Justice Stevens: Second Amendment is ‘no obstacle’ to banning automatic weapons

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 04:31 PM

Oneka (606 posts)

1. Which automatic weapons were those?

Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations permitting the ownership or the use of the sorts of the automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado, or Arizona in recent years.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Oneka (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 04:36 PM

discntnt_irny_srcsm (5,609 posts)

3. you know...

...those (semi-) automatic weapons. Semi-autos are just a different kind of automatic weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Oneka (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 06:10 PM

AnotherMcIntosh (7,476 posts)

219. Stevens is 92 and undoubtedly confused about a few things. He even saw Babe Ruth hit his 1932

home run in the World Series where Babe Ruth called his shot before hitting it.

If Stevens in his doddering old age doesn't know that automatic weapons were not used in those shootings, we should give him a break.

He's undoubtedly confused about a few things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 04:33 PM

veganlush (1,902 posts)

2. the second amendment

Is irrelevant , has been for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to veganlush (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 04:37 PM

discntnt_irny_srcsm (5,609 posts)

5. All the amendments are irrelevant...

...to slaves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to veganlush (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 05:28 PM

PavePusher (15,374 posts)

9. Cite to authority? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to veganlush (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 01:01 AM

pipoman (10,373 posts)

20. Might be true if..

you are not in the United States, don't understand the word "irrelevant" or are a delusional wishful thinker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pipoman (Reply #20)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 01:17 AM

veganlush (1,902 posts)

Federal government had an interest in the broader RKBA, not to modify or condition the right. Reference Article I, Section 7 wherein powers are given the government to call up the militia.

As another poster elsewhere put it, 2A is the store where it goes to get emergency "provisions." But there is a lot more in the store.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to veganlush (Reply #27)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 02:14 PM

Francis Marion (250 posts)

46. Define 'well regulated' please.

What does that mean? The descriptor 'well regulated' brings what exactly to your argument?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to veganlush (Reply #27)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 07:11 PM

Clames (2,038 posts)

"well regulated militia" because they meant nothing of the kind. They really meant that everybody and their brother should be able to keep and bear arms, they just threw in that militia thing for embellishment. And when they said "...shall not be infringed.." they meant just the opposite because they already had plenty of infringements in mind and in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to veganlush (Reply #29)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 10:28 AM

pipoman (10,373 posts)

36. "Well regulated"

at the time meant well equipt and trained. It is but one justification for the inclusion of a right to bear arms...it was never intended as a qualifier for the right. The infringements generally were based on the definition of "arms"... If you haven't already read the findings in Heller, both the majority and the minority agreed on one point, that the 2nd was meant to allow for an individual right to keep and bear arms. The main points of disagreement was to what degree the right can be regulated (as the word is defined today).

Again, if the 2nd was supposed to limit firearms to militia members, why not just write that and forgo the ambiguity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to veganlush (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:52 PM

AtheistCrusader (14,151 posts)

216. Regulated = equipped.

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.

A well-read electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pipoman (Reply #23)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 03:03 AM

merrily (964 posts)

100. Why not just leave out the reference to the militia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to merrily (Reply #100)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 08:47 AM

pipoman (10,373 posts)

106. I believe

had they not included the reference, militias would have been legislated out of existence with the establishment of standing armies and the national guard. The founders wanted to insure that the people always had the means to organize and train for armed confrontation of tyrannical government or encroachments of foreign aggressors. In the same way the first amendment isn't monolithic in the enumeration of a single freedom, neither is the second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to merrily (Reply #100)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:52 PM

AtheistCrusader (14,151 posts)

Last edited Fri Oct 26, 2012, 04:42 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

about two things:
automatic weapons were not used at any of those places.
Second:
Miller said a SBS was not a protected weapon because no evidence was provided that it had a military use. Semi automatic rifles and pistols do have a military use, and they are not unusual.

That is why both sides claim Miller as a victory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
Oh yeah,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

You do know Stevens is a Republican and was nominated by Ford don't you? As Norman Goldman puts it, "judges are politicians in robes" and "the only activist judges are the ones who make decisions you don't like."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to gejohnston (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 10:37 PM

ManiacJoe (5,574 posts)

17. One of the big problems with Miller regarding SBS

was that while the lawyers claimed "no evidence was provided that it had a military use", they forgot to ask the military which was using them to great affect in the trenches of WW1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 05:08 PM

Eleanors38 (3,424 posts)

7. Obvious problems, here...

“The Court did not overrule Miller (in Heller). Instead it ‘read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns..."

In the first place, the "short-barreled shotguns" were termed by the Court in Miller as those not used in the military, when in fact they were. Often known as "trench guns," they were employed by soldiers to "clear" the enemy who occupied trenches, and were preferable to the long, bayonet-equipped and slow-actioned bolt rifles which were typical infantry weapons. Since the shotguns (most often pump-action) were faster cycling, easier to use and didn't not require precise aiming, they were sometimes selected in close fighting situations. Many think the Court was in error in classifying "sawed off" weapons as non-military.

