF LEGALLY SANCTION MURDER!
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IS OK WITH ME, but take all assault rifles, semi-automatic and automatic guns away and lock them up AT A CENTRAL AND SAFE GOVERNMENT LOCATION. Citizens who want to own these sort of weapons must join a “citizens militia” and be registered and assigned to a militia through local government and submit ti strict government oversight. They could get their guns out for a day of shooting, no problem, but ALL AMMO MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR, FIRING RANGES MUST VERIFY THAT THEY USED THEIR WEAPON AT AN APPROVED SHOOTING RANGE,ACCOUNT FOR AMMO USED AS WELL, and then these gunowners must return these guns to the militias central armory at the end of the agreed upon period of time.
Sportsman would be allowed to keep single shot rifles ONLY, the same firing capacity of the guns available at the time that the “FORTH AMENDMENT” or the right to bear arms was written, in the late 18th century (no problem there either). Single shot rifles are cool. There is no way a crazy gunman could gun down more than 1 maybe 2 people with those restrictions on gun capacity.
With an estimated yearly total of 28,000 gunshot deaths a year in the United States, it is obvious we have a national health emergency here. Also, make all gun owners buy “insurance policies” to cover their gun collections and to pay for all costs associated with gunshot deaths and injuries in the country.
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FOOTING THE HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL COSTS THAT THIS GUN OWNING GROUP OF CITIZENS INFLICTS ON EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN THE UNITED STATES EVERY YEAR!!! MAKE GUNOWNERS PAY FOR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, BUT I HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE THEM TO PAY FOR THE COSTS TO SOCIETY! I DO NOT OWN A GUN AND I DON’T WANT TO SUBSIDIZE GUN OWNERS. I DO NOT WANT THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT OR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS PAYING OUT ANOTHER PENNY TO COVER THESE EXPENSES!
IT MAKES ME ANGRY. THE TOTAL DISREGARD GUN OWNERS HAVE FOR PAYING FOR THE DAMAGE THEIR “RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS” COST ME AND ALL AMERICAN TAX PAYERS IS WRONG!
April 5th, 2009 at 3:28 pmAre you already building “Thunderdome” somewhere?
[PMSD makes people think the movies are going to come true literally - but for some reason only the apocalyptic movies.
Why can't they just believe they're going to be the pizza delivery guy in a wild porn flick instead?]
April 5th, 2009 at 3:30 pmFaiz-
Nice try on the spin, but look at this
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-administration-revives-assault-weapons-debate-2009-02-26.html
you say-
Right-wing’s false claims that Obama will take away guns ‘has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.’
and this is a real stretch of the truth.
The truth is when his Obama’s AG goes out and says We are gonna reinstate the Clinton Gun Ban, It is like a flashback to the Janet Reno day’s, And it fuels panic buying, They also mentioned it again when they were talking about the Mexican border. It kinda sounded like they were gonna to try and use it as an excuse to take away your guns
So get it right!!!
April 5th, 2009 at 3:32 pmNO EricT – it is true. Guns have been flying off the shelves since the election, and I have first-hand knowledge of it.
save the santcimonious tripe for your pals – they’ll believe it.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:35 pm[hostile ass]
April 5th, 2009 at 3:36 pmEric T,
Your info is out of date. After the Clinton comments about assault weapons, the Obama Justice Dept. DROPPED the effort to Reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban.
These recent shootings may force Obama to do something..but this Ban is Very Divisive…and Obama has bigger fish to fry.
I do think that if they can trace the serial numbers of Weapons taken from Mexican Drug Gangs back to American Gun dealers, then these dealers should be asked about it.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:42 pmWhy are the Reichwhiners afraid of an open debate to address a real problem? I would say it’s the authoritarianism. They see everything in black and white and are prone to projection.
They can’t see the vast gray area between, virtually, no regulation and a complete ban. And they seem fixated on the idea that some malevolent group is “out to get them”. Personally, if I thought I was going to end up in a fire-fight with an armed force? I would change my own behavior. If an armed posse is after you? You are doing something wrong.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:44 pmI hope all you liberal democrapheads have a criminal break into your house and threaten your families. I’ll bet you will wish you had a gun to protect your families THEN. The police won’t be able to get there in time to save your sorry a$$. The American people have a fundamental RIGHT to protect themselves and their families with whatever type of weapon they should want to possess. All of your blather doesn’t change that. You can take all of the crazies that commit criminal acts and the stupid things they do for what they are… stupid criminal acts. You koolaid drinkers really need to get a life.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:02 pmtombaker-I am sure the NRA could get the mainstream press to print the self defense stories. Yeah right. Actually every month in their magazine, they do print a full page devoted to self defense stories. You should open your mind up to more than the left wing rhetoric.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:12 pmpete-I really question whether you have ever even fired a gun. To state you have competed in several shooting competitions and then to make the ignorant statements you did about the 9mm and the 223 isn’t very logical. The 223 is a very useful hunting round. I have 3 rifles in this caliber, one single shot and two bolt actions. You can buy fmj rounds for hunting furbearer where you do not want to damage the pelt, or soft point or hollow point rounds for varmint hunting. It is a low powered caliber that really isn’t even suitable for deer hunting. The lack of down range power is one reason the military dropped its version of the 223, the 5.56mm. Your misinformation on the 9mm and 223 rounds is nothing but inflammatory falsehoods. For self defense in my home, I would agree that I would much rather use one of my shotguns, and for street defense I would rely on my semi automatic pistol.
tombaker-The reason guns have “been flying off the shelves since the election” to use your words is because of Obama’s anti-gun stance. He has voted time and time against 2nd Amendment rights.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:14 pmMight as well just flag the trolls. They’re not willing to believe us when we tell them water is wet.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:15 pmHey toonguy, you liberal limp d$cks need to find something more creative than trolls. I thought you guys were enlightened? What a lack of creativity.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:17 pmGuns for all healthcare for none!!! My dick is still bigger than your arsenal… The entire premise that the “founders” had chubbies” about the bang bang is pure bunk…
April 5th, 2009 at 4:20 pmfrenterprz has been flagged. Read the terms of use sometime.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pmjeez… i was wondering when the freepers would show up…
it HAD been a reasonable interesting conversation for a while…
it’s amazing how narrow minded some are… black-and-white is the extent of their reality…
and not a hint of regret about the dead and the paranoia that brought it on…
April 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pmSo toonguy, you going to take your ball and go home?
April 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pmHey katydid, we’ll see how black and white you become when you are the victim of some horrendous crime that DOESN’T involve a firearm. Oh wait, you are enlightened and have a greater perspective than just right and wrong. I sure you will just blame it all on the conservatives.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:27 pmralph the wonder locust Says
With all due respect, jimmy, the way to battle an evil government is to not elect evil people in the first place. And certainly not to re-elect them once they’ve been elected.
True, this is good a way to battle an evil government… provided that a system of open, fair, and democratic elections is actually possible. However, it ignores the possibility (even if however slight) that in future, some military or extremist coup could seize control of the government and nation, and eliminate the election process. As has happened in other nations. Or that some future leader could come into office/power, and immediately set about eliminating term limits, thus making “re-election” a moot point (i.e. Chavez in Venezuela). The election system that we currently enjoy in this country is not a given, at some point we very well could lose it, and it would be naive for us to think “that could never happen here”. But, having said that, it would be equally naive to imagine that keeping a gun stashed under the mattress for battling that “evil government” would be of much help either. Kind regards.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:31 pmThe last few days have been banner days for the NRA. Hip, hip hooray for the freedom to kill as many people as quickly as possible.
** sarcasm off **
April 5th, 2009 at 4:32 pmSo it turns out that the shooter’s mother was threatening to remove him from her house and called the police to do the job:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090405/D97CEBS80.html
The original argument was over a dog who had urinated in the house.
Egg, meet face…
April 5th, 2009 at 4:33 pmFundamental right to protect ones self!!! You looney liberals have this idea that someone else should be taking care of you. Screw that, when my mom chased away a man who had broken into my little sisters room with her gun 30 years ago, or when just a couple of years ago she did it again when a man attempted to rob her at her place of buisness with a fake gun and she pulled out her real gun. I still have my mother because of this FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT!
April 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pmFunny quip: If you were to poll all of the gang bangers, drug dealers, and any other criminal who they voted for, I bet you more than 90% voted Democrat.
het toonguy, flag this…
April 5th, 2009 at 4:40 pmAh yes, the stupid trolls can’t wrap their heads around the fact that logical people base their ideas on facts.
9mm and .223, or 7.92 Russian or.45 Colt, or similar calibers were developed and optimized for killing people. Not game. Period.
I’ll stick to my argument that 9mm is useless for hunting and, while it’s true that .223 can be used for varmint hunting, it’s not optimized for hunting in the manner of a .22/250 or a .243 or any of the other popular varmint or big game calibers. And it’s serious overkill for small game like rabbits or squirrels.
In civilian hands, there’s nothing a .223 can do that one of the others can’t do better. And, what I like to call “legitimate hunting calibers” are not typically available as military surplus and the weapons that use them rarely fit my description of high-capacity.
Many countries limit their “gun control” laws to military calibers. This makes an excellent starting point because these calibers are the ones produced in weapons designed to kill people, and nothing else.
And, as I said, I’m open to negotiation. I offered my opinion, based on a life-long intimacy with firearms, on where to begin the negotiation and the stupid trolls just dig in their heels and say “no”. That’s the problem.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:40 pmfrenterprz Says:
I hope all you liberal democrapheads have a criminal break into your house and threaten your families.
