HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Can Extreme Gun Control C...

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:00 PM

 

Can Extreme Gun Control Coexist with Equality Under the Law?

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:58 PM - Edit history (2)

Most people have no conception of how corrupt and unequal gun control extremists are. So while good and decent people everywhere (including me) want steps taken to prevent more mass shootings, we should all be aware of the thinking of gun control leadership.

This is a snippet from an open letter I wrote to Obama when he was running the first time:
…………………………

A monstrous principle animates gun control. Unspoken and unspeakable, it alone fits the facts. Simply put, The people’s servants have judged their masters and found them wanting—not in skill or knowledge, but in basic human worth. Gun control’s self-evident truth is that all people are not created equal.

Once you accept its premise, gun control makes sense. Special people—the Elite—are entitled to special treatment, along with those who serve them.

Take Dick Heller, of the Heller case, for example. He carried a gun daily as a security guard for the Supreme Court Annex. Those who imagine the purpose of gun control to be keeping guns from the unfit will have difficulty explaining the rapid deterioration of his skills on his commute. By the time he arrived home each evening he could not possess a functional gun—lest he shoot himself.{*}

When we recall his servant role, however, Heller’s limitation made sense. With no inherent right to self defense, his fitness to bear arms was rooted in his job. Off duty, he no longer served the Judicial Elite.

Rosie O'Donnell, a champion of gun control, said in 1999 that anyone who owned a gun should be imprisoned.{55} To those who see gun control as an effort to keep guns from civilians, it is hard to justify her allowing a would-be “criminal”—a man applying to carry a gun—to protect her son in 2000.{56}

The initiated, however, see no hypocrisy. Rosie and her children are Socially Elite—perfectly entitled to the protection of arms.{57}

Bloomberg's confusion about carrying guns also makes sense. His armed detail protects the Political Elite; the retired police officer he was talking about had no higher purpose than self-defense. Why would he, with so meager an excuse, carry a gun? After all, “guns kill people.”

Katrina momentarily peeled back the veil on Financial Elitism. In the horrific circumstances following the storm, police deserted their posts. Some were filmed apparently looting in uniform.{58} The government took decisive action:

At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. “No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns,” says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.{59}


Mr. Compass, the police superintendent, said that after a week of near anarchy in the city, no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms of any kind. “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons,” he said. {60}


Under color of law, officials took personal property at gunpoint—a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Louisiana’s Constitution received similar contempt:

Louisiana statutory law does allow some restrictions on firearms during extraordinary conditions. One statute says that after the Governor proclaims a state of emergency (as Governor Blanco has done), “the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision affected by the proclamation may...promulgate orders...regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition.” But the statute does not, and could not, supersede the Louisiana Constitution, which declares that “The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.”

The power of “regulating and controlling” is not the same as the power of “prohibiting and controlling.” The emergency statute actually draws this distinction in its language, which refers to “prohibiting” price-gouging, sale of alcohol, and curfew violations, but only to “regulating and controlling” firearms. Accordingly, the police superintendent's order “prohibiting” firearms possession is beyond his lawful authority. It is an illegal order.{61}


From the gun control perspective, ordinary people should be disarmed in emergencies. So Mayor Nagin— who, “incoherent and weeping,” “fled to Baton Rouge”—courageously defied the highest legal authority.{62} He was not so bold, however, as to defy his fellow Elite:

That {disarmament} order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly carrying M-16s and other assault rifles.

Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards but that the police had no plans
to make them give up their weapons. {63}


If you are rich and fear for your property, your employees may carry fully automatic (true) assault weapons;--your property rights will be respected. If you are “average” and you fear that roving gangs may want to entertain themselves with your wife and children, you are out of luck. The Constitutions, federal and state, are impotent. This is an emergency!

In response to these outrages, Congress, prodded by the “gun lobby”, passed the Vitter amendment

To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.{64}


Yet modest as it was, the amendment drew opposition from anti-gun senators Clinton, Schumer, Boxer, and
Feinstein.{65}

Their votes illustrate gun control’s contempt for the Bill of Rights—all of it. After all, why worry about leaving boot prints on the Fourth Amendment on your way to trample the Second?

New Orleans may have been an extreme case, but Financial Elitism is widespread. Recall that even the District permits defense of one’s business. Financial Elitism is institutionalized In New York as well:

The names of the two types of non-occupational carry licenses (”Carry Business License” and “Limited Carry Business License”) and comments made by Lieutenant McCormack, a licensing officer in the New York City Police Department, reflect a general understanding amongst New York City government officials that “proper cause” refers only to business needs.…

A general understanding that “proper cause” refers only to business need, however, may be a result of the application's failure to state that non- business needs will be considered.