Secondly, if what Stevens said is quoted accurately, then the Supremes (in accordance with Miller) would probably find that the "sorts of...automatic (sic) weapons used in the tragic multiple killings" were not sufficient for "military activities," and may regulate those, but NOT weapons sufficient FOR "military activities." In other words true full-auto assault rifles and machine guns WOULD become protected for individuals!! Is this what Stevens thinks the Roberts Court wants?

Stevens presents a conundrum of his own making when he mis-identifies weapons (a common occurrence in gun-control circles). The kinds of weapons used in some of the killings he cited were SEMI-AUTO only. These category of weaponry is not considered by standing armies all over the world as sufficient for "military activities." Thus, these arms would not be sufficient for citizens who might bear them in a militia.

Finally, the types of weapons I THINK he means ARE in fact "...typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes..." and have been for years: Semi-automatic rifles/carbines. The only real difference is in appearance and updated actions.

This whole statement by Stevens might be interpreted to tell the American citizens: "Your present ownership of firearms can be limited due to their non-military applications. The exception is for FULL-AUTO rifles. It would behoove the citizens to acquire ASAP FULL-AUTO rifles to meet their obligations."

I prefer to look at this "dog's breakfast" and marvel in dismay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 05:25 PM

gejohnston (12,553 posts)

8. when I first read Miller,

I took it to mean that a Cricket .22 is not a protected weapon, but an M-16 is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to gejohnston (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 05:39 PM

Eleanors38 (3,424 posts)

11. I as well. Which is why the gun-controllers best leave sleeping dogs lie. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 05:31 PM

PavePusher (15,374 posts)

10. Stevens is either a fucking moron, or no longer mentally competent for his job. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PavePusher (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 05:49 PM

gejohnston (12,553 posts)

12. Naww, he just wanted to collect his speaking fee and

pop a couple of Geritols

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PavePusher (Reply #10)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 02:37 AM

merrily (964 posts)

95. What is his job now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 07:43 PM

glacierbay (2,477 posts)

13. Automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings

in Virginia, Colorado or Arizona in recent years?
Even former Supreme Court Justices can be morons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 07:48 PM

Clames (2,038 posts)

14. It's a wonder how someone so ignorant about existing laws...

...could serve on the SCOTUS. Seems like the anti-gunners have found a new champion to rally around that's as clueless as they are...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Clames (Reply #14)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 09:15 AM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

33. Such is the ENTIRE Argument for Your Position

According to you, we are stupid and ignorant. Guess that's all you have: your imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #33)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 07:23 PM

Clames (2,038 posts)

58. Well, at least you seem to have come to terms with your problems.

That's at least a start.

But yes, anyone who harps on about a class of weapons that have been regulated at the federal level by a law more than SEVEN DECADES OLD is indeed stupid and ignorant. Not imagination, just plain fact which is vastly more than anything you've come up with in this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Clames (Reply #58)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 09:18 PM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

62. Read Again!

Did you miss the part about ACCORDING TO YOU? The fact is that's all you have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #62)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 10:32 PM

Clames (2,038 posts)

70. You ever consider why the anti-gunners keep losing...

...is because people like you are on their side? No? Well you should...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Clames (Reply #70)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 10:59 PM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

73. LOSING?

Keep telling yourself that!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #73)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 01:15 AM

Clames (2,038 posts)

89. Yes, losing.

How many laws has your side gotten passed this year? Last 10 years? The expired AWB you all keep clinging to and hoping will be resurrected? Laughable. All one has to do is look at the map of states that have passed CCW permitting laws. 49/50 now and that last one is just a matter of time. Yes indeed, ya'll are losing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Clames (Reply #89)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 01:29 AM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

93. My Side?

What 'side' is that? LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Clames (Reply #14)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 02:39 AM

merrily (964 posts)

96. Does he serve on the SCOTUS?

Whatever you think of his opinion, he is not ignorant about laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to merrily (Reply #96)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 07:22 PM

Clames (2,038 posts)

125. Past tense...you missed it.

And yes, he is extremely ignorant about particular laws pertaining to this subject since he obviously didn't know that automatic weapons are heavily regulated by laws that are decades old. You should research the topic yourself all things considered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 09:27 PM

ileus (9,197 posts)

15. Tee Hee Hee.....someone thinks automatic weapons were used in VA,Co, and Az.

what a dumbass...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ileus (Reply #15)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 02:57 AM

merrily (964 posts)

98. That's the main issue about VA, CO and AZ, which type weapon was used?

Stevens dead will be smarter than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 09:37 PM

jbgood1977 (91 posts)

16. Didn't Heller cite the M-16 as being particularly suited to militia service/duty?

The M-16 is a true assault rifle being able to shoot semi or full auto.

I guess there is a reason that Stevens is retired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jbgood1977 (Reply #16)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 10:03 PM

derby378 (28,478 posts)

69. A chicken in every pot and an M4 in every garage

I can see it now - but can I get mine in 6.8SPC for that extra "reach out and touch someone" factor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to derby378 (Reply #69)

Mon Oct 29, 2012, 12:20 AM

jbgood1977 (91 posts)

129. I really did LOL at that. But, in all seriousness

I believe that an argument could be made that the Federal Government SHOULD provide a military rifle and ammo to every member of the un-organized militia.

I'm sure you know the 2A but how about this segment from Article 1, Section 8 that reads:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Last edited Sun Oct 28, 2012, 05:09 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

back in the old American west.