Please, tell us why you would wish something like that on anybody?
April 5th, 2009 at 4:45 pmTillyosu Says:
So. Is it your contention that we should not explore ways to prevent people, who are willing to kill cops over an argument about dog piss, from legally assembling an arsenal of military grade weapons?
I keep saying it. If mass-murderers are legally buying/possessing high capacity weapons? It’s time to examine the laws pertaining to their purchase and possession.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:50 pmHey pete, the problem is when you start to define what calibers are “appropriate”, you start opening the doors for all sorts of interpretation about what should be allowed and what shouldn’t be. I don’t want the government telling what I can and can’t use to defend my family. It should be my choice. Just because you own a gun doesn’t make you an authority on the facts. Liberty is not about negotiation. You either have it, or you don’t. And another thing, the Troll thing exposes you for what you truly are and that is not someone open to debate. You believe that your view is the only one that is correct. If you want to see what happens when the government takes away the right to defend yourself, just look at what happened to Australia. Crime rate went up 400%, homicides 100%.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:51 pmHey wayne, because it might expose you to the realities of not having the means to defend yourself. Sometimes it takes reality to wake up the koolaid drinkers.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:54 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says:
Please, tell us why you would wish something like that on anybody?
Because, Wayne, our pet troll is either a frightened child, a sociopath, and/or lives in a fantasy world where he’s a glorious hero holding off the enemies of civilization. Not the type of person I want running around with a military weapon and a few hundred rounds of ammunition.
April 5th, 2009 at 4:54 pmLet me get this straight. I’m not willing to debate because I call those too stupid and frightened, to debate, “trolls”?
April 5th, 2009 at 4:57 pmIt never ceases to amaze me. We’ve had 5 mass shootings, leaving 44 dead, in about a month and the Reichwhiners are unwilling to explore measures to limit the firepower these criminals brought to bear. And what’s their “argument”? They want to protect themselves? Puuuuuhleeeese!
That’s what I call “killing the patient to cure the disease”.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:01 pmHey Pete, what I run around with is none of your business. The fact you resort to calling people who disagree with you Trolls, just shows that YOU are the intolerant, ignorant one who can’t stand to hear what anybody other than his fellow koolaid drinkers has to say. And I’m not ANYBODIES pet A$$hole!
April 5th, 2009 at 5:05 pmFor those that don’t know much history … here is a condensed version:
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters and gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer,
and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: 1. Liberals, and 2. Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed. Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:09 pmOther men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided. Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat. Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police
officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, airline pilots
and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own
companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing. Here ends today’s lesson in world history.
It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily
respond to the above before forwarding it. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off. And there you have it -
No, that’s not my contention. My contention is that this poster couldn’t wait to link this tragedy to criticism of Obama’s domestic policies, when all along this was just about some obviously disturbed kid who was about to get kicked out of his mom’s house.
When you get the full picture, this post starts to look a little silly…and the commenters, even sillier.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:10 pmTell you what, stupid troll. When you come up with a framework to discuss possible ways to limit the carnage of mass killings? I’ll take it back. Until then? My description stands.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:11 pmThe most disappointing thing about all of these shootings, is that most of the people on this blog who think anybody who disagrees with them is a TROLL weren’t included in the casualties, especially Pete. The criminals will ALWAYS have guns. You liberal garbage spewers always want to control other peoples activities and yet you blame the Right for wanting to control peoples activities.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:12 pmHey Pete how about enforcing the existing laws? I would rather live with liberty and have some occasional carnage, than to give up my liberties. I don’t make ANY apologies for my position.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pmHey justthefacts could you answer me.
Are manual guns semi-automatics?
April 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pmIf they’re not, does that mean even if their were a ban on semi-automatics that people still can buy guns?
I just think it’s thoroughly amusing that a group of people who spent the last 8 years railing against the Bush administration’s violation of civil liberties, are the first to advocate disregarding that same document in the wake of a tragedy like this.
And the whole point of the post is idiotic. It doesn’t make any sense. So what if this guy was afraid the Obama Administration was going to take away his guns? That doesn’t mean that’s the reason he shot those police. It is a non sequitur.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:19 pmTillyosu Says:
Every story I’ve seen has included testimony that this psycho was “afraid of the upcoming Obama ban on firearms” and has included testimony that he would fight rather than subject himself to legitimate authority. I guess I fail to realize why it makes any difference if the whole tragedy “started” with the dog piss, a fist fight, or a acid induced hallucination.
And it certainly doesn’t make a compelling argument against rational debate about ways to keep weapons out of the hands of such, obviously, disturbed people.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:19 pmfrenterprz Says:
Flagged. Death threats are not allowed here, TROLL!
And we’ll call you a troll all we want if you’re going to keep calling us “koolaid drinkers”. I haven’t had that stuff in years, and I have doubts that you understand where the term came from.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:27 pmLet’s see, there’s so much to work with.
Well, stupid, hateful, violent, anti-social, troll; I’m not a liberal so, you just fired at a target you didn’t identify. That strikes me as a good reason to look into your suitability to carry weapons.
I also own guns and support the 2nd Amendment. I think lawful, sane, people have the right to weapons for hunting, self-defense, and recreation. However, as a moderate, I can see ways to reduce the carnage without giving up our liberties.
I don’t wish to control peoples activities, I want to limit a specific class of weapons that enable mad gunmen to wrack up huge body counts and have limited use for law-abiding people. And I’m always in favor of enforcement of existing laws including a few I think are wrong. I’m one of those who believes that society needs laws to survive and violating them runs counter to the best interests of society.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pmIn case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not trying to advance a “compelling argument against rational debate.”
I was trying to enlighten you as to the original point of my comment…which is turning out to be quite a difficult task.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pmfrenterprz Says:
The most disappointing thing about all of these shootings, is that most of the people on this blog who think anybody who disagrees with them is a TROLL weren’t included in the casualties, especially Pete.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Flagged.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:32 pmYou could have stopped at “In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not trying to advance a “compelling argument.””
April 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pmHey Wayne, there were no death threats from me, moron. And yes, you must be one of the ones that escape from Jim Jones. You are and will always be a kool aid drinker because you are a follower and not a leader since you will always follow the party line. I think you also have doubts about your manhood. And I’m curious, would I be considered a cave troll, or a mountain troll?
April 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pmOh please enlighten me…
April 5th, 2009 at 5:37 pmTillyosu Says:
First of all, please note that I am not including you in my blanket description of “stupid trolls”. You are playing fair.
Second: I got you original point. I just happen to think it’s irrelevant.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:37 pmWe got us a true believer in their own bullshit…
April 5th, 2009 at 5:38 pmKool-Aid drinkers
April 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pmPeople so committed to a political cause or candidate that they senselessly ignore facts in conflict with their political viewpoint.
For those that don’t know much history … here is a condensed version:
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters and gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer,
and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: 1. Liberals, and 2. Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed. Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:41 pmOther men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided. Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat. Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police
officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, airline pilots
and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own
companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing. Here ends today’s lesson in world history.
It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off. And there you have it -
Holly copy/paste Batman! I think we have a true follower of Andy Schlafly in our midst.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:43 pmgysgtmarty Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Are you planning to litter every thread with this bullshite?
April 5th, 2009 at 5:44 pmThat is too long and tiresome. I can still kick that stupid weak domestic lager meatheads ass with one of my hands and half my brain. Still his deadass will not need help what with the poor lame ass f150 diet and all
April 5th, 2009 at 5:44 pmI am Andy Schlafly…..
April 5th, 2009 at 5:44 pmgysgtmarty Says:
Kool-Aid drinkers
People so committed to a political cause or candidate that they senselessly ignore facts in conflict with their political viewpoint.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Did you have a point with this comment, or were you mistily reminiscing about the Bush regime?
April 5th, 2009 at 5:45 pmThe shooter at Virginia Tech killed about a dozen fellow students.
He had been treated for Mental Problems and was still able to buy two hand guns.
So…who thinks our gun laws don’t need a little tweeking???
April 5th, 2009 at 5:45 pmHahaha okay so let me get this straight. The whole point of this post was to advance the argument that this shooting was partly the result of inflammatory right wing rhetoric.
And yet, evidence that tends to negate that argument is “irrelevant?”
April 5th, 2009 at 5:46 pmgysgtmarty etal will avoid me as they have learned in prior incarnations that they have no chance… Just watsch they will be no response from the pussy crowd…
April 5th, 2009 at 5:47 pmHey Jane, how’s Tarzan doing?
April 5th, 2009 at 5:48 pmfrenterprz Says:
Hey Wayne, there were no death threats from me, moron.
I think lawyers would disagree. You said, “The most disappointing thing about all of these shootings, is that most of the people on this blog who think anybody who disagrees with them is a TROLL weren’t included in the casualties, especially Pete.”
And yes, you must be one of the ones that escape from Jim Jones.
Took you that long to use The Google to find out where the term came from?
You are and will always be a kool aid drinker because you are a follower and not a leader since you will always follow the party line.
Well, my Air Force NCO Leadership Academy training says differently about whether I am a follower or a leader. How did you do in your NCO Leadership training? As for whether or not I “will always follow the party line,” care to tell me which party that is? I am an unaffiliated voter.
I think you also have doubts about your manhood.
You got that from reading my post? Amazing.
And I’m curious, would I be considered a cave troll, or a mountain troll?