Indeed, Lieutenant McCormack could not recall one applicant in his fifteen years with the police department whose stated need referred to the applicant being a victim of domestic violence. He indicated that if he did receive such an applicant he would not know how to handle the matter, but supposed that he would probably meet with a higher authority, such as the Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, to discuss the situation.

Lieutenant McCormack further commented that the police department does not issue a carry license because an applicant's life has been threatened or that he has been beaten,because those situations “happen everyday.” Normally, if a carry license is given to a person because of danger, the order to do so comes from a “higher source” or “other agency.”{66}

Like all Americans, New Yorkers have a right to “keep and carry arms wherever they {go}” "{as the Supreme Court said in its first case mentioning the Second Amendment}. Yet in fifteen years, the lieutenant met no applicant who dared hope she could carry a gun to protect her life, her children, or her physical integrity.

And no wonder. New York doesn’t allow carry for “everyday” problems—death threats, assaults, and one would imagine rapes, kidnappings, and torture. Danger-based justifications must come from “a higher source” or “other agency.” Now who would “a higher source” or “other agency” pull strings for?

Gun control’s non-equality principle strikes at America’s core value—the political equality of all people—returning us to primitive, pre-Enlightenment thinking. It tells the single woman who dares oppose drugs, the father protecting his family in disaster, the old lady who lives alone—in short, the non-Elite—that they have no right to the means of self-defense.

Technically, it doesn’t say that they have no right to life, liberty, or physical integrity, but the difference is academic. Faced with harsh realities, they have a civic duty to be killed, raped, kidnapped, or have their families abused in front of them. This is preferable, in the eyes of the Elite, to having the rabble armed.

People who have such “civic duties” cannot be said to live in a free country. Remember the Second Amendment’s “free State”? UCLA Professor Eugene Volokh’s research shows it was a term of art.{67} “Free State” meant “free country”— not the freedom of Vermont or Nebraska from federal encroachment.

{Extremist} Gun control destroys the free State from the inside, too.

……………
* As discussed earlier in the open letter, DC Mayor Mayor Anthony's spokesman, Tony Bullock, explained why the plaintiffs in the recent
Parker suit should not even be allowed functional guns in their homes:

"I think it's a real myth that people would be able to arm themselves and avoid being
shot,‟ he said. "Chances are very good that they would accidentally shoot themselves or
that the gun would find its way into the hands of a child, which is not what we want.‟

55 “I saw Rosie make this statements on TV. Rosie's conversion
would be more convincing had it resulted from another mother’s security concerns.

56 Stephen M. Silverman, A Bodyguard for Rosie's Kid, Friday September 11, 1998.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,617858,00.html .

57 Because of its timing, I believe O’Donnell’s retreat (see note 55) was tactical and not principled.

58 I witnessed the apparent looting on CNN.

59 David B. Kopel, “Defenseless On the Bayou: New Orleans gun confiscation is foolish and illegal,”
September 10, 2005. http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html .

60 Alex Berenson and John M. Broder, “Police Begin Seizing Guns of Civilians,” New York Times,
September 9, 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

61 David B. Kopel, “Defenseless On the Bayou…” September 10, 2005.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html .

62 Ibid.

63 Alex Berenson and John M. Broder, “Police Begin Seizing Guns of Civilians”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

64http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00202

65 Ibid.

66 Susan Novak, “Why the New York State System for Obtaining a License to Carry a Concealed Weapon
is Unconstitutional,” Fordham Urban Law Journal, November 1998.
http://www.nysrpa.org/files/novak.pdf and http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Novak1.html .

67 “There is ample evidence about the original meaning of the term “free state.” …
…In eighteenth-century political discourse „free state‟ was a commonly used political term of art, meaning
„free country,‟ which is to say the opposite of a despotism. …
„State‟ simply meant country; and „free‟ almost always meant free from despotism, rather than from some
other country, and never from some larger entity in a federal structure. That is how the phrase was used in
the sources that the Framers read. And there is no reason to think that the Framers departed from this wellestablished
meaning, and used the phrase to mean something different from what it meant to Blackstone,
Montesquieu, the Continental Congress, Madison, Adams, or others.” Eugene Volokh, “Necessary to the
Security of a Free State” Notre Dame Law Review, 2007, 104-5.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/freestate.pdf .