The whole thing at the OK Corral went down because of a city ordnance which prohibited anyone from carrying a gun and those coming into town had to check their guns in at the saloon. Even the day before the shootout, Earp pistol whipped Tom McLaury for concealed carry.

The other famous old west towns also prohibited firearm carry in their towns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to safeinOhio (Reply #24)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 07:42 AM

SecularMotion (3,143 posts)

26. Not sure if "legal" is the correct term here.

The right to bear arms is protected under the 2nd. The government has a duty to regulate individual ownership of lethal arms to insure public safety.

All weapons can be considered "legal", as long as the threshold is met for individual ownership. The threshold can range from a simple background check to a high level of government clearance for the most lethal weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Reply #26)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 11:47 AM

Eleanors38 (3,424 posts)

43. Where in the Constitution is the government given

Powers to regulate individual ownership to ensure public safety?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Reply #26)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 12:18 AM

Jenoch (1,628 posts)

75. "...to insure public safety"...

Do you mean like, with, State Farm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 08:33 AM

krispos42 (45,123 posts)

28. Does Stevens mean "auto-loading" weapons?

I.e., semi-automatic weapons?

Or does he mean machine guns?

If he's talking in reference to the Colorado massacres (Colombine and Aurora) then he wants to ban semi-automatic long and hand guns. I position that I can respect if not agree with, for it is far more logical than trying to ban "assault weapons".

If the latter, then he thinks the Aurora massacre was done with a machine gun, a fully-automatically-firing gun, and thus is grossly misinformed. And if his opinion is grossly misinformed, then it has no meaning and no weight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to krispos42 (Reply #28)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 09:09 AM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

30. He Means Exactly What He Said

He means exactly what he said:

....the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations permitting the ownership or the use of the sorts of the automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado, or Arizona in recent years.”

Bravo!!!!!!

...to bring about more deaths than the other two incidents combined?

You not only fail at obscurantism, the moralizing kinda fell flat as well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #54)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 09:36 PM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

66. Really?

That's your strategy?

Body count?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #66)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 01:10 AM

friendly_iconoclast (8,854 posts)

85. Better that than relying upon forcing spree killers to practice reloading.

Last edited Sun Oct 28, 2012, 01:21 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

As Virginia Tech showed, they can become murderously good at it

More security theater, promulgated by the cynical to be swallowed by the overly credulous...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #85)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 01:12 AM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

86. Right

...because practicing reloading never saves lives when you have an assault weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #86)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 01:15 AM

gejohnston (12,553 posts)

88. if you are the one with the rifle and people are shooting at you, yeah

but if that was the only weapon Holmes had, trying to clear a jam would have saved a lot of lives. Most of the carnage was with the shotgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #30)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 12:08 PM

krispos42 (45,123 posts)

45. Then he means nothing

Because he said nothing.

Automatic weapons were not used in Aurora, ergo what he wants to ban is non-existent. I assume the 2nd Amendment, or the rest of the Constitution for that matter, does not present an obstacle to banning catagories of things that don't exist.

I expect Congress to outlaw invisibility cloaks and time travel without constitutional challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to krispos42 (Reply #45)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 02:48 PM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

47. Right

As was pointed out in post 111

Automatic weapons were not used, those are tightly controlled. An automatic weapon is a select fire weapon or a machine gun, neither of which was used. In the CO. shooting, the semi auto AR-15 he used jammed because of the 100 rnd. mag which jammed after just a few rnds. fired, which those hi cap mags are prone to do, most of the damage was done with the shotgun.
In AZ, it was a semi auto hand gun and once again, it jammed because of the extended mag, which they are prone to do, in VA, Cho used a semi auto hand gun with several 10 rnd mags, he didn't have any hi cap mags.

THEY ARE NOT.

Someone else made that post not me! I specifically stated in my response to that poster...'ban of a ban (what ever that is)'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #63)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 01:19 AM

Clames (2,038 posts)

91. I'll use plain words (yours) and make this simple for you.

So I'm presuming that even if what you say is true.....you are calling for a ban of a ban of extended mags, which as this poster pointed out are prone to jamming?

Those words in bold are yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Clames (Reply #91)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 01:28 AM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

92. What A Joke

Here is what you wrote:

So I'm presuming that even if what you say is true.....you are calling for a ban of a ban of extended mags, which as this poster pointed out are prone to jamming? Those words in bold are yours.

Here is what I wrote in the post you responded to:

Do you like the sound of your own voice? Bet it makes good conversation.....for you! LOL. I'm sure you 'think' that a 'ban of a ban' (whatever that is) is not 'deliberately misrepresenting what other people state.'