I’m not the one who first pegged you as a troll, so I’ll defer to our resident experts on that subject. The actual answer is irrelevant to me.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:48 pmHey dbadass, how long have they let you out of the mental institution for? You are clearly delusional.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:49 pmNo evidence “that negates that argument” has been presented. This guy was, by all accounts, ready to snap because he was afraid of Obama and “Zionists”. He was depressed about losing his job. He’s a loser who used violence to cover his own inadequacies. If it wasn’t a fight with his Mom, he would have found another reason to go on a rampage.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pmJane E. Schneider Says:
Are you planning to litter every thread with this bullshite?
Yes, every thread. Need a hug???
April 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pmPerhaps, Pete, you can take comfort in Scalia’s holding in Heller that “like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
I don’t think anyone is arguing for unrestricted gun rights. However, the right to bear arms IS a fundamental right that is necessary to the security of a free state, and any restriction on it should be viewed with suspicion, and should be narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate government objective.
I don’t think holding a position like that makes anyone a “gun nut.”
April 5th, 2009 at 5:54 pmfrenterprz Says:
Hey Jane, how’s Tarzan doing?
April 5th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Gee, I’ve never heard that question in my life. What an amusing wordplay on my name, perhaps you should copyright it. Wait, next you can call me “Calamity Jane”, that would be equally fresh and uproarious.
(eyes rolling)
April 5th, 2009 at 5:54 pmHey Wayne, if you could get a death from my opinion, then I think you are a bigger moron than I first estimated. Regardless of party affiliation, you are still a kool aid drinker and must have been kicked out of the Air Force. Must have been dipping to much into the oxygen tanks. I didn’t really care what kind of troll you think I am. I believe I would be a mountain troll.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pmgysgtmarty Says:
“…Need a hug???”
April 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
No, but it appears that you need your arse wiped. Oh, BTW, dbadass would love to have a nice chat with you.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:00 pmHey!Tillyosu
Are manual guns, semi-automatics?
April 5th, 2009 at 6:00 pmIf they’re not, does that mean even if their were a ban on semi-automatics that people still can buy guns?
Jane you ignorant S$$t, sounds like you and dbadass belong together.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pmAre you serious?
The police showed up to forcibly remove this guy from his mother’s house…not to take away his guns. The most obvious conclusion from the facts is that he shot the police to prevent them from achieving this objective.
Any other interpretation would require at least SOME justification. Maybe if the guy had yelled “you’ll never get my guns Obama!” I could take this post a little more seriously. But to suggest that this was partly the result of inflammatory rhetoric on the part of some in the media and government is a serious logical strain at best.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:03 pmUs God fearing Americans say ass not arse, which by the way God is the only thing I fear. Bring it on dbadass…..
April 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pm“Jane you ignorant S$$t”
My, you’re such a card.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pmTillyosu Says:
“Gun nuts”, i.e. those who collect and use firearms, are not the problem and I’ve even been called one myself.
The problem is nuts in possession of firearms. Specifically, I think we need limits on those firearms which, in the hands of any untrained psychopath, give him the firepower to take out so many victims.
I’m afraid I have to quibble about the notion that gun controls should serve the purpose of the government. They should, like any law, serve society. And this particular segment of society believes it would serve us to limit the availability of this particular class of weapons. And I happen to think that we could make the process of buying weapons a little harder in an effort to weed out nuts and criminals.
One way we could do this, thogh it’s imperfect, would be to raise the level of scrutiny so that all weapon purchases would be treated like a “conceal/carry” permit. Once again, I think that sane, law-abiding, people should have the right to own guns.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:07 pmMy money is on gysgtmarty.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:08 pmOnly a pussy would fear a made up old man riding a cloud. Bring it sissy gun boy…
April 5th, 2009 at 6:08 pm08Dariana:
I’m not really sure what you mean by “manual” guns. If by manual you mean revolvers, then no, those are not semiautomatic. And if there were a ban on semiautomatics, I assume that you would still be able to buy revolvers.
Your point?
April 5th, 2009 at 6:10 pmSounds like dbadass is the violent cave troll!
April 5th, 2009 at 6:10 pmfrenterprz Says:
“…Jane… sounds like you and dbadass belong together.”
April 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
dbadass, what do you think? Feel like taking a drive over here, it’s a nice evening and you can cook me something. ;)
April 5th, 2009 at 6:14 pmTillyosu Says:
Have you seen the interview with his “best friend”? Have you seen the crap from MySpace and Stormfront? Everything I’ve seen suggests that this guy was dangerously unstable and everyone who knows him knew it before the fact. Plus, everything I’ve read, or watched, makes a convincing case that he’s a reightwing white-supremist who got his “news”, and fears, from the inflaming voices of the Right.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:14 pmdbadass doesn’t believe in violence…he doesn’t believe hate. He only belives in killing babies, and getting gang raped.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:15 pmfrenterprz Says:
“…Jane… sounds like you and dbadass belong together.”
April 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
dbadass, what do you think? Feel like taking a drive over here, it’s a nice evening and you can cook me something. ;)
yeah dbadass go drive over there and cook something…..girlyman!!!
April 5th, 2009 at 6:16 pmfrenterprz Says:
“…Jane… sounds like you and dbadass belong together.”
April 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
dbadass, what do you think? Feel like taking a drive over here, it’s a nice evening and you can cook me something. ;)
yeah dbadass do what she says and go drive over there and cook something…..girlyman!!!
April 5th, 2009 at 6:17 pmand given the chance i think that in 10 shots i could hit and kill most anything.
Well, that would give me plenty of time to eliminate the threat you pose to me.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:17 pmWhile I don’t usually respond to those who’s English skills are so abhorrent, an “assault weapon” or high capacity pistol with multiple clips makes it possible to sustain a rate of fire that’s hard for victims to escape. While a bolt action rifle with a fixed magazine is more lethal on a shot by shot basis, the slow rate of fire and long reload time make it possible for victims to escape.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:20 pmHey Wayne, that sounds like a threat to me.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:20 pmAm I to understand that I have to waste my own gas and get my hands dirty? Jesus no wonder these sissy little dicks feel bigger by just pulling a little trigger….
April 5th, 2009 at 6:22 pmdbadass, I think you are just a midget that has issues. You also sound a cheap SOB in addition to being a clean freek.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:25 pmfrenterprz Says:
Hey Wayne, that sounds like a threat to me.
Really? You should learn how to read more carefully. All I talked about was eliminating the threat you posed to me. Not you, yourself. Just the threat you pose to me (if you were trying to take ten shots to “hit and kill” me.)
Just out of curiosity, are you one of those people with a black-and-white view of everything? No gray areas? Everything is cut-and-dried one thing or its opposite?
April 5th, 2009 at 6:25 pmTo all you 2nd Amendment absolutists, It’s your responsibility to police your kind if you don’t want to lose your “right” to bear arms. Seriously. If gun nuts are going to continue to kill mass groups of innocents on a weekly, hell daily, basis, You’re going to lose.
It’s your responsibility to come with a way of keeping guns out of the hands of idiots.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:25 pmOf course I’ve seen the interview with his friend, and the MySpace and Stormfront stuff. The kid was obviously disturbed. But you can’t just say that that was the reason for this shooting, without any evidence whatsoever, and especially in light of evidence to the contrary. And you certainly can’t expand that argument to include media figures who you may disagree with. It’s a stretch…a painful stretch.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:26 pmTillyosu Says:
this explain manual, semi-automatic and automatics very well.
So when a republican say they’ll take away our rights to own guns by simply banning semi-automatics, it’s a lie right? considering there’s still manual guns available right?
Are they taking away the guns or making the only guns legaly to buy manual guns?
April 5th, 2009 at 6:26 pmdbadass Now your being a true liberal by thinking that cooking and driving is work.
Me pulling the trigger is my job. killing America’s enemies is what I do, and I do it well. And it goes from six inches limp to nine and a half hard when I pull that trigger. God how I’m going to miss something worthy of shooting when I retire.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:29 pmHey Wayne, I think a lawyor would think differently. But then you could get a lawyor to argue whether black is black or white is white.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:33 pmIt’s time to start profiling gun owners. It was ok to profile mid eastern looking men after 9-11. It’s ok to profile young black men. It ’s ok because some of “them” pose a threat to the general public and if individual black men or Mid eastern looking men aren’t up to anything then they have nothing to fear. That’s the argument, right? It’s becoming increasingly evident that some gun owners are dangerous, so all you gun owners who aren’t going to shoot up some public forum will just have to be inconvenienced. It’s only fair.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:33 pmfrenterprz Says:
Yeah, whatever. You do not frighten me in the least. No matter how macho you try to sound.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:35 pmtrackere Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pmthis guy is so right on. when the world goes to hell and everyone is looking for someone to protect there asses they will look for us….. and if u got angry i guess u were truly offended because u know it is TRUE.. GYSGTMARTY i have a place for u if u ever need a place to stay… we can go out and provide for the welfare/liberals…..
.
.
.Thanks trackere. looks like the new battle is here at home. Time for a real “CHANGE”.
here i will rephase for u simple mined ones.. in 10 shots i will have hit 10 different targets….
–
April 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pmBut can you kick my ass with your bare hands? I sort of doubt it…
here i will rephase for u simple mined ones.. in 10 shots i will have hit 10 different targets….