77 replies, 3928 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 77 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can Extreme Gun Control Coexist with Equality Under the Law? (Original post)
TPaine7 Dec 2012 OP
Recursion Dec 2012 #1
MightyMopar Dec 2012 #4
Recursion Dec 2012 #6
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #24
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #2
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #66
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #75
MightyMopar Dec 2012 #3
bettyellen Dec 2012 #5
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #10
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #33
Bake Dec 2012 #64
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #68
realgreen Dec 2012 #29
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #7
DanTex Dec 2012 #8
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #9
DanTex Dec 2012 #11
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #16
DanTex Dec 2012 #21
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #23
DanTex Dec 2012 #27
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #12
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #14
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #15
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #20
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #22
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #47
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #48
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #59
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #61
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #62
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #63
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #65
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #45
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #69
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #76
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #18
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #25
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #30
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #35
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #36
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #39
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #40
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #42
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #44
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #46
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #49
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #50
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #53
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #55
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #56
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #58
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #13
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #17
bettyellen Dec 2012 #34
ibegurpard Dec 2012 #19
samsingh Dec 2012 #26
riverbendviewgal Dec 2012 #28
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #60
OldEurope Dec 2012 #31
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #32
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #57
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #77
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #37
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #70
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #71
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #73
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #74
madinmaryland Dec 2012 #38
Pholus Dec 2012 #41
intaglio Dec 2012 #43
Prometheus_unbound Dec 2012 #51
KT2000 Dec 2012 #52
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #54
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #67
99Forever Dec 2012 #72

Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:06 PM

1. It *can*, it just hasn't yet

And, yes, I'll be a lot more open to gun control legislation when its proponents disarm their security guards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:11 PM

4. You can't walk into the NRA building or Congress with your gun!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:17 PM

6. Sure you can (the NRA building, at least). They have a public shooting range.

Now with free WiFi, apparently.

The Capitol is a gun-free zone for non-LEO's. Unlike most gun-free zones, they have armed guards and a metal detector.

The most recent mass shooting in the US Capitol was 1998.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:09 PM

24. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:08 PM

2. Please define extreme gun control. n/t

Without parameters there can be no discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:06 PM

66. Gun control that is transparently hypocritical, that violates the Second Amendment

 

that is offensive to the morals of any sane person—like the other thread you posted in talked about—or that flies in the face of the rest of the Constituion, like the 14th and 4th Amendments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #66)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:51 AM

75. So you don't think there should be any gun control?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:10 PM

3. How does much of Europe, Oceania, Canada live in freedom without the 2nd amendment?

 

Just more blah, blah, blah from people who support the "right to to kill and bury Americans". In today's world the 2nd amendment is as useless vs the government as the 3rd amendment. Oddly minorities and women favor gun control.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times… We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:16 PM

5. This reads a lot like the Turner Diaries and loads of other paranoid Libertarian drivel.

Makes me hope we pass MUCH stronger gun regs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:34 PM

10. It's true, but it has the wrong tone, so you hope it's ignored and truth is overridden? Ok. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:33 PM

33. It isn't true.

We don't need guns or magazines that shoot very rapidly in our homes or on our streets.

We have reached a tipping point.

You can still kill those you love, say your wife and children or even people you don't like with your hunting rifle, a revolver with only, say, six shots.

We just don't want you killing 26 people within a matter of minutes.

Let's read the Second Amendment as permitting the guns available prior to 1800. OK???

That's what it means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:56 PM

64. You read the 2nd Amendment the way Scalia reads the rest of the Constitution

A literalist, based on original intent.

But I'm guessing you're not a big fan of Tony's.

Consistency. What a concept.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:27 PM

68. Where is this talk of magazines coming from? The antecedent of "it" is clearly the statements

 

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)

made in the OP, which doesn't mention magazines.

Let's read the Second Amendment as permitting the guns available prior to 1800. OK???


No, that's not OK. First, the Bill of Rights doesn't permit us rights, it forbids government powers. It's not a list of things that we are permitted; it's a list of things government is forbidden to do. Read the BOR's preamble; the people who authored and propagated the Bill of Rights were concerned that the it would be interpreted that way. They made it crystal clear that they opposed that interpretation.

Secondly, interpreting the Second Amendment in technological terms of the era is short sighted, agenda driven and principle free. Applying the same logic to the First Amendment would mean that the New York Times online would not be protected.

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz#cite_ref-52


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:25 PM

29. Nice way to call the gun worshipper a racist...

 

without simply coming-out and saying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:20 PM

7. Maybe, it's an imortant question not just to gun owners but the mentally ill

Fear combined with slow-wittedness in the defense of safety is about as good for our rights
as anger and substance abuse are to a pleasant holiday dinner.

The NRA and gun rights folks seem big on "Heller".