Be sure to look at the bold text!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #92)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 01:36 PM

Clames (2,038 posts)

109. Wow, you deny that you said what you said...

...even when it is quoted back to youyou word for word. No wonder you have such a difficult time keeping up with these discussions with such a huge disconnect from reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Clames (Reply #109)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 01:45 PM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

110. Are You Just......

I ...now here is the hard part......QUOTED ......someone.......else.......using those word......and QUESTIONED ......what they meant. Do you understand that? So you see the quotation marks around those words? Do you see the words right after them where I question what the f@ck they mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #110)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 01:54 PM

Clames (2,038 posts)

113. No you didn't.

You did not directly quote anyone. If you, for some unfathomable reason, think you did then you need someone to teach you the difference between quoting and blatant misrepresentation. "ban of a ban" is what YOU said and nobody else. Very simple, please keep up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Clames (Reply #113)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 02:07 PM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

115. It's pointless

Do you not recall first using that phrase? Let me remind you AGAIN

Here is what you wrote:

YOU: So I'm presuming that even if what you say is true.....you are calling for a ban of a ban of extended mags, which as this poster pointed out are prone to jamming? Those words in bold are yours.

I highlight the words you FIRST used to help you.

Now, here is what I wrote in the post you responded to:

ME IN RESPONSE: Do you like the sound of your own voice? Bet it makes good conversation.....for you! LOL. I'm sure you 'think' that a 'ban of a ban' (whatever that is) is not 'deliberately misrepresenting what other people state.'

Be sure to look at the bold text! NOW....here is the test. It's a hard one:

Who used the words ban of a ban first. Was it you or me?

HINT: THE ANSWER IS YOU

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #115)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 03:05 PM

Clames (2,038 posts)

117. What a riot...

...you seem to have problems with not only simple written words but also temporal relationships. Laughable....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Clames (Reply #117)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 04:44 PM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

119. What a riot...

...you seem to have problems with not only simple written words but also temporal relationships. Laughable....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #119)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 12:24 AM

Straw Man (2,202 posts)

143. Here's what you said and where you said it.

Last edited Thu Nov 1, 2012, 12:40 AM USA/ET - Edit history (5)

So I'm presuming that even if what you say is true.....you are calling for a ban of a ban of extended mags, which as this poster pointed out are prone to jamming? --Sat Oct 27, 2012, 02:48 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=82276

This was the first mention of a "a ban of a ban" on this thread. You were not quoting anyone. That came later, when you quoted someone who was using your own words and asking you what you meant by them.

A ban of a ban?

Most sensible thing you've stated here yet. Ban people from enacting stupid bans is a good way to go. But no, he is not calling for a ban on anything. Deliberately misrepresenting what other people state shows you are not interested in actual discussion of this topic. --Sat Oct 27, 2012, 07:31 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=82383

Please note the time stamp. You are mistaken. If you can't acknowledge that, then one can only conclude that you are engaging in deliberate deceit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Straw Man (Reply #143)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 12:39 AM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

144. Are we back to this?

You do know that when I say 'you are calling for a ban of a ban,' the YOU means I am referring to someone else.

AND no, this was NOT the first mention....the poster who said that said it first.

So, let's spend another dozen posts for a few more nights bantering back and forth about how stupid each is rather than talking about guns. Grow up....or to be specific....YOU grow up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #144)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 12:43 AM

Straw Man (2,202 posts)

145. Yes, we are.

Please link to the person who "said it first." I contend that you are either mistaken or lying. Here's your chance to prove me wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Straw Man (Reply #145)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 12:49 AM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

146. Already done

YOU......go back and look again. There must be dozens of posts for YOU to search. I've already done that and you simply blew me off. Not going through that again. You didn't apologize then and I'm not doing it again just because you have called me mistaken or a liar.

'I contend that you are either mistaken or lying. Here's your chance to prove me wrong.'

Oh, Nevermind....I could care less what you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #146)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 01:02 AM

Straw Man (2,202 posts)

147. No, not done.

Last edited Thu Nov 1, 2012, 01:03 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

I did go back and look, and I reported what I found. The first reference to "a ban of a ban" was yours, and I provided a link to the post. I didn't "blow you off" -- I proved you wrong. There's a difference. I have nothing to apologize for.

It's not what I think; it's what the evidence proves. The time stamps don't lie; you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Straw Man (Reply #147)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 01:09 AM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

148. YAWN

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #148)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 01:16 AM

Straw Man (2,202 posts)

149. Yes, you can go back to sleep now.

Dismissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 09:11 AM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

31. BRAVO

Go Stevens: Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for Congress to tighten gun laws in the wake of shootings such as the one that took place in Aurora, Colorado.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #31)

jbgood1977 This message was self-deleted by its author.

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 10:40 AM

aikoaiko (16,539 posts)

38. Gun control is founded on ignorance and fear. Justice Stevens is case in point.

Very fuckin pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to aikoaiko (Reply #38)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 11:50 AM

Eleanors38 (3,424 posts)

I wrote

Fear of personal harm, fear of others, fear of the government, fear of enemies, fear of theft and crime. Some of that may be reasonable and appropriate but please don't .....how did you say it....fuckin say gun control is based on fear and ignorance without putting a mirror to your face

.

You write:

You act surprisingly ignorant of the fact that pro-RKBA folks have explicitly own those reasons for keeping and possessing firearms, and that pro-gun control crowd often attempts to belittle gun owners for their reasons. Oh yes, we've heard all about our fears.

You like the word idiotic....don't you?