…because I’m an excellent shot. I practice every day. Well, not absolutely every day, like last week there wasn’t much time, but I’d say I practice a good solid four or five days a week…
Next he’ll want us to hand over all our lupins.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pmYeah Wayne, like you REALLY scare me too. You should really try lay off the kool aid. It is affecting your thinking.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:38 pmWayne, don’t forget the first rule of discussion board discourse. When someone threatens someone she is admitting she doesn’t have an argument. freeperpzinhzpnts is obviously an idiot who would shoot a cop for no reason, as long as he was hiding. That’s why he’s defending his brother in Pitt…
April 5th, 2009 at 6:38 pmTillyosu Says:
So. Where do you think he got the idea that there’s an “upcomming Obama gun ban”, or that he had the right to shoot it out with police who were removing him from a house where he was, apparently, no longer welcome?
How about Glenn Beck repeatedly saying, “the 2nd Amendment is under attack”? His “FEMA camp” crap? Crazy Shelly’s calls for citizens to arm themselves? Chuck Norris? Ted Nugent?
April 5th, 2009 at 6:38 pmYpu clowns make me laugh. Can we move on to an intelligent conversation about an actual topic? I am happy to let you choose.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:39 pmGunnery Sergeant Marty,
Somehow I don’t think the United States Marine Corps would be especially proud of what they made out of you.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:40 pmLook, I happen to know that this is the Lupin Express.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:42 pmBobwurst Says:
You’re right, Bob. Besides, it’s not the first time I’ve been threatened here, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. I just wish they could read better, you know? Thanks.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:42 pmgunny is an embarrassment to this country. He thinks killing is a joke. He obviously never served in combat.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:42 pmgysgtmarty, you sound like a true patriot. I believe the US Marine Corp would be especially proud. You would be welcome at my house anytime.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:43 pmI gotta say, these trolls are really providing some ripe examples of the Unhinged Right.
Thanks, fellas. You’re doing the progressive movement a world of good.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:43 pm“He thinks killing is a joke.”
And, apparently, an aphrodisiac.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:44 pmralph,
THANK YOU! ROFL!
C’mon, c’mon….in a bunch!
April 5th, 2009 at 6:44 pmfrenterprz Says:
gysgtmarty, you sound like a true patriot. I believe the US Marine Corp would be especially proud. You would be welcome at my house anytime.
Like you “two” aren’t already living in the same head.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:45 pmA few decades ago I used to, mostly, live by hunting, gathering, trapping, and fishing. I killed my own food, cut my own wood, spent my days miles from the nearest human, and often slept beneath the stars. Age has made such a lifestyle impractical but I enjoyed every minute of it.
I would really love to see if any of our esteemed, tough talking, guests could survive more than a couple hours in the wilderness.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:46 pmfrenterprz Says:
gysgtmarty, you sound like a true patriot. I believe the US Marine Corp would be especially proud. You would be welcome at my house anytime.
I’m sure he would be. you two are emblematic of the worst of this country: self-centered, proudly ignorant nihilists who long for the good old days when a man could beat his wife and kids in the front yard.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:49 pmSo Pete, you think you are the only one that could survive in the wilderness? Just one question though, why did you feel the need to live in isolation? You must feel guilty about something.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:49 pmTillyosu I’ve to go away to watch a movie but if you answer my question, please try to be honest.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:51 pmI’ve also spent my fare share of time with bikers and hooligans. And you know what? I’ve never been scared of any mere human. As a sane, rational, person I was able to quickly learn the code.
I would love to see if any of our esteemed, tough talking, guests could survive more than a couple hours in a biker bar.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:52 pmHey Bobwurst, what rock did you crawl our from under? Isn’t it past your bedtime? That dementia is really becoming obvious.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:52 pmOh and btw Bob, how many time have you beat YOUR wife and kids?
April 5th, 2009 at 6:53 pmGuilty? No way. There’s no need for any honorable person to feel guilty. In fact, it’s about the most useless of human emotions.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:55 pmHey Pete, I’ve spent a lot of time in biker bars. Never had any problems. You are a lot of talk.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:55 pmarbereshe Says:
——————————————————————————–
The most ridiculous part of all this is that the Constitution was written more than 200 years when it was necessary to bear arms. America is an entirely different place now. We don’t need rifles and handguns to protect us from wild animals on the farm nor do we need them to protect our homes since we have police and home security systems now. Guns are unnecessary in all aspects of modern-day American life.
Here is your leader…fear him for he is EXACTLY what the framers of the constitution had in mind when the second amendment was written in what is called THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
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.
You bed wetting liberals have no understanding of freedom nor what the cost is. Since you have such short attention spans, rent Braveheart and watch that a few times, maybe if its spelled out for you in cinemanic fashion, you might learn something.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:57 pmfrenterprz Says:
Hey Bobwurst, what rock did you crawl our from under? Isn’t it past your bedtime? That dementia is really becoming obvious.
WOW, this is one tangled mass of mixed metaphoric playground insults. Ususally the trolls just mix two metaphors, but freeperputz went for three. Nicely played. I’ll try to respond in kind:I was under no rock, I was under your fat mom, who I fuking with your dick which is why she couldn’t come. She said she’s tired of your dick.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:57 pmSo Pete, getting a little defensive aren’t we? So you consider yourself to be an honorable person? Then why would feel the need to retreat into the wilderness? Must be hiding from something.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:58 pmIt’s interesting the freeperputz responded to me only when I mentioned wife beating…that’s called a tell in intelligent circles, freeperputz…
April 5th, 2009 at 7:00 pmcrymeariver:
If you want to continue to bear arms then you need to police the crazys who own guns. Otherwise, your rights are infringing on my rights.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:01 pmMarines are brainwashed fools…
April 5th, 2009 at 7:02 pmCome on freeputz, I insulted you four ways. granted they were thematically linked, but none the less there are 4 insults. Are you really going to let me talk about your fat whore of a mom like that?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:02 pmMarines are brainwashed fools…
April 5th, 2009 at 7:03 pmBob Bob Bob, That crap is as OLD as my mother, may she rest in peace A$$hole. Maybe you want to go back to days where screwing your mother jokes were actually funny. Again with the Troll insults. You guys have Sh$t for imaginations. I am proud to be a mountain troll!
April 5th, 2009 at 7:03 pmSo many stupid trolls. And not a one of them displays any indication that they know how to be a part of the world around them. Nothing but fear and bluster, constantly lashing out at what they can’t comprehend.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:04 pmOops. I forgot that quotation marks. My buddy that is a former marine made that statement not I
April 5th, 2009 at 7:05 pmHere is your leader…fear him for he is EXACTLY what the framers of the constitution had in mind when the second amendment was written in what is called THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
You do understand that the “framers” did not include this in the Constitution, don’t you? The “framers” finished their work and went back home to sell the constitution to their fellow colonialists. Just wanted to make sure you understood the chain of events properly, before you lecture us on our understanding of the constitution.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:05 pmBob, you don’t consider yourself capable of being included in intelligent circles do you? You are crazier than I thought. And my rights trump yours, cause I don’t give a rats a$$ what happens to you.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:05 pmHello frenterprz:
I’m not a tough guy, but I am handsome. I’ve had this thing about guns ever since I saw my cousin laid out. He had nice hair but it was shaved off at the hospital where he died. The serious hunter who shot him mistook him for a deer wearing an orange coat. My cousin looked funny with a towel wrapped around his head instead of his hair.
So, how many people have you killed?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:05 pmsays the guy who pulled out the “what rock” “dementia” and “bedtime” retorts!
April 5th, 2009 at 7:06 pmfrenterprz Says:
Bob, you don’t consider yourself capable of being included in intelligent circles do you? You are crazier than I thought. And my rights trump yours, cause I don’t give a rats a$$ what happens to you.
Which is why people like you need to go back to russia.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:06 pmBob, I think we need to send you there and your pals pete, wayne and dbadass. You would fit right in.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:09 pmYou bed wetting liberals have no understanding of freedom nor what the cost is
April 5th, 2009 at 7:09 pm—
Is it being able to marry the one you love? Is it choosing to die with dignity? Is it smoking pot in peace? Is it being free to make reproductive choices? What is this freedom you think I understand not? Lay it out there for us all to read…
I call bullshit on your imaginery freedom
bobwurst, is your brother knockwurst?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:09 pmSane people care a great deal about others, their beliefs, their rights, and their well-being. That’s how healthy social animals operate. Trolls? Not so much.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:10 pmpete, I care about rational people, but not people like you.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:12 pmfrenterprz Says:
Bob, you don’t consider yourself capable of being included in intelligent circles do you? .
You’re too stupid to know you’re in an intelligent circle right now.
You are crazier than I thought.
I don’t care what you think about my sanity because I have zero respect for cowards like you.
And my rights trump yours, cause I don’t give a rats a$$ what happens to you
Which just proves my assertion that you are a self-centered proudly ignorant nihilist.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:13 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says:
——————————————————————————–
Here is your leader…fear him for he is EXACTLY what the framers of the constitution had in mind when the second amendment was written in what is called THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
You do understand that the “framers” did not include this in the Constitution, don’t you? The “framers” finished their work and went back home to sell the constitution to their fellow colonialists. Just wanted to make sure you understood the chain of events properly, before you lecture us on our understanding of the constitution.
I forgot you were slow, here is some more history then…my god. “In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of articles, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. Thomas Jefferson was the main proponent of the Bill of Rights.[2] Do those people sound familar?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:14 pmAfter conversing with pete for many many months on these boards and observing his interaction with all sorts of people, I’d have to say that I consider pete to be an honorable person. He’s smart, principled and takes no shit.
Further, the idea that someone must “feel guilty” in order to seek retreat to the wilderness is really, really stupid. All manner of people have retreated into wilderness, for all sorts of reasons. From saints to artists to crackpots have all sought refuge in the wild, away from society. It’s a journey so deeply human that it’s part of mythology of every culture.