LaPieere seems loathe to consider 14th Amendment and other privacy protections for them mentally ill...who he and many others consider monstrous lunatics.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:24 PM

8. So you wrote Obama a letter with links to WorldNetDaily and reason.com and David Kopel?

Do you have any arguments against gun control that aren't based on either sheer paranoia or absolutist libertarianism? And that don't involve citations to fringe-right-wing sources?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:27 PM

9. Point out the factual errors (like I pointed out your bald-faced personal lie about me) and we can

 

talk.

Otherwise, shooo.

Edited to add: For those who may be interested, I saw Rosie on TV and knew what she said. But the New York Times and Mother Jones don't talk about anti-gun extremism, so I used the only source I could find.

Liars like to make a big issue of sources when the truth of a statement isn't in question. It's a diversion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:41 PM

11. You haven't even attempted to make a factual argument.

This is an opinion piece -- an opinion rooted firmly in paranoia and fringe-right-wing/libertarian political beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:51 PM

16. It's an opinion piece that quotes statements of fact. Look up "fact" then get back to me.

 

For instance, it is either true or false that ordinary people were forbidden to carry arms while business guards were allowed to carry machine guns. If you doubt that FACT, challenge it.

Otherwise, you're boring me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:05 PM

21. An opinion piece that selectively reports facts and omits others to arrive at right-wing conclusions

For example, no mention of the fact that the US has a homicide rate some 4X higher than the rest of the industrialized world, where gun laws are much tighter.

It's very simple. You value your libertarian ideology more than you value innocent lives taken by gun violence. You ignore the fact that the the most vulnerable elements of society suffer the most from the lack of adequate gun control laws, which probably explains why minorities and women are more in favor of gun control than conservative white males.

In the end, your concern about equality is no more credible or genuine than Newt Gingrich's. You are pushing a right-wing libertarian ideology, plain and simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:08 PM

23. Thanks for your tacit admission that everything I said was true, despite your sourcing diversion nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:17 PM

27. LOL. Nice one.

I have no idea whether your facts are correct or not. What I do know is that your argument is logically incoherent, it rests upon a right-wing/libertarian foundation, and requires ignoring the most essential facts about gun violence to reach its conclusions. Whether WorldNetDaily quoted Rosie O'Donnell correctly is irrelevant.

Although the fact that you spend your time reading WND and reason.com gives useful insight into your political ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:43 PM

12. I love a dose of right wing libertarian none sense in the morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:46 PM

14. I would say I love tripe from people who substitute labels for reasoning while dodging substance,

 

but I would be lying.

Is anything I said false?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:48 PM

15. Word net daily

That is enough for quite a few of us

Have a magnificent day

Off to trash this tripe land we go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:59 PM

20. The link is gone, the source is gone, the truth is still there. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:07 PM

22. Your paranoid truth that is

If you have not noticed, the we are gonna fight the evil gub'mint is a delusional, fringe, libertarian right wing fantasy.

If you have not noticed, the rest of us, not living in a paranoid fantasy, have little tolerance for this so-called truth any more

But for the record, that fantasy died in 1791.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:47 PM

47. Why is it that when the subject has anything to do with guns so many people can't seem to

 

comprehend what they read.

I challenge you to find ANYTHING in the OP about "fight{ing} the evil gub'mint."

You have a hysterical caricature in your head, and you are determined to make me fit it. I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:50 PM

48. Have fun...the reception

Should tell you, we are done.

For the record, the short answer is background checks, closing the gun show loop and short magazines infringe on zero rights, but you go on...have fun with the paranoid fantasies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:51 PM

59. There is a kernal of truth in this though

If for some reason a total gun ban was passed. The elite would still have their armed bodyguards.The execptions would be cut into the law. They would not have to worry about their security.
Just the way the world works. Probably always has.
I had never really thought about this before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:59 PM

61. A total ban would only pass after a civil war

That s divorced from reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #61)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 07:12 PM

62. I don't think you comprehended what I was saying

Of course a total ban will never happen. I was commenting on the outcome in a world where one was successfully implemented. The wealthy and elite would still have them while the rest of the population(who obviously can't be trusted to own them) would not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:30 PM

63. And those of us living in reality, not the OP incidentally,

Realize this is not even part of the discussion. That is the part you are not understanding.

Now, I might dabble with that in fiction, or look at places in the developed world where that has happened, and gasp the world has not collapsed either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:23 PM

65. It was part of MY discussion within the thread. I am totally understanding it.

I am commenting not asking for valildation. Peace, Mojo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:24 PM

45. Why won't you answer any of my questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:32 PM

69. Because I went to a Christmas event. Is that OK?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:53 AM

76. Yes! Have a wonderful Christmas.

But I would like to continue the exchange after Christmas. I am not an individual who wants to ban all guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:57 PM

18. Just curious...do you think the mentally ill can preserve their rights

if the names of everyone with "a diagnosed mental illness" become co-mingled with criminals in the NCIS?