I support the AWB. Do you have an 'idiotic' ....'personal problem' with that or just your dislike of me? Oh, nevermind....it 's both and both are your problem....not mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #116)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 03:07 PM

Clames (2,038 posts)

118. That word applies to most anti-gunner positions.

That is just one of their problems...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Clames (Reply #118)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 04:46 PM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

120. Yawn

Last edited Sun Oct 28, 2012, 05:01 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Let's take it back to the top

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=81983

Go Justice Stevens!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #120)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 04:54 PM

Clames (2,038 posts)

121. Yawn

Snork...

Read and Learn:

Excuse me for laughing but that is exactly the reason, in my opinion, gun owners have guns. Fear of personal harm, fear of others, fear of the government, fear of enemies, fear of theft and crime. Some of that may be reasonable and appropriate but please don't .....how did you say it....fuckin say gun control is based on fear and ignorance without putting a mirror to your face.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=82294

Ready to apologize?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #90)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 06:50 PM

Jenoch (1,628 posts)

123. Naw. I see more fear

from the gun control crowd. You are AFRAID of guns. Every anti-gun person I know is afraid of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Jenoch (Reply #123)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 07:00 PM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

124. Hardly

I'm not silly enough to think a gun keeps you safe. That's not fear. That's just reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #124)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 08:10 PM

Jenoch (1,628 posts)

126. I thought we were discussing fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to aikoaiko (Reply #38)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 07:41 PM

Starboard Tack (7,940 posts)

60. Fear is a healthy emotion. Helps us survive.

Do you think those who advocate for gun control are more fearful than those who are afraid to go to a church without their guns? I've never encountered a gun control advocate who is so afraid that they feel the need to carry. Maybe the difference is that those who want fewer guns in the public arena are actually afraid for society, while those who carry are just afraid for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #60)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 08:26 PM

aikoaiko (16,539 posts)

61. Yes, I agree that fear can help us survive.

I have never met a someone who said they wouldn't go to church because they couldn't carry a firearm. Have you? I have only known people who claim it should be up to the churches to decide if carry is appropriate on their property.

You say you have never met a gun control advocate who is so afraid that they feel the need to carry. I don't know what SafeinOhio's motives are (fear or otherwise), but he carries a firemarm and he advocates for more restrictive gun control.

You say that maybe the difference is that those who want fewer guns in the public arena are actually afraid for society, while those who carry are just afraid for themselves. What a strange things to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #60)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 09:43 PM

fightthegoodfightnow (7,042 posts)

67. BRAVO

Let's highlight what you wrote and give it consideration

' I've never encountered a gun control advocate who is so afraid that they feel the need to carry.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #60)

Sat Oct 27, 2012, 09:57 PM

gejohnston (12,553 posts)

68. there is a story about Thomas Dodd

while sponsoring various bills that became the Gun Control Act, (he was also active in banning LSD) himself illegally carried a .25 ACP pistol because he was afraid of the hippies that hung out in Georgetown. True or urban legend? Don't know either way.

Some of the gun control advocates around here seem fearful of living in places with laxer gun laws, even though those places are statistically safer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to gejohnston (Reply #68)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 03:08 AM

merrily (964 posts)

101. What is posting a rumor supposed to accomplish?

Let's even assume it's true. What would that prove about the Second Amendment? Or anything else, for that matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to merrily (Reply #101)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 03:13 AM

gejohnston (12,553 posts)

Last edited Tue Oct 30, 2012, 04:37 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

...and especially those that conceal carry. Astounding level of ignorance you continue to display on this topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #134)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 12:30 PM

hack89 (21,223 posts)

151. So we have to conform to the values of the majority?

how else do you determine what "society" does or requires?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to hack89 (Reply #151)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:27 PM

Starboard Tack (7,940 posts)

152. I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion.

The values of society are constantly changing, as can be seen by the acceptance of same sex marriage in recent years. My pointing out the selfishness of carrying a gun around does not mean you have to conform to the values of the majority. In fact you don't have to do anything. My hope is that those who engage in such behavior might take a moment out to contemplate and rethink. That's all.
Who knows, maybe in a few years everyone will be carrying guns around and people like me won't find it so outlandish anymore. Maybe we'll all be happy living in a constant state of paranoia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #152)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 07:33 PM

hack89 (21,223 posts)

153. So how does me carrying guns endanger society?

In 25 years I have never hurt or even scared anyone. Society as whole has been completely oblivious.

Besides, society would not blink an eye if a violent criminal was to attack and kill me. The police would hopefully arrest and incarcerated my killer but society as a whole would be oblivious. So it is not selfish to assume some responsibility to protect myself and my family - no one else will do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to hack89 (Reply #153)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 01:25 PM

Starboard Tack (7,940 posts)

156. That's a question only you can answer?

It's the same as the guy who says he's been having an affair for 25 years, but his wife is oblivious, so no harm done. If that's the kind of life you're comfortable living, then good luck to you. It isn't the kind of marriage, nor the kind of society I would want to be part of. One based on deception. Not that I am opposed to deception, which is called for at times, in everyone's life, but adopting it as a lifestyle doesn't seem very healthy, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #156)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 01:39 PM

hack89 (21,223 posts)

I guess that's why we're debating it,

Last edited Sat Nov 3, 2012, 09:47 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Last edited Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:35 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Secondly, there is nothing progressive about it. Au contraire.
Thirdly, I have no fears, biases or prejudices regarding civil rights.
Fourthly, do you really need stats to understand how foolish it is to carry a loaded gun around in public? Most of us learned that in grade school. Because something may be legal does not make it wise.