To assume that it means one must feel guilty about something is, again, really stupid.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:15 pmfrenterprz Says:
Bob, I think we need to send you there and your pals pete, wayne and dbadass. You would fit right in.
Actually, we’re not the fascists. You’re just too stupid to see what you really are.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:15 pmI bet the stupid trolls lock themselves in their cars in abject terror of the outside world. That’s what I call a waste of the gift of life. How very sad.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:15 pmWayne, what part of “Amendment” doesn’t our friend understand?
can you explain?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:17 pmHello frenterprz:
Do you want to play? Do you prefer the top or bottom?
On sunny days dragonflies like to be above the action but on rainy days we prefer the lower position.
So where do you like to hang out?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:17 pmbob, I’m afraid intelligence left you at the train station. You mistake intelligence for arrogance since you and your kind can only call those who disagree with you Trolls. For people who are supposed to be so smart, you come up with some lame insults.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:17 pmThanks ralph. These vermin wouldn’t understand honor if they had it whipped into them. Or, perhaps, that’s what created such twisted caricatures of humanity in the first place?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:17 pmfrenterprz Says:
pete, I care about rational people, but not people like you.
And it’s rational to wait for three policemen to come to the door and murder them in cold blood. it’s rational to go to a community center and murder 13 strangers. it’s rational to go to a nursing home in North Carolina and murder 4 residents. It’s rational to go on a rampage in Alabama and murder three strangers. it’s rational to murder your 5 children in Washington state….You are a soulless brainless fool
April 5th, 2009 at 7:19 pmpachman, the nurse will be around shortly with your medication. Then all will be right with your world again.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:19 pmIt is amazing! These trolls couldn’t be better spokespersons for why they should never be allowed anywhere near a weapon. Also, ever notice that most of the trolls here that take on some type of military name have never served?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:19 pmfrenterprz Says:
bob, I’m afraid intelligence left you at the train station. You mistake intelligence for arrogance since you and your kind can only call those who disagree with you Trolls.
Actually troll has a very specific meaning in the online discussion board discourse community. The fact that you can’t figure that out just shows how stupid you are. That and the fact that you can’t defend your cop killing friend in Pittstburg, but you stay here flaying around like anybody cares what you have to say.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:21 pmCome on freeperputz explain why it’s rational to go on shooting rampages and why that behavior is defensible. show us how smart you are. or continue to fling lame insults about.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:23 pmIt’s clear that if you said battery acid was dangerous, our dear representatives from the right would be lining up to swig it. They’re trying to start a flame war, because that’s what they get off on. Just flag ‘em and move on. Don’t give them the attention they so pathetically crave.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:23 pmbob, no, I’m a soulless mountain troll. You need to get it straight. But I am rational and you are not. You just have “feel” everything instead of think about it. You are the soulless brainless fool.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:25 pmFreeperputz, are you homeschooled? seriously.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:25 pmso freeperputz, prove how rational you are by explaining why it’s rational to go on shooting rampages. Baring that, please point to a rational post you’ve made on this thread.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:26 pmfrenterprz whatever do you mean? Is that projection on your part? All is well in my world, which ranges from the top of the trees on sunny days to down on the ground in pouring rain. Might I see you down there slithering around?
So, have you ever eaten a frog?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:26 pmI never said it was OK to go on a rampage and kill people, but to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens because of what somebody else does just speaks to you and your kinds stupidity. We will be back in control soon, you can count on it. Then it will be fun to see how all of you scream and complain.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:29 pmpacman, don’t have time to battle with you.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:31 pmBob, at least I have a degree. IF you have one, you must have been infected by the liberal college professors who found fertal ground in your mush that you call a brain.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:33 pmfrenterprz Says:
I never said it was OK to go on a rampage and kill people, but to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens because of what somebody else does just speaks to you and your kinds stupidity.
So there should be no drug laws? No drunk driving laws? I’m sure you feel your rights are restricted right now because you can’t own armor piercing bullets or rocket grenade launchers.
Is it ok to check the IDs of hispanic looking people? Should police be allowed to frisk young black men?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:34 pmHere are some links where President Obama stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/05/obama-im-not-going-to-take-your-guns-away/
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1318968,obama-gun-sales-up-120808.article
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/akgunowners
http://obamaendorsements.blogspot.com/2008/11/sportsmen-for-obama.html
April 5th, 2009 at 7:34 pmfrenterprz
Is it safe to say that you think a lot of people here are crazy?
Yet, you came here on your own volition? Hmmm
Is this some sort of fraternity prank? Sorority?
Or are you the one that has a problem, by virtue of the fact that you choose to associate with us?
Do you want to kill us?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:34 pmJust for the record, I didn’t “retreat to the wilderness”. I was raised, mostly, in a rural area and never wanted a career in the classic sense. I preferred to look at work as a means to maintain my needs while pursuing varied hobbies, recreations, and intellectual pursuits.
After collage I stuck my sheepskin in a drawer and did pretty much what I pleased. My rural home was a center for a very eclectic group of friends that included scholars, blue-collar workers, bikers, hermits, and a wide variety of pets and livestock. It was a hunting/fishing camp and retreat for misbehaving husbands who needed a place to crash while their better-halfs cooled down.
I hunted in the back yard and fished in the front. I grew apples and vegetables and collected all manner of other bounty from the woods all around. It was pretty damn idyllic.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:34 pmYou NRA, RepubliCon simpletons are largely to blame for the mayham in the streets; you are just to ignorant and/or stupid to realize it.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:35 pmfrenterprz Says:
I never said it was OK to go on a rampage and kill people, but to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens because of what somebody else
You are defending the rights of those who do go on rampages without taking into consideration the rights of those who die at their hands. Why should anyone else care about your rights if you don’t respect anyone elses?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:35 pmfrenterprz, I have a couple of crossbows, but thanks for the hateful thought. I’ve brained a would-be-rapist with a six-pack of water bottles, and convinced him he should leave with a pair of sewing scissors, btw. Fortunately, he didn’t have a gun.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:36 pmOops! “College”. Typing has never been my strongest suit.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:38 pmfrenterprz
What do you mean you don’t have time for me? Can’t you multitask?
I can pollinate and pee at the same time, can you?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:38 pmdbearton, you liberal trash talking elites(so called) are responsible by having the ACLU defend criminals and screwing up the legal system. The System would work better if you all moved to Russia where you belong. That includes you too pacman.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:40 pmpete Says:
Oops! “College”.
No worries, I just thought your college experience was best expressed by a bunch of seemingly unrelated pictures, that when placed together formed a loose narrative too.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:41 pmbob, liberty has a price. Enforce the laws that are on the books already.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:42 pmBobwurst Says:
pete Says:
Oops! “College”.
No worries, I just thought your college experience was best expressed by a bunch of seemingly unrelated pictures, that when placed together formed a loose narrative too.
That’s not too far off. I went through a new major every year.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:43 pmBob, I value the power of the individual, not the group. You all act like the Borg collective. It is all about the “group”. Well, the “group” starts with the individual and when we lose sight of that, we will truly be lost.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:44 pmfrenterprz Says:
dbearton, you liberal trash talking elites(so called) are responsible by having the ACLU defend criminals and screwing up the legal system
So, the 2nd Amendment is ok, but to hell with Amendents 4,5,6 and 7? Why is no one surprised by this…
April 5th, 2009 at 7:45 pmThe System would work better if you all moved to Russia where you belong. That includes you too pacman.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:46 pm–
Now this is some serious silly shit….
frenterprz Says:
bob, liberty has a price. Enforce the laws that are on the books already.
frenterprz Says:
dbearton, you liberal trash talking elites(so called) are responsible by having the ACLU defend criminals and screwing up the legal system.
Please reconcile these two thoughts, college boy…
April 5th, 2009 at 7:47 pmfrenterprz Says:
Bob, I value the power of the individual, not the group
And yet all you can do is spout the talking points of rightwing pundits…
April 5th, 2009 at 7:48 pmSo. How does our esteemed, tough talking, guest feel about Ted Stevens getting off on a technicality?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:49 pmCome on freeperputz, I’ve given you the chance to demonstrate your intellectual brilliance by responding to posts 399 and 401. The fact that you fall back to canned right wing talking points just shows how bereft if serious thought you are.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:50 pmNo different than I do about Geither not paying his taxes on time.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:51 pmpete Says:
So. How does our esteemed, tough talking, guest feel about Ted Stevens getting off on a technicality?
The same as how he feels about scooter libby getting off for committing treason, or Ollie North getting off for undermining the Constitution.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:52 pmWhats the matter freeperputz? Can’t respond to a real question?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:53 pmbob, like I really care what you think of me. I think as little of you as do of me. and by the way, you could reconcile what I meant if you put a little thought into it. But you are incapable so I’m wasting my time.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:54 pmSo where did you go to college freeperputz? McDonald’s University, or Clown College?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:54 pmMy dear, dear frenterprz:
Have you been drinking today. I’ve known a lot of pussies that get all brave when they drink.
Are you a pussy? (I’m sorry if you’re a woman) Are you a girlie man?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:54 pmpacman, you are truly deranged. I didn’t think they let the inmates use the computers.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:56 pmOk mr Worst, where I went to school is none of your business. Nice try though.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:56 pmWhile I’m on the record objecting to the choice of Geithner, his case does not parallel Stevens’. Is our esteemed, tough talking, guest in favor of assuring the rights of accused criminals?