Do you think 'due process' for tens of millions of women with depression is something that should be delivered with a few dozen lines of software code worming through private medical records, or should due process for a person suspected of mental illness that makes them a risk to handle guns be meted out through a court hearing?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:13 PM

25. Just curious

Do you thing people with a history of mental illness that include threats to one self or others should own guns? These are the people at question...but you knew this already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:26 PM

30. You could have answered first. But I'll ante up

No I don't I've stated repeatedly that adjudication by the court is what I believe in.

So, about my question

Do you think the rights of the mentally ill can be protected if the federal government comingles the names of convicted criminals with the names of people who are associated not with a court determination but rather a billing code for a mental diagnoses?

On edit: It puzzles me how people don't want to address what seems a reasonable concern. Maybe no one thinks the rights of those diagnosed with mental illness warrant reasonable concern.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:38 PM

35. You sure realize

That most 51-50s never ever go before a judge...cause they are 51-50.

If a psychiatrist deems you a danger to yourself or others, or both...a small portion of those who have mental illness, no, you should not have access to a gun.

If you want to add the courts to the mix, more power to you...but seriously...no, this does not mean every person with a from of mental illness should be prevented from owning a fire arm...but hey, you think I am the NRA, who actually suggested this the other day as a distraction? Nice to see you fell into their trap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:42 PM

36. No I don't think you are the NRA. But the mentally ill have a stake, they have rights, too.

And no one seems to really be reacting rationally or based on empirically demonstrable risks of mental illness.


and you still didn't answer my question.

Do you think that the 14th Amendment rights of the mentally ill will be protected?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:46 PM

39. You are talking of the universe

I am talking of the SMALL PERCENTAGE that right now don't need, or should, have access to a gun.

You are trying to distract...must be frustrating that it is not working.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:55 PM

40. NO. I AM TRYING TO DRAW ATTENTION to the rights of the vast majority of the mentally ill

who have been repeatedly shown to be of no actuarial risk of criminal violence.

Rights which posts on DU seem to mean absolutely nothing compared to fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:00 PM

42. So let me get this straight

The guy taken by ambulance to the psych ward last night, after making clear threats is only an actuarial risk? That must be a new definition of the term.

Here in the old DU we always learn a new thing.

Of course the gal who tried to kill herself with knives should, by your logic, have access to a Glock 9.

These are the people who right now are not allowed to own guns. You mean we need to change the law? I will make sure I contact my State Senator. I am sure she will get to work right on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:18 PM

44. I think you are avoiding, you still haven't answered my question

but rather are picking at the mistaken sort of inductive reasoning that you would otherwise reject.

Laws vary so I can't address all states...I don't have access to a legal database to help ne. How states deal with defining Due Process varies.

In Wisconsin the guy making threats would be detained, involuntarily maybe cuz your anecdote doesn't reveal that. If he's determined, in the morning, to need committment, which usually does not happen, he would have to appear before a judge.


I never said anything about the gal's story that you are somehow projecting into my thoughts and mouth.

You are avoiding. You don't want to be distracted from the feeding frenzy that will be told by innumerable reporters going after the dog bites man story.

You are completely missing what could be a story that has a title like:

Proposed Gun Control To Invade HIPPA Privacy Rights of Millions of Mothers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:28 PM

46. I have told you who is not currently allowed

To own guns.

I am not avoiding a thing

This is the universe of people who currently should not own guns. Period, end of discussion.

You seem to have a problem with current law.

Due to hippa these people rarely do come up in an NICS database. California added a total of nine people to the database since this even came up after the VA tech shooting, and California is a high compliance state, which should scare the loving daylights out of you. None, that I am aware of, who is holding a serious discussion, is talking off preventing every person with mental illness from owning a fire arms.

You are making an issue where none exists...

But like the OP, enjoy that fantasy, serious.

As to the examples, I gave two concrete examples of people who have made actual threats to others or themselves... They are based on this thing we call reality. But hey, we all should, I guess, give high powered fire arms to all who want them, no questions asked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:54 PM

49. You seem to disbelieve what the actuarial data about mental illness

actually presents.

Go use your NEXUS connection find the risk for criminal gun violence by those with any diagnosis. Do the math for the whole population... The numbers even in a large state like California are going to be small because that's actually the size of the reported risk.