You remind me of a man who has been walking through the desert for 25 years. He wears a poncho and carries a pistol. When asked why he carries these items in a desert where it doesn't rain and there are no other people, he responds "Well, what if it rains? How else would I keep my gun dry?"

Do you ever wonder how the rest of us manage to survive in this stormy sea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #187)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 09:45 PM

hack89 (21,223 posts)

unless you really think that everything in my life has to be an open book for all to see.

I carry sometimes carry a gun in public. It represents no danger to public safety. That should be the end of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #60)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 12:45 AM

Jenoch (1,628 posts)

76. Did you encounter

these 'gun control advocates' in Manchester, UK or in the United States?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Jenoch (Reply #76)

Tue Oct 30, 2012, 12:41 PM

Starboard Tack (7,940 posts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 03:26 PM

Tuesday Afternoon (43,794 posts)

170. Congress? State not federal. am I misunderstanding something or did he misspeak?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:56 AM

freedomboogie (14 posts)

212. "Militia"

Period. End of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:41 PM

AtheistCrusader (14,151 posts)

214. Nice to see that your average counterstrike playing 10 year old knows more about firearms

than a Supreme Court Justice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

219 replies	Author	Time	Post
Justice Stevens: Second Amendment is ‘no obstacle’ to banning automatic weapons (Original post)	SecularMotion	Oct 2012	OP
Which automatic weapons were those?	Oneka	Oct 2012	#1
you know...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Oct 2012	#3
Stevens is 92 and undoubtedly confused about a few things. He even saw Babe Ruth hit his 1932	AnotherMcIntosh	Nov 2012	#219
the second amendment	veganlush	Oct 2012	#2
All the amendments are irrelevant...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Oct 2012	#5
Cite to authority? n/t	PavePusher	Oct 2012	#9
Might be true if..	pipoman	Oct 2012	#20
since the part about	veganlush	Oct 2012	#21
where does it say that?	gejohnston	Oct 2012	#22
what was the purpose	veganlush	Oct 2012	#27
The "militia clause" was put into the Second because the	Eleanors38	Oct 2012	#41
Define 'well regulated' please.	Francis Marion	Oct 2012	#46
You should think about it.	Clames	Oct 2012	#56
Regulated = equipped.	AtheistCrusader	Nov 2012	#215
The whole militia phrase has been	pipoman	Oct 2012	#23
so they said	veganlush	Oct 2012	#29
"Well regulated"	pipoman	Oct 2012	#36
Regulated = equipped.	AtheistCrusader	Nov 2012	#216
Why not just leave out the reference to the militia?	merrily	Oct 2012	#100
I believe	pipoman	Oct 2012	#106
Because we arent supposed to have a standing army.	AtheistCrusader	Nov 2012	#217
Dangerous?	Chuckyoufarly	Oct 2012	#4
Actually, rifles of ALL types account for -3% of homicides; shotguns	Eleanors38	Oct 2012	#42
actually he is wrong	gejohnston	Oct 2012	#6
One of the big problems with Miller regarding SBS	ManiacJoe	Oct 2012	#17
Obvious problems, here...	Eleanors38	Oct 2012	#7
when I first read Miller,	gejohnston	Oct 2012	#8
I as well. Which is why the gun-controllers best leave sleeping dogs lie. nt	Eleanors38	Oct 2012	#11
Stevens is either a fucking moron, or no longer mentally competent for his job. n/t	PavePusher	Oct 2012	#10
Naww, he just wanted to collect his speaking fee and	gejohnston	Oct 2012	#12
What is his job now?	merrily	Oct 2012	#95
Automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings	glacierbay	Oct 2012	#13
It's a wonder how someone so ignorant about existing laws...	Clames	Oct 2012	#14
Such is the ENTIRE Argument for Your Position	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#33
Well, at least you seem to have come to terms with your problems.	Clames	Oct 2012	#58
Read Again!	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#62
You ever consider why the anti-gunners keep losing...	Clames	Oct 2012	#70
LOSING?	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#73
Yes, losing.	Clames	Oct 2012	#89
My Side?	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#93
Does he serve on the SCOTUS?	merrily	Oct 2012	#96
Past tense...you missed it.	Clames	Oct 2012	#125
Tee Hee Hee.....someone thinks automatic weapons were used in VA,Co, and Az.	ileus	Oct 2012	#15
That's the main issue about VA, CO and AZ, which type weapon was used?	merrily	Oct 2012	#98
Didn't Heller cite the M-16 as being particularly suited to militia service/duty?	jbgood1977	Oct 2012	#16
A chicken in every pot and an M4 in every garage	derby378	Oct 2012	#69
I really did LOL at that. But, in all seriousness	jbgood1977	Oct 2012	#129
Careful now....	PavePusher	Oct 2012	#131
I'd like to see how that shakes out myself	derby378	Oct 2012	#132
Did it? Why not give us the direct quote from the Heller opinion?	merrily	Oct 2012	#99
LOL!!	jbgood1977	Oct 2012	#127
The same POS that decided your property rights are meangingless...	-..__...	Oct 2012	#18
As you know, mostly Republican appointees decided the Kelo case.	merrily	Oct 2012	#97
If he said that, he is ignorant	pipoman	Oct 2012	#19
Wouldn't any weapon be legal under the 2nd, along	safeinOhio	Oct 2012	#24
I agree ...	holdencaufield	Oct 2012	#25
I'm Sure THAT'S what you think he had in mind!	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#32
It did work actually ...	holdencaufield	Oct 2012	#35
Historical Revisionism	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#37