April 5th, 2009 at 7:57 pmpacman, tequila is my drink of choice. You wouldn’t know about the good stuff, because you were incarcerated for sniffing glue and the resulting brain damage it caused.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:59 pmfrenterprz Says:
Ok mr Worst, where I went to school is none of your business. Nice try though
Oh man, you really are home schooled. I wasn’t trying to figure out what college should be ashamed right now, I was mocking you…When are you going to respond to questions 399 and 401. I’d much rather have a semi-normal conversation with you.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:59 pmYES OBAMA WANTS YOUR GUNS. YE RESTOOGIKKKANS OBABAM IS COMING RIGHT NOW TO TAKE YOUR GUNS. HURRY UP, GET THEM OUT OF THE CLOSETS, AND ATTICS, UP FROM THE BASEMENTS, AND CLEAN THEM AND GET THEM READY. I THINK I HEAR OBAMA DOWN YOUR STREET. KILL YOUR FAMILY, HURRY, HURRY, HURRY.
That should take care of the next generation of scumbag republikkkans.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:01 pmHow so? You’re not afraid of a little dragonfly are you? Really sweetheart, you don’t want to make a scene do you? Do your friends know you have a fear of dragonflies? In some areas we’re called snake doctors. Want to slither up on my couch and talk about it?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:03 pmpete, you distort everything so much, how do you think? I was referring to the clearly guilty criminals that were released based on stupid technicalites. How else do explain the twinky defense?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:04 pmWhen one admits that they have no concern for the thoughts or rights of someone who disagrees with them, I must conclude said person is a stupid troll.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:04 pmfrenterprz
April 5th, 2009 at 8:05 pmWanna go head to head?
Alecto, what to do with next generation of Borg Democrapheads?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:05 pmrenterprz Says:
pete, you distort everything so much, how do you think? I was referring to the clearly guilty criminals that were released based on stupid technicalites. How else do explain the twinky defense?
Dan White is one of your’s pal. He was a gun toting homophobe.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:06 pmgo back to sleep midget(dbadass)
April 5th, 2009 at 8:07 pmfrenterputz mumbles:
dbearton, you liberal trash talking elites(so called) are responsible by having the ACLU defend criminals and screwing up the legal system.
Wasn’t it the ACLU that defended Lush Rumballs when he was caught with the Viagara not in his name coming back from his Dominican Republic trip with 3 of his “good buddies” but no females. So, how does that work. Does the hair get in your second mouth being that it is on the other side of your head?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:08 pmhttp://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/481834/
I’m officially bored with freeperputz. He has nothing, enjoy slapping him around folks.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:08 pmwtf pacman, dragonflys are irritating bugs that need to be stepped on. Is that what you are?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:08 pmSo, do you mean that the Republicans are hoping to foment rebelious millitias, and they are spreading the seeds and with these accusations? They are intentionally arming their ‘base’ with weapons? Could that be part it it? Naaa! Never…
April 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pmfrenterprz can you recommend a brand of glue, I’m not familiar with the practice. (I’ve live a somewhat sheltered life)
Do you down the worm when you drink? I’ve had women tell me I’m good looking when they were drunk. What do you think?
http://bugguide.net/node/view/30281
April 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pmNotice class:
When a stupid troll is caught in a bind by a simple question that makes said troll really examine what said troll has been saying? They assert “distortion” where, clearly, none exists.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pmBob, he’s enjoying this far too much. Better to just ignore him – I can’t stand to see a happy troll.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pmdbadass Says:
frenterprz
Wanna go head to head?
I know I said i was leaving, but dbadass, I think he’s challanging you to a “sword” fight, if you know what I mean. He has a soft spot in his heart for Harvey Milk, why else the post at 418?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pmboob, I was bored with you a long time ago.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:10 pm08Dariana:
I think you are missing the point. When Republicans say “They are trying to take away our guns” what they mean is “They are trying to take away our constitutional rights.” The primary purpose of the Second Amendment is not to hunt game, or shoot for sport, as some on here have claimed, it is to protect against tyranny. Some conservatives feel that, say, an assault weapons ban or a handgun ban effectively eviscerates the right.
Imagine if the government were to pass a law that said you could say whatever you wanted, so long as it was not critical of the government. You would still have the right to free speech right? After all, there are plenty of OTHER subjects that you could speak or write about. But at the end of the day, haven’t you really lost your right to free speech? It is the same with the Second Amendment. Imagine if the government were to pass a law saying that you could own all the weapons you wanted, but ammunition was banned. You couldn’t very well argue that they hadn’t violated the Second Amendment could you?
Now I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be ANY restrictions on gun ownership. After all, all of our rights are limited to some degree. All I’m saying is that any law that tends to defeat the purpose of the amendment (which is to resist tyranny), then that law should be constitutionally suspect.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:13 pmWow, I have never spent so much time with so many crazy people. You all deserve each other. Borg collective unoriginal thinking koolaid drinking Democrapheads.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:13 pmfrenterprz do really think of dragonflies as irritating? More so than flies? Perhaps less than mosquitoes?
Did you that there are more dragonflies in the US than there are repupliscum? Female dragonflies put octomom to shame, don’t ya know (wink, wink).
April 5th, 2009 at 8:19 pm@ 433 Tillyosu Says:
A purpose of the amendment is to resist tyranny, but what if a group of peole decide to use the ammendment to support tyranny?
Anyway, they have it all backwards – the right wing favors tyranny, not the left wing.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:19 pmTillyosu Says:
A fair contribution. I would have to ask though; would multiple 20 round clips vs, a single 5 round clip, turn the tide in a fight against tyranny?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:21 pmLike Chris Rock says, make the bullet cost $5,000. No one will be able to afford it.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:22 pmTillyosu, you have it all wrong. The second amendment was to insure that the CITIZENRY of the nation would COME to aid of the state if the state was attacked. Remember the founding fathers did not want a standing army. They were relying on the second amendment to insure that the citezenry was armed and ready, AND WILLING to defend the country.
It is not to allow any dickhead REpublistooge carry a loaded gun down the street. We had the wild wild west, and that turned out pretty shittily. So, since the Repubtraitors would NEVER come to the aid of this country (I do not consider it “Their country”) we should take all the guns away from the criminals that are the Republicans. They support and defended the criminals Bush/Cheney who are traitors, therefore all REpublicans ARE TRAITORS. Take their guns, and HANG THEM. PERIOD. If they are on the list of voting Republican, HANG THEM.
frenterprz
You can’t roller skate in a buffalo herd.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:22 pmfrenterprz
Enforce the laws that are on the books already.
You are right.
There are books of State and Federal gun laws, each state varies on age requirements, ect… If the state law requires a pistol to be registered, and the owner has to be 21 years old. ect… And a teen-ager at high school has a pistol, the law was broke. That is a serious crime! That needs serious punishment.
And a suspension from school is not enforcing the law.
Maybe high school students need to be offered rewards for informing the school of students known to be carrying guns.
Maybe raising age requirements for gun purchases, or Only offering 2nd Amendment rights to citizen born here in the U.S. might be some good ideas to reduce this senseless killing. The Virginia Tech and this recent one, were done by immigrants. And some of these other ones were done by younger folks.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:23 pmAlecto, you just TRY and come for us, you Democraphead piece of sh$t! You will find it is not as easy as you think.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:24 pmfrenterprz,
April 5th, 2009 at 8:26 pmWe are coming, look out your window putz boy. We ar coming, look under your car, check it Don’t let the wifey (if you have one, ick) We are everywhere. We want your guns muddafugga, and we will get them no matter what.
Alecto, you aren’t smart enough or brave enough to accomplish that task. So when can I expect you muddafugga?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:28 pmGo kill your wife shitforbrains. Go kill your kids, give the food stamp program a break and not have to give you pieces of shit any help.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:29 pmYou do know that the RED states get MUCH MORE in Federal welfare dollars than Blue states, stoopid fcuking moran.
What is that I heard on the roof. Is that ATF? Holy shiit, better go check that shit out. You can never be too fearful. Right traitor.
I got your little pussy testicles right where I want them you fcuking puuussssssy.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:29 pmYou are the traitot scumbag! You don’t have the guts to try anything. It sounds like the DEA needs to pay you a visit moron. All those drugs up your nose give you away. Feel the paranoia?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:32 pmHey freeperputz, have you checked on the kids? How about the kitty? And the dog? Did your wife get home from her stint at McDonalds yet? Better call her and check, you never know when we will….STRIKE!
April 5th, 2009 at 8:32 pmHurry, check the guns.
Alecto, are you even a citizen? Do you REALLY belong here? Is that ICE I hear at your door?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:33 pmWhat’s in the trunk of your car, dickhead? Let’s see how tough you are PUUUUSSSSSYYYYY!!!
April 5th, 2009 at 8:33 pmWe will see who is defined as a traitor in the future A$$hole
April 5th, 2009 at 8:34 pmWe are coming. Sooner or later, we are coming, better get hunkered down? Start buying up food and water and making a bunker, we are coming. It is only a matter of time. We are coming.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:35 pmBut wait, you have to be citizen to be a traitor. Guess you will be classified as an invader and spy.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:36 pmOh Alecto, behave yourself. The next thing you know frenterprz will want you to tea bag him and we’ll have to start refering to him as Lipton Lips.
He never did answer my question about the worms in tequila. I bet he likes to suck on the long, juicy ones.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:37 pmHey freeperputz, I looked it up, and Republiscum like you and Dick Cheney, and BOOOOSH are the traitors. And will be hung. We are coming. We have waited this long we can wait a little longer, we are coming. There is nothing you can do about it either. We are coming.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:37 pmGun threads usually bring out the batshit insane — which only serves to show why more gun regulation is needed, rather than less.