You can get bigger numbers if you broaden the search to all violence like the ECA study did, then you'll find that even when you lump psychotics and severe affective disorders you get about a 3% greater risk from them than you do from the general population, if you ignore substance abuse, and if you don't ignore substance abuse you get about an 8% greater risk for violence than the general population.

No one is arguing the absence of a connection between mental illness and violence, it exists, That's why you can find incidents of it. But generalizing from such incidents without comparing them to the population only leads to something like the over sized fear of mental illness that's going to be argued to justify searching databases of medical records to find the potentially dangerous

You wouldn't want your home or car insurance calculated using that method. I think it's fair to say no one wants their constitutional or legal rights trampled by that sort of mistaken induction either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:00 PM

50. And the numbers who are in the database

Are small



Have a magnificent day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:12 PM

53. Jeebus...The issue is the push to ADD people to NCIS based on searching med records

for evidence "indicative" of mental illnesses. Not the data used for epidemiological studies of mental illness

Why are you so intent on misrepresenting things?


The presence of prescriptions for SSRIs in medical records have been specifically mentioned as items to search for...to ADD people to the NCIS database.

Implementing such a thing that would lead to millions of mothers with depression being added to the NCIS.

Enjoy Christmas, and don't let anyone near that bone you've latched onto.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:18 PM

55. Yes, to add those who rightfully should be

And are not...Jeebus indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:26 PM

56. And you think ANY one with an SSRI script in their records should be added

Which takes us back to the question you never answered

I had no idea your MO was facile dismissal of what you don't want to consider.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:29 PM

58. That is not what serious people are talking about

But you knew this.

Serious people are talking of people like Loughner and Cho, but you keep being unserious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:45 PM

13. Just because you let fear completely rule your life doesn't mean you have the right

to extend that fear to the point that it affects my children's lives. You sound completely unhinged, dude. You're afraid of the gubmint, and think that stockpiling weapons is some sort of viable strategy to get around your fear. This is not normal. Your attempted demonization of those who want gun deaths to decrease is not normal. Your attempt to couch this in terms of the 1% taking guns away from the masses is delusional paranoia. I promise I'm not working for the 1% when I demand that gun freaks get back in their holes and STFU, nor do I know of anyone who is. You detract from this website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:55 PM

17. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Just because you let fear completely rule your life doesn't mean you have the right to extend that fear to the point that it affects my children's lives. You sound completely unhinged, dude. You're afraid of the gubmint, and think that stockpiling weapons is some sort of viable strategy to get around your fear. This is not normal. Your attempted demonization of those who want gun deaths to decrease is not normal. Your attempt to couch this in terms of the 1% taking guns away from the masses is delusional paranoia. I promise I'm not working for the 1% when I demand that gun freaks get back in their holes and STFU, nor do I know of anyone who is. You detract from this website.


The idea that I stockpile weapons is laughably inaccurate, for starters. Psychoanalysis over the internet is not possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:35 PM

34. Yep, he shits all over DU with this RW Libertarian govt hating extremism. Repulsive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:59 PM

19. Huh?

We're never going to have "extreme" gun control.
But requiring licenses and registration, putting stringent regulations on the sales of guns, and limiting the types of guns that the general public can own are not extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:15 PM

26. yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:19 PM

28. Please read this and then consider more gun control

I freaked when I read this...and it must be worse since it was in print two years ago...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers

Look at the rise of sale of weapons SINCE the school shooting..
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/gun-sales-boom-in-florida-after-sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting-in/1267072

Ammo supplier Brownells sells more than 3 YEARS' worth of AR-15 magazines in 3 DAYS
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ammo-supplier-sees-unprecedented-sale-ar-15-magazines-article-1.1226536

I can only think that the USA is heading for a Civil War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverbendviewgal (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:54 PM

60. I am interested how this will play out int he midterms

when the shock of this tragedy is passed. I have family members who are not gun nuts buying ammunition in case it gets banned. Obviously there is a huge demand for these items.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:29 PM

31. Wrong question, IMHO.

How can equality exist under the law if there is no effective gun control? The most vulnerable and the most altruistic have to die because there is not enough control. Innocent people lose their loved ones, their happiness and their chances - no equality for the victims of these shootings. How dare anyone to whine about lack of equality for gun owners!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:32 PM

32. x2. Detailed OP and cited sources are worth reading.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:27 PM

57. No, they are not.

I'm not about to read WND or Reason or any other lunatic fringe source for anything.