That platform ...	holdencaufield	Oct 2012	#39
I don't think it will cost us the Presidency	glacierbay	Oct 2012	#40
Like so much of what you say	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#50
They had a lot tougher gun laws	JonLP24	Oct 2012	#105
Not sure if "legal" is the correct term here.	SecularMotion	Oct 2012	#26
Where in the Constitution is the government given	Eleanors38	Oct 2012	#43
"...to insure public safety"...	Jenoch	Oct 2012	#75
Does Stevens mean "auto-loading" weapons?	krispos42	Oct 2012	#28
He Means Exactly What He Said	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#30
Automatic weapons were not used in those shootings	glacierbay	Oct 2012	#34
What about	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#48
Hell	glacierbay	Oct 2012	#49
Well in those two cases ...	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#51
It probably did save some lives	glacierbay	Oct 2012	#52
You forgot the non-extended mags that were used in Virginia, and which helped...	friendly_iconoclast	Oct 2012	#54
Really?	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#66
Better that than relying upon forcing spree killers to practice reloading.	friendly_iconoclast	Oct 2012	#85
Right	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#86
if you are the one with the rifle and people are shooting at you, yeah	gejohnston	Oct 2012	#88
Then he means nothing	krispos42	Oct 2012	#45
Right	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#47
A ban of a ban?	Clames	Oct 2012	#59
Huh?	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#63
You are the person	Jenoch	Oct 2012	#79
Ban of a Ban?	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#83
These are your words:	Jenoch	Oct 2012	#87
NO	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#94
I'll use plain words (yours) and make this simple for you.	Clames	Oct 2012	#91
What A Joke	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#92
Wow, you deny that you said what you said...	Clames	Oct 2012	#109
Are You Just......	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#110
No you didn't.	Clames	Oct 2012	#113
It's pointless	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#115
What a riot...	Clames	Oct 2012	#117
What a riot...	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#119
Here's what you said and where you said it.	Straw Man	Nov 2012	#143
Are we back to this?	fightthegoodfightnow	Nov 2012	#144
Yes, we are.	Straw Man	Nov 2012	#145
Already done	fightthegoodfightnow	Nov 2012	#146
No, not done.	Straw Man	Nov 2012	#147
YAWN	fightthegoodfightnow	Nov 2012	#148
Yes, you can go back to sleep now.	Straw Man	Nov 2012	#149
BRAVO	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#31
This message was self-deleted by its author	jbgood1977	Nov 2012	#155
Gun control is founded on ignorance and fear. Justice Stevens is case in point.	aikoaiko	Oct 2012	#38
Actually, it is founded on multiple electronically created clapping hands.	Eleanors38	Oct 2012	#44
Fear?	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#53
You are free to fear anything (or nothing) at all. You are not free to make your fears...	friendly_iconoclast	Oct 2012	#55
NOT MY FEAR	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#65
Yes, fear.	aikoaiko	Oct 2012	#57
LET ME PUT IN BOLD	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#64
I am talking about more than you and your post.	aikoaiko	Oct 2012	#71
THEN SPEAK FOR YOURSELF	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#72
Let's see we have insults, swearing, difficulty with simple English,...	Clames	Oct 2012	#111
Try Taking a Position on	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#112
I have taken a position.	Clames	Oct 2012	#114
Personal Problem?	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#116
That word applies to most anti-gunner positions.	Clames	Oct 2012	#118
Yawn	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#120
Yawn	Clames	Oct 2012	#121
Actually,	Jenoch	Oct 2012	#77
Your Experience	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#78
So you really think	Jenoch	Oct 2012	#80
Didn't Say That	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#81
This is your initial response>	Jenoch	Oct 2012	#84
Here You Go	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#90
Naw. I see more fear	Jenoch	Oct 2012	#123
Hardly	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#124
I thought we were discussing fear.	Jenoch	Oct 2012	#126
Fear is a healthy emotion. Helps us survive.	Starboard Tack	Oct 2012	#60
Yes, I agree that fear can help us survive.	aikoaiko	Oct 2012	#61
BRAVO	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#67
there is a story about Thomas Dodd	gejohnston	Oct 2012	#68
What is posting a rumor supposed to accomplish?	merrily	Oct 2012	#101
the point was fear, and maybe hypocrisy.	gejohnston	Oct 2012	#103
"statistically safer", like every other western democracy?	Starboard Tack	Oct 2012	#133
US problem is concentrated in a few cities	gejohnston	Oct 2012	#136
Very true, but I'd rather be in Toronto, regardless.	Starboard Tack	Oct 2012	#137
they don't have the inequality of wealth either	gejohnston	Oct 2012	#138
Have you lived in the	Jenoch	Oct 2012	#139
Since Carter was in the White House	Starboard Tack	Oct 2012	#140
You chose to answer that question.	Clames	Oct 2012	#141
Being aware and prepared also help.	ileus	Oct 2012	#74
They carry because they care about themselves, not society.	Starboard Tack	Oct 2012	#134
Waaaah...	Clames	Oct 2012	#142
You're a veritable local hero and so modest.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#150
Has everything to do with how you know fuck all about gun owners...	Clames	Nov 2012	#154