Well done, trolls.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:38 pm“He never did answer my question about the worms in tequila. I bet he likes to suck on the long, juicy ones.”
You are talking about the worms, right?
We are coming…
April 5th, 2009 at 8:38 pmWhere were all these gun-loving patriots ready to defend us from tyranny when habeus corpus was suspended?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:40 pmApe-Man:
Tyranny, by definition, is when political power is concentrated into one person or group of people who have a monopoly on the use of violence and are unrestricted by laws. So really a tyrant wouldn’t need armed citizens to “support” it.
And the generic statement that the “right” supports tyranny while the “left” does not is, at best, intellectually lazy. Remind me, which side favors bigger government?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:40 pmTillyosu,
“Remind me, which side favors bigger government?”
Why is that the metric?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:43 pmWhy is it that they are always afraid?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:43 pmTillyosu,
Tyranny, by definition, is when political power is concentrated into one person or group of people who have a monopoly on the use of violence and are unrestricted by laws. So really a tyrant wouldn’t need armed citizens to “support” it.
Why do you conflatethesecond amendment in that it is to defend the state/constitution with defending a tyrant?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:44 pmYou know Alecto
Sometimes these trolls make it hard…. to resist.
This brave one doesn’t appriciate dragonflies for their beauty (I’ve been told I’m handsome you know).
I bet he prefers to hang out with cockroaches… and conservatives, ugh!
April 5th, 2009 at 8:46 pmTillyosu,
Tyranny, by definition, is when political power is concentrated into one person or group of people who have a monopoly on the use of violence and are unrestricted by laws.
Which sounds EXACTLY like the last 8 years. The Republisum have thought themselves above the law, and have even gone so far as to seek excuse to commit violence on others and violate laws and treaties which are the law of the land. So, the Republiscum needs to be eradicated. Hung, one and all, fore they have proven their treachery.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:47 pmdbadass asks:
Why is it that they are always afraid?
Because they are programmed via the daily talking points, and the koolaid provided throught the Main Stream RIGHT-WING MEDIA to be afraid, be very afraid. They crap their pants daily. Going to the 7-11 is like a full frontal assault to them, what with the Abu there and everything. All those friggin “towel-heads.”
April 5th, 2009 at 8:49 pmWow, this little exchange between Alecto and Frenterprz is probably the most juvenile thing I’ve ever seen.
That said, Alecto, thank you for illustrating WHY we need a Second Amendment. When you start talking about hanging people because of their political affiliation, you become a symbol of the very thing the framers intended to protect against. And I’d like to ask the rest of the commenters: where is the condemnation?
Pete, to answer your question; maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn’t. But if we are to err, on which side should we do it?
April 5th, 2009 at 8:51 pmTillyosu,
April 5th, 2009 at 8:54 pmYou have no idea what you are talking about. The second amendment has nothing to do with what you claim. And treason is hangable. I say nothing except that which needs to be said. The Republicum should be very afraid, we are coming, the bell is tolling, and oit tolls for thee.
Why should innocent victims pay, with their lives, so a bunch of frightened freaks can cuddle up with their arsenals? Do the stupid trolls really think the local gun club, or their own bad selves, will constitute an effective force in a fight against tyranny?
Here’s a newsflash: Those who successfully fight tyranny don’t do it in open battle. They do it by knifing in the dark, garroting, sniping, sabotage, and bombs. If they didn’t go on rampages so often I would laugh at the thought of these poor fools standing up to trained troops.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:55 pmAnd BTW, the framers NEVER expected that a party would become the party of treason. The second amendment should NOT protect the individual from rightful prosecution. We are coming….be afraid repubifcuks. We are coming, mark my words, we are coming.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:57 pmHELLLO the freeper gun nuts didn’t protect anyone from the tyranny of BUSH. Where were they then? They only want guns to protect themselves from rightful prosecution.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:00 pmWe are coming you fcuking traitors, we are coming.
Is that the editorial “we”, Alecto? Personally, I have no interest in using violence. Unfortunately, this latest round of police killings is not likely to have a positive effect on our police forces.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:01 pmTillyosu,
When I say “stupid trolls” I include those from all points of view who fall rely on the batsh!t to make a point. It’s a “come one, come all” epithet. As I said, I do not include you in that group.
While we’re on the subject, may I ask where you get the idea that tyranny is enough of an immediate threat that we can’t limit the number, and lethality, of weapons that fall into the wrong hands?
April 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pmWow Pete, for some reason I thought your posts would be a bit more refined than that. Tell me, would you characterize the authors of the Bill of Rights as a “bunch of frightened freaks?”
Personally I think that 300 million armed citizens would be nearly impossible for any army, however well trained, to oppress. After all, it was Patrick Henry who said, “The great object is, that every man be armed.”
April 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pmCrap! Wrong button. To continue…
it just seems like we are paying a heavy price for people to feel “protected” from the lawful government of our country. Frankly, it strikes me as paranoid speculation. I’m realistic about my chances against a rogue police or military force. Personally, I would smile and say “yes, sir” while waiting for a chance to act.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:08 pmThe threat doesn’t need to be immediate to protect our rights. Indeed our rights should stand inviolate so that the threat doesn’t arise.
And am I to understand from your earlier post that you would rather ban guns, but allow bombs and sniper rifles?
April 5th, 2009 at 9:09 pmTillyosu Says:
would you characterize the authors of the Bill of Rights as a “bunch of frightened freaks?”
Most definitely not. They were the founders of a new nation that shared a frontier with bitter enemies and they couldn’t imagine the kind of firepower one person can carry today. And, as has been pointed out many times, they were not planning on a standing army.
In fact, I am quite sure that they would categorize those who horde weapons in preparation of a fight with the lawful government as “frightened freaks”.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:15 pmI know it sounds so cliche, but freedom really isn’t free. We guarantee free speech, yet we are sometimes exposed to abhorrent speech. Yes, there is a serious cost to having an armed population. But there is also a benefit, that is, the protection of liberty. The Founding Fathers debated this trade off extensively before including the amendment. If we, as a society, decide that that cost has become to great to bear, there is a mechanism available to change the Constitution. Though I suspect the required majority of citizens may not agree with you…
April 5th, 2009 at 9:15 pmWiley, the we is the unitary of righteousness, and the totality of jurisprudence.
Tillyosu,
A little naive, don’t ya think?
He also said:
Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress?
{see outside armies]
and
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!
April 5th, 2009 at 9:18 pmNow if someone was to float the idea that the military was not to be trusted, or the economy failing to the point that the dollar fails and with the ability to pay the standing army, and to guard against Mexico making an armed assault on the Rio Grande, that would be a totally different argument. But just to have guns to have guns, is not what I read.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:25 pmI know that those who seek to protect the right of Americans to own vast arsenals of ungodly firepower love to justify it by citing the threat from our own government.
That whole line of thinking strikes me as unrealistic, over-romantic hogwash, sort of a “policy by Red Dawn” type of thing.
It’s along the same lines as determining interrogation policy based on what Jack Bauer can accomplish with a little torture on “24″.
No surprise the same folks are making both arguments.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:29 pmTillyosu says:
April 5th, 2009 at 9:30 pmIf we, as a society, decide that that cost has become to great to bear, there is a mechanism available to change the Constitution.
Correct, and as the vacuum of the Republiscum implosion only gets filled with more Democrats, then the spectre of a much easier Amendment process is more evident. ERA, Change to 2nd Amendment, Gay rights, Greater Church/state division (make religions pay taxes, no more non-profit status) yup they are all gonna get passed since the Repulican’ts are unable to field a viable party or platform.
It will be a glorious time. Fun to be had by all.
But, I have said too much. The armed Dem-commie-pinko brigade is now gonna come for me….I scared Freeperputz, can you protect me from the big, bad boogie guvmint? Oh please Freeperputz, you said you had the guns to protect us, please help me…..
April 5th, 2009 at 9:32 pmTillyosu Says:
I think you are missing the point. When Republicans say “They are trying to take away our guns” what they mean is “They are trying to take away our constitutional rights.” The primary purpose of the Second Amendment is not to hunt game, or shoot for sport, as some on here have claimed, it is to protect against tyranny. Some conservatives feel that, say, an assault weapons ban or a handgun ban effectively eviscerates the right.
I believe you’re intelligent enough to know this.
I’m not missing the point, they’re not taking anyones rights because they still can Buy Guns(just not semi-automatics), really you know this.
You’ve a right to own a gun.
There’s NO RIGHT TO DEMAND wich type of gun you want to OWN.
If their were we could ask for a bazooka but it isn’t going to happen.
“Imagine if the government were to pass a law saying that you could own all the weapons you wanted, but ammunition was banned. ”
Your examples aren’t correct because it simply doesn’t make sense to compare it to what I said and/or on the topic of banning Semi-Automatics.
This isn’t a problem that I can simply point out to you and you’ll understand, because I believe Conservitaves have their own way of interpreting the Constitution to further their agenda, so I’ll simply ask you this question.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:33 pmThe constitution gives you a right to own a firearm, where does it says you have a right to demand a gun that you like?
How many times must I say that I don’t want to ban guns? My position is that we, as a society, need to examine ways to limit the carnage of mass murderers. What I think should be discussed is greater regulation of gun ownership, so that all weapons purchases would meet the stricter standards of a “conceal/carry” permit. I also favor a move that would place limits on the size and quantity of clips and volume ammo sales. If someone is buying an arsenal, or thousands of rounds of ammo, I want someone in law enforcement to examine that person’s legal status and motivations.