Libertarian claptrap seems to have found a cheerleader, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:05 AM

77. Tl;dr exists for a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:43 PM

37. This is nonsensical drivel

I'm sorry, but you know, talking about "clear violations of the Fourth Amendment" when you're talking about people being disarmed in a public order situation in an area effectively under martial law in a state of emergency is completely absurd. Just as absurd as your defence of the NRA pushing to defund research by the CDC into gun violence and the best ways to limit it--because the bought-and-paid-for lobbying arm of the firearms industry is who we should listen to on that issue, right? I suppose we should let the Tobacco Institute decide how we do research on harm reduction from smoking as well.

And quite honestly, the position "everyone should be armed!" is more of a return to "pre-Enlightenment thinking"; it's a fearful statement that civil society is irretrievably broken, a return to the Hobbesian war of all against all.

And your citation re the meaning of "free state" is also rather absurdist. In parsing the Amendment you seem to neglect the other operative words of that clause; "well-regulated militia" (which is understood to be the body of citizens, trained to arms, subject to regular drill) and "bear arms" (which in 18th century sources is always used in a military context, and not a civilian one).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:58 PM

70. I agree. Post 37 was nonsensical drivel.

 

Martial law means you can charge into the houses of people who are not suspected of any crimes, without any due process or probable cause, hold them and gunpoint and take their lawfully owned property in contravention of state law?

And was there actually martial law in NOLA?:

Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis.

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


If there was martial law and the military was in control, why was the civilian police superintendent issuing orders?

The actions taken were not legal, per the state law pertaining to emergencies, so your point that it was an emergency is moot.

And quite honestly, the position "everyone should be armed!" is more of a return to "pre-Enlightenment thinking"; it's a fearful statement that civil society is irretrievably broken, a return to the Hobbesian war of all against all.


Quite dishonestly, not quite honestly. You are trying to pretend that the positon that "everyone should be armed" is relevant to this discussion. It isn't. No one has said anything like that except you. Furthermore, I have never met or communicated with anyone who held that position; neither have you if my guess is correct.

And your citation re the meaning of "free state" is also rather absurdist. In parsing the Amendment you seem to neglect the other operative words of that clause; "well-regulated militia" (which is understood to be the body of citizens, trained to arms, subject to regular drill) and "bear arms" (which in 18th century sources is always used in a military context, and not a civilian one).


Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying. The free state, which was to be protected by the militia, was the country, not a state like Nebraska or Ohio. Not The free state or free country is also destroyed from within when people are denied their rights. That was my point. You no longer have a free state if the people are denied their rights.

If you read and investigate the source, you will find that the point of free state meaning free country is well supported. Furthermore, you should read Heller, which shows (some of the) historical proof that "bear arms''... in contemporary sources was used in non-military contexts.

Even if it weren't the 14th Amendment, textually and historically, cleary applied the 2nd Amendment to individuals who it empowered Congress to protect against states. So the "States rights" view of the Second Amendment is historically impossible in the face of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:11 PM

71. Wrong and wrong

the actions taken were perfectly legal under the state law pertaining to declared states of emergency. The law was amended after the fact, in 2006.

"Armed society is a polite society"; "the only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"; "armed citizenry". You can claim you haven't said anything like "everyone should be armed", but it's the thrust of your argument. And the argument of the people you argue for (the NRA).

And no, "free state" means the federal government but it also means the several states. See debates c. 1780's-90's re Hamiltonian federalism v Jeffersonian republicanism and the issue of state militias as an effective check on both the power of standing armies and an overly powerful central government in the context of both the then very recent war of independence and the not-so-distant disarmament of Scotland and disbandment of Scots militias by the British government. Claiming the "states' rights" view is historically impossible is a gross distortion; a) there was no 14th Amendment in 1792. Claiming it's inapplicable is attempting to rewrite history. b) the 2nd Amendment wasn't incorporated to the states via the 14th until after Heller (and Scalia is generally wrong in his history, as well).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:35 AM

73. Yes, your post 71 is wrong. And wrong.

 

the actions taken were perfectly legal under the state law pertaining to declared states of emergency. The law was amended after the fact, in 2006.


No it was illegal, per the lawyer I quoted. You, on the other hand, cited nothing.

"Armed society is a polite society"; "the only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"; "armed citizenry". You can claim you haven't said anything like "everyone should be armed", but it's the thrust of your argument. And the argument of the people you argue for (the NRA).


There are several lies there. First, the thrust of my argument is NOT that "everyone should be armed" nor did I say anything that would lead an honest, literate, sane person to make such a claim. Nor have I ever argued anything remotely like "everyone should be armed. That's your little caricature, and you alone are responsible for it.

Second, I do not speak for the NRA. I am not a member. I have never been a member. I have never donated a penny. You are lying.

Third, it is a demonstrable fact that the NRA does not believe "everyone should be armed."