So we have to conform to the values of the majority?	hack89	Nov 2012	#151
I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#152
So how does me carrying guns endanger society?	hack89	Nov 2012	#153
That's a question only you can answer?	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#156
I agree with you that open carry is a more honest policy but it is not a choice right now. nt	hack89	Nov 2012	#157
That's good. We agree on something.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#160
But CCW is not inherently dishonest	hack89	Nov 2012	#161
It is legal, but whether it is inherently dishonest is debatable.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#162
cheating on the wife and carry concealed is a false equivalence	gejohnston	Nov 2012	#163
You make a valid point	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#165
mostly because	gejohnston	Nov 2012	#166
I don't see concealed carry as a hobby/sport.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#171
I'm saying they are sport shooters since childhood who decided to carry	gejohnston	Nov 2012	#172
It wasn't sexist. I said "in general" and the exception often proves the rule.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#173
conflict resolution is different than	gejohnston	Nov 2012	#175
I fail to see any harm.	hack89	Nov 2012	#164
Again, I have nothing against gun owners.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#169
When that mistrust is based on emotions and ignorance	hack89	Nov 2012	#174
Who's asking you to give up a civil liberty?	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#176
the laws banning concealed carry before they were changed	gejohnston	Nov 2012	#178
Wanna be specific?	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#180
Bearing arms is a civil.liberty	hack89	Nov 2012	#183
And where am I asking you to give that up?	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#186
CCW does not represent a threat to public safety	hack89	Nov 2012	#188
There you go again, just when you seemed to thinking freely	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#191
The only thing that matters is people shot, hurt or killed.	hack89	Nov 2012	#192
Can you show that CCW has resulted in more shootings and deaths?	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#193
So you can't show an increase in deaths due to CCW?	hack89	Nov 2012	#194
OK, let me get this straight	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#197
Our society is steadily getting less violent and more safe	hack89	Nov 2012	#199
"Moral panic such as yours is not grounds to restrict civil liberties."	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#200
You refuse to present any facts or evidence	hack89	Nov 2012	#201
Concealed carry is not a civil liberty.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#202
And yet here we are with historically low levels of gun violence	hack89	Nov 2012	#203
I couldn't imagine being more relaxed.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#204
Please don't change the subject.	hack89	Nov 2012	#205
There is no point. It neither increases nor decreases the numbers.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#206
So it is bad just because it is bad?	hack89	Nov 2012	#207
Doesn't offend my sensibilities, nor do I suggest banning it.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#208
OK nt	hack89	Nov 2012	#209
who was it that said something about grainy youtube videos	gejohnston	Nov 2012	#195
I didn't watch any of them	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#198
In further response.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#196
Of course it is dishonest. You said yourself OC is more honest.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#167
Stop twisting my words.	hack89	Nov 2012	#177
It means less honest, as you said.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#179
So is your position that open carry should be the law of land?	hack89	Nov 2012	#181
This is my position	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#182
As a progressive I reject the notion	hack89	Nov 2012	#184
Firstly, it is not a civil right to carry a concealed weapon.	Starboard Tack	Nov 2012	#187
I wonder why people like you feel compelled	hack89	Nov 2012	#189
I would call it a civil liberty	gejohnston	Nov 2012	#190
the problem with "demonstrable need"	gejohnston	Nov 2012	#185
There is no deception involved.	hack89	Nov 2012	#158
Did you encounter	Jenoch	Oct 2012	#76
United States	Starboard Tack	Oct 2012	#135
I think you have it all wrong.	Jenoch	Oct 2012	#82
Never have?	pipoman	Oct 2012	#107
Next time I make the mistake of following a link to the "gungeon,"	merrily	Oct 2012	#102
well, stick around long enough to read answers	gejohnston	Oct 2012	#104
Afraid of getting logical answers	pipoman	Oct 2012	#108
All you've done so far is claim that Stevens is smarter than everyone else....	PavePusher	Oct 2012	#122
It's LOOPY LOOP LAND	fightthegoodfightnow	Oct 2012	#128
what sound bites?	gejohnston	Oct 2012	#130
At the very least	jbgood1977	Nov 2012	#159
Let her go. This place is toxic.	Tuesday Afternoon	Nov 2012	#210
Yeah, I see what's taken place.	jbgood1977	Nov 2012	#211
You know, I was really hoping to have a bit of a discussion	jbgood1977	Nov 2012	#213
start a thread and see what happens --	Tuesday Afternoon	Nov 2012	#218
trash the group. problem solved.	Tuesday Afternoon	Nov 2012	#168
Congress? State not federal. am I misunderstanding something or did he misspeak?	Tuesday Afternoon	Nov 2012	#170
"Militia"	freedomboogie	Nov 2012	#212
Nice to see that your average counterstrike playing 10 year old knows more about firearms	AtheistCrusader	Nov 2012	#214