High capacity weapons are designed for producing volume of firepower. My opinion is that these weapons do not have a legitimate civilian use and are a problem because they are optimized for use in open battle or, mass execution.
And, as has been pointed out, criminals always manage to get weapons. In the case of an armed insurrection, the insurrectionists are those criminals. Most historical insurrectionists have acquired their weapons by stealing them from the forces they are fighting and improvisation.
As an example: If I were fighting a military force, I would pick off lone soldiers rather than charging a fortified position. In the first case an “assault weapon” is of limited value while any common big game rifle would serve as a sniper weapon in such an eventuality. If that soldier had explosives? I might decide to do some real damage. Again, an assault rifle would be of limited value. If, despite all care, I ended up in a pitched battle with a real military force? They would probably call in artillery fire or an air strike making an assault weapon a moot point entirely.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:34 pmLet me correct this
April 5th, 2009 at 9:38 pmso I’ll simply ask you this question.
The constitution gives you a right to own a firearm, where does it says you have a right to demand a firearm that you like?
Excellent points as usual, pete. Well argued and thoughtful.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:43 pmAs pete says:
If, despite all care, I ended up in a pitched battle with a real military force? They would probably call in artillery fire or an air strike making an assault weapon a moot point entirely.
My point exactly. Do the guns nuts REALLY think they will be able to fend off our own army or an impending attack from an outside army with guns? Are you friggin kidding me?
They want guns to take out a few police officers when it finally comes to light of the evil they are, and the illegal actions they have performed. They all know they are skating on very thin ice, and law-enforcement is two steps behind them. They are all traitors for backing Bush too. Hang all the muddafuggas. Read the lists, start at “A”.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:43 pmPlus. We already restrict automatic weapons, cannons, grenades, db’s rocket launchers, sawed off long guns, and others. I would like to see an honest debate about high capacity weapons as well and consider adding them to that list.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:46 pmThanks again, ralph.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:47 pm08Dariana Says:
The constitution gives you a right to own a firearm, where does it says you have a right to demand a firearm that you like?
Where does it say the government, has the right to select what guns you can have. It doesn’t, it say “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Would you be calling for alcohol or automobiles to be banned after a drunk driver killed some people. Or demanded all nightclubs and bars be shut down?
Would you ban porn, if some pervert got all fired up after watching it and went out and raped and killed someone?
April 5th, 2009 at 9:52 pm08Dariana:
Maybe you didn’t get the point of my analogy. I have a right to decide which types of guns I want to own, just as I have a right to decide which kinds of speeches I want to make. And, like any right, there are limitations to both. I can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, just as I can’t own a bazooka.
But does the fact that my right is limited in one respect, mean that it can be limited in all respects? Certainly not, for if that argument held, there would be no rights at all.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:55 pmPete- you said
I would like to see an honest debate about high capacity weapons as well and consider adding them to that list.
Don’t add them to the list, most gun crimes are committed with pistols, the percentage of crimes with high cap rifles is very small.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:59 pmEric T:
Where does it say the government, has the right to select what guns you can have.
That would be covered by the Preamble to the Constitution. I memorized it in grammar school.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I believe that concerns about mass murderers would fall under:
April 5th, 2009 at 10:01 pmestablish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
That’s why I said, “high capacity weapons“. That would include military type pistols with multiple large clips.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:04 pmEric T says:
Your comparson are just as wrong as the previous my point has nothing with killing, I’m simply pointing out that even if they do ban semi-automatics you can still buy Manual guns.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:08 pmLike I said the constitution say that you’ve a right to own a firearm, it doesn’t give you a right to buy wichever you pleas if it did assault weapons would be legal, they’re not.
Let me ask you Pete, did you support President Bush’s wiretapping program?
April 5th, 2009 at 10:18 pmCan we put you down in the “supports the right to own a rocket launcher” column?
How about the “supports the right to own tactical nuclear weapons”?
April 5th, 2009 at 10:19 pmNope. I fully believe that the President is bound by he same laws as everyone else and that wiretapping without warrants is unconstitutional.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:22 pmTillyose says: “I have a right to decide which guns you want to own”
You’ve a right to buy a gun you like out of the options that are allowed, just like I can’t ask for a bazooka but I can ask for a pistol.
Laws can set the limits on firearms but it never removes all firearms because that would be unconstitutional.
Do you understand what I’m pointing out?
April 5th, 2009 at 10:30 pmJust to repeat a previous point:
The authors of the Constitution, in their darkest nightmares, never imagined the firepower a single person can carry. Back then, a trained soldier could only get off between one and two rounds per minute and one could escape or neutralize that person while reloading.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:31 pmI enjoyed the debate with you folks, my comments are getting moderated by the editor, So I’m just gonna call it a night.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:35 pmhttp://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-machine-gun-vote-0401.artapr01,0,7075800.story
A kid at a gun club was given an uzi to shoot at a pumpkin. He lost control of the weapon and shot himself in the head. It’s sad that there has to be a law to tell an adult not to put a semi-automatic weapon in the hands of a third grader.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:41 pmA weapon is a weapon. Why should we make any exceptions for guns? Because the republicans have a gun club? If we form the National Grenade Ascociation, can we then own and use grenades, safely for sport or hunting? How about a National Rocket Ascociation?
April 6th, 2009 at 1:14 amI think the statement is:
April 6th, 2009 at 8:48 am“They will get this gun from me when they pry it from my dead child’s hands”
Tillyosu Says:
Maybe you didn’t get the point of my analogy. I have a right to decide which types of guns I want to own, just as I have a right to decide which kinds of speeches I want to make. And, like any right, there are limitations to both. I can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, just as I can’t own a bazooka.
But does the fact that my right is limited in one respect, mean that it can be limited in all respects? Certainly not, for if that argument held, there would be no rights at all.
Since these two extremes are ridiculous, let’s bring it down to reality.
Can you scream “TERRORIST” in an NRA meeting hall? Or will they all shoot each other?
“But does the fact that my right is limited in one respect, mean that it can be limited in all respects? Certainly not, for if that argument held, there would be no rights at all.”
But your ridiculous notion also, lays into the other side of the extreme which is everyonewill have right to do everything. And that is not true.
The “responsible” middle ground is the place of true patriots. Not the fringe. Have guns, but background check the shit out of everyone, and license them, and tax the shit out of the ammo. And identifiy every bullet. You can own it, but with it comes the responsiblity to know where every bullet is at every moment, and have a vested interest (money) in making sure the gun is used only in the most needed of circumstances. Like protecting the homefront. And “arms” only pertain to those guns that are reactive in a one to one fashion. One click, one bullet fired.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:57 amThe ONLY reason for an assault rifle or an uzi is to kill people. there is no good argument for anyone but the military to have these weapons.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:51 amThere are a lot of posts here and I haven’t read all 500. In wha tI did read I didn’t see any 2nd Am defenders upset about not being able to own full autos. Why not? They arejust as fun to shoot, you’d be able to blow the crap out of a deer, and you could shoot any goverment agent that comes to take it away. What gives?
For me personally – I own a gun, but don’t do so in order to protect myself from a government gone wild. We have Blackwater to protect us right?
April 6th, 2009 at 1:32 pmgimmegimme Says:
——————————————————————————–
The idea that a democrat is naturally smarter and more enlightened has gotten old. We’re having a civil conversation stating opinions. If that’s a problem, I’ll go elsewhere.
Normally, I would agree with you. Civil and constructive debate is something that is needed in politics…..However….
April 6th, 2009 at 3:02 pmi see it as a knee-jerk reaction by us liberal progressives. For more than half my lifetime (and I am gaining on 50 y.o)we, the little working guy without the money for fancy educations was snickered at, talked down to, and basically left in the dark with nothing but the “crap” they fed us, just like a bunch a mushrooms. The measures taken in the last 25 years to increase the wealth and decrease the taxes of the extremely wealthy and the destroying our livelyhoods by outsourcing jobs and making union a dirty word. We feel that for decades we had NO voice and that the governemnt was corrupt and we could do NOTHING about it. Well, we finally did something about it and elected the man we felt would most protect the rights of the backbone of American society, the blue collar worker.And we were quite willing to hear the republicans ideas and try to work things out. But since the MOMENT he took office nothing but opposition, name calling and fearmongering has come out of the GOP. I mean, be realistic, for the first 5 years of Dubya’s administration they had control of washington. And in those 5 years some opposition from the left was felt and critisms were made, but nothing like the firestorm of hate and rabblerousing that has come from the right media and most horrifyingly, from republican political officials. And honestly, you don’t think that a lot of the things that have been said and done recently by republicans and the right media sounds less than intelligent? Michelle Bachmann is a prime example of this. ALso an example would be th GOP’s budget report they put out.
Why would you do more of the same things that got us into this mess in the first place. And most importantly,do you think that saying that we are being too hard on rich people and bankers in the middle of the worse economic crises in 70 years is intelligent? One last thing…this is what confuses me the most about the republicans right now. Why in the hell are they acting surprises and horrified by what the President is trying to do. It’s not like they were blindsided by his views. HE IS SIMPLY KEEPING HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES! If the republicans actually kept campaign promises then we wouldn’t be in the messes we are in right now.
OK Pat obviously senile dementia has set in. Time to see the nice young men that will need to take care of you soon.burun estetigi rent a car arac kiralama
April 18th, 2009 at 6:00 amsac ekimi