I would rather give up an argument several times over than lie like you have.

And no, "free state" means the federal government but it also means the several states. See debates c. 1780's-90's re Hamiltonian federalism v Jeffersonian republicanism and the issue of state militias as an effective check on both the power of standing armies and an overly powerful central government in the context of both the then very recent war of independence and the not-so-distant disarmament of Scotland and disbandment of Scots militias by the British government.


Cite something beyond "debates c. 1780's-90's" and maybe I'll read it. Otherwise, I feel safe taking the word of a law professor at UCLA and former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor over some random guy on the internet.

Claiming the "states' rights" view is historically impossible is a gross distortion; a) there was no 14th Amendment in 1792. Claiming it's inapplicable is attempting to rewrite history. b) the 2nd Amendment wasn't incorporated to the states via the 14th until after Heller (and Scalia is generally wrong in his history, as well).


Perhaps you are misunderstanding the point. In historical context, the Fourteenth Amendment plainly says that the Second Amendment is a personal, individual right that can be enforced against the states. This is simply the fact of the matter, and it is very well established. As a historical matter, arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right but only protects the rights of states to have militias is tantamount to arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't exist. If the Fourteenth Amendment does exist, that position is impossible as a legitimate historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Now you are correct that the Court only recently incorporated the Second Amendment, but that is a legal matter. The historical facts had long since been established by people not named "Scalia."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #73)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:45 AM

74. Still wrong

a) the legality under then-current Lousiana law pertaining to states of emergency (which gave broad powers to police authorities in affected areas) is questionable. If it was illegal at the time...why amend the law to specifically prohibit confiscation of civilian firearms in a state of emergency?

b) you speak for the NRA. Here and on other threads. Or mirror NRA talking points so closely as to be indistinguishable. ("The NRA was doing the right thing by pushing to defund CDC research into gun violence"? Really?)

c) In historical context, it doesn't matter what the Fourteenth Amendment may or may not say because it has no relevance or bearing on the current environment at the time of the drafting and ratification of the amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment is completely irrelevant to the reasons the Second is in the Bill of Rights in the first place. (And appeal to authority isn't really an argument.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:45 PM

38. First of all your thread title and whole premise for this thread is bullshit, as has been pointed

out by other DUer's.

So can you actually point to any laws passed by President Obama that would restrict you 2A "rights"??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:56 PM

41. Yes. This has been another edition of simple answers for simpleton questions. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:02 PM

43. What a monstrosity of special pleading, straw men and false equivalence

How did you find the brass nerve to actually post it?

By your argument every weapon; mechanical, projectile, chemical and nuclear; must be allowed the general population otherwise it is only an "Elite" who can be protected by them. Additionally, are you proposing that every person be given a high grade weapon no matter what their psychology, their physical ability or their personal preference? If you are not so generous then your argument collapses in a cascade of contradiction. Under your schema pacifists would be considered unfit to be members of your ideal republic.

If Ms O'Donnell lives in a world where assassins and psychopaths can obtain weapons on a whim why is it that she is guilty of hypocrisy for ensuring that her family is protected? Your emotionally crippled demonisation of her is breathtaking in its arrogance.

Then you cite a criminally uncontrolled police force as evidence that guns were necessary for the protection of a civilian population yet you conveniently ignore the fact that there were guns in the possession of civilians in New Orleans, and those weapons were of no use whatsoever against the murderers and criminals who denied egress from the city. Indeed, if memory serves, the police were observed and assisted by civilians from the wards they denied to others.

I could continue at great length about you irrational diatribe but what is the point? You have become fixed in your opinion that all places in the world that benefit from gun control are hell-holes of privilege and inequality and I suspect nothing will change that illusion. If it is pointed out that the current world champion of privilege and inequality seems to be the USA, which you profess to love, that point would not penetrate your blind obedience to the rulers you are supporting. All you are is a wet dream of the publicists supporting the elites that you pretend should be limited by threat of violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:05 PM

51. Oh wait, you were serious. Let me laugh even harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:06 PM

52. Can mass slaughter coexist

with a free society.
What is anyone willing to give up to save ourselves from living in a world "protected" by armed guards at every turn. Children now are being born into a world where mass slaughter can happen anywhere and is with increasing frequency.

Just like so many warring nations - no one wants to give up a thing.

We are lost and your post is just more proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:16 PM

54. OMG -- are you serious?! Guns have seriously warped you - please get help.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:16 PM

67. Was this your thesis at Glenn Beck U.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:13 PM

72. Oh goody.

An industrial size pile of NRA horseshit.


Merry Christmas toolie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread