Reply #4

In the discussion thread: The Case for Gun Control - more facts about the Second Amendment [View all]

Thu Aug 9, 2012, 05:44 PM

TPaine7 (4,286 posts)

4. Bullshit.

The professor is misrepresenting at best and intentionally lying at worst. I think he's lying (or the author is misrepresenting his position.

History is not on the side of the anti-gun zealots, revisionism notwithstanding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=300206&mesg_id=300331

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

183 replies	Author	Time	Post
The Case for Gun Control - more facts about the Second Amendment [View all]	samsingh	Aug 2012	OP
Speaks to the intellectual dishonesty of this Court	COLGATE4	Aug 2012	#1
and the crap from Charlton Heston holding up his rifle	samsingh	Aug 2012	#3
You do realize that Charlton Heston was big civil rights supporter?	Equate	Aug 2012	#18
yeah like a 100 years ago. he changed badly.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#20
You couldn't be more wrong	Equate	Aug 2012	#28
only if they are well regulated.....	samsingh	Aug 2012	#31
Sorry	Equate	Aug 2012	#41
Please learn English grammar.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#42
the writing is clear - 'a well regulated militia .....'	samsingh	Aug 2012	#54
You left out this part	Equate	Aug 2012	#64
we need to be regulated though.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#96
there are gun regulations	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#100
something is clearly not working. i think some real openness on this issue is needed.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#104
You were asked a question, one that I would also like to hear the answer to.	oneshooter	Aug 2012	#110
I'd like to hear that answer as well. n/t	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#111
what part of: something is clearly not working. i think some real openness on this issue is needed.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#116
depends	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#128
nothing will eliminate it.	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#120
why does the US have more gun violence than other industrialized countries?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#121
I find the "industrialized" kind of cherry picking	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#134
my question is basic: "why does the US have more gun related deaths than any other industrialized	samsingh	Aug 2012	#131
basic question with no simple answer	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#136
we agree on that	samsingh	Aug 2012	#149
Regulated meant trained, not restricted back then. nt	rDigital	Aug 2012	#175
to regulate as in to make regular would still have the same meaning now as it did then --	Tuesday Afternoon	Aug 2012	#179
A dependent clause explains but does not filter the independent clause. Please learn English. N/T	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#81
i know English very well.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#97
you're trying to tell me that clause a does not impact clause b?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#99
English grammar lesson:	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#113
but the dependent clause is not the independent clause	samsingh	Aug 2012	#124
english grammar lesson CONTINUED	samsingh	Aug 2012	#150
Same lesson continued:	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#152
there can be no insurance payout without the accident. That's the point i'm trying to make.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#153
But your sentence didn't say that.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#162
Please diagram the sentence...	PavePusher	Aug 2012	#88
the sentence refers to a well-regulated militia. this cannot be separated from what follows	samsingh	Aug 2012	#98
but it means well equipped	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#102
In his dissent in Heller...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#106
There should have been a period and two distinct sentences	samsingh	Aug 2012	#107
It's not optional.	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#109
sounds revisionist to me.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#115
Ever use you right...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#117
why did you introduce the free speech on the internet into the discussion?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#123
To provide an example of a right...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#126
in the free speech example	samsingh	Aug 2012	#127
yes there are sensible boundaries	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#132
okay	samsingh	Aug 2012	#133
thanks for the well considered reply	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#135
Has there been a single	Jenoch	Aug 2012	#140
no, but it would be a red flag and provide an opportunity for prevention	samsingh	Aug 2012	#146
To prevent what,	Jenoch	Aug 2012	#182
you know reduce events like massacres, innocent people getting killed	samsingh	Aug 2012	#183
my replies	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#142
thanks for your reasonable answers.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#147
I have an issue...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#159
would you have...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#178
Some answers:	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#151
Actually, you can spread hate speech, but you can't incite to violence. N/T	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#139
and rightly so. but there is a limit.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#154
Where is that limit?	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#163
There is no ambiguity in the wording,	pipoman	Aug 2012	#176
Very good question. I've addressed this before.	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#177
his stance of civil rights never changed	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#29
How old are you? Maybe 17? n/t	PavePusher	Aug 2012	#87
wow - you guys get really insulting when someone questions your logic	samsingh	Aug 2012	#125
It speaks to the intellectual dishonesty of the professor or of the author of the OP's source. n/t	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#22
What pray tell is dishonest about what the professor says?	COLGATE4	Aug 2012	#155
First, let's be clear. I did not say that the professor was intellectually dishonest:	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#160
Good article	bongbong	Aug 2012	#2
it clearly does	samsingh	Aug 2012	#129
Bullshit.	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#4
i don't think so. you may not want to believe it, but this is true.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#6
No, it is a mishmash of misrepresentation and lies.	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#12
lies like those perpetuated by the NRA?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#16
Impressive rebuttal, but the NRA is beside the point of the post you answered. n/t	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#25
the post refers to changes in the 1970s which were definitely supported by the NRA	samsingh	Aug 2012	#30
Actually, post 12, the one you replied to, says nothing whatsoever about the 1970's	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#55
in the OP	samsingh	Aug 2012	#130
Read the post I linked to and make a cogent response and we can talk. n/t	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#14
why don't you do that with my post?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#19
There's very little substance, but OK.	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#50
how is it that everything that does not support your position is a lie. Burger lied?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#53
Standard for gun-relgionists	bongbong	Aug 2012	#62
No, I wasn't saying that Burger lied. He may have simply been misinformed.	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#70
For a true perspective from an intellectual committed to freedom...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#75
i know history as well. It seems to me that you're using observations as facts when they	samsingh	Aug 2012	#101
how much history do you know?	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#103
University level American History, European History, Russian History.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#105
Russian history,	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#137
I know why!	bongbong	Aug 2012	#158
you obviously missed the point	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#166
I got the point	bongbong	Aug 2012	#167
First, I don't doubt that you know history. You may very well know more history than I do.	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#165
Thje 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments....	Adrahil	Aug 2012	#180
LOL. "The professor is misrepresenting". Boy if I had a nickel... nt	DanTex	Aug 2012	#36
Lying again?	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#79
Georgia banned handguns and concealed carry	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#5
so overturning it again would be fine then.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#7
no, because it was based on the second amendment	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#11
in that case	samsingh	Aug 2012	#13
because the collective right theory did not exist	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#23
My problem with the state of things is that the NRA will not.......	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#8
i'd be fine with that - but the NRA will not be.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#9
good point, but	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#17
you are so wrong. first off, who's asking for prohibition? i'm not.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#27
And there is the rub. The NRA believes more guns are the answer.	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#33
Most of the money comes from members.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#37
NRA backers	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#44
And they receive even more millions from members.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#48
once a year	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#43
OK, what are you asking for then? Please be specific. NT	Trunk Monkey	Aug 2012	#92
Exactly my point. You are afraid to discuss it because.....	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#32
Nobody is stopping anything from being debated.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#40
you didn't read it closely did you?	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#67
If you want pro-2nd	Missycim	Aug 2012	#144
How about national concealed carry permit reciprocity	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#156
no rocket launcher please	Missycim	Aug 2012	#157
Rocket launchers are legal, it is the rockets that are controlled.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#164
That's because what you are asking for is impossible.	Atypical Liberal	Aug 2012	#47
its a joke to think that armed civilians can stop any nation powerful enough to defeat the US	samsingh	Aug 2012	#51
Really?	Atypical Liberal	Aug 2012	#118
very circular logic - you stated the purpose was to protect against foreign aggressors.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#122
Foreign and domestic.	Atypical Liberal	Aug 2012	#145
Maybe a reasonable solution is to set up a televised national commission, of sorts, to	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#72
you make sense but I must correct one thing	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#77
For want of calling them fashionable pretend military style hunting/target rifles. n/t	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#78
If by discussion you mean legislation that bans some firearms and/or their accessories, then	aikoaiko	Aug 2012	#82
If I understand you right. You want preconditions before...	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#89
I would be open to a televised discussion	Equate	Aug 2012	#93
I think, knowing that they were being televised, they would....	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#108
What I would like is for discussion to happen before Shumer tacked on a magazine ban to a bill.	aikoaiko	Aug 2012	#95
I wouldn't discuss it at all	Missycim	Aug 2012	#143
And yet Constitutional scholors like Lawrence Tribe disagrees with	Equate	Aug 2012	#10
Like those who supported the elimination of other civil liberties	aikoaiko	Aug 2012	#15
i don't think so.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#21
The proof is in the pudding	Equate	Aug 2012	#34
"losing side of history"	DanTex	Aug 2012	#45
I really don't care what other nations think of our 2A	Equate	Aug 2012	#46
Yes, that was my point.	DanTex	Aug 2012	#49
Nice job putting words in my mouth.	Equate	Aug 2012	#61
Religion	bongbong	Aug 2012	#65
I was wondering if...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#66
OK!	bongbong	Aug 2012	#168
I thought you would...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#170
Learn to read	bongbong	Aug 2012	#172
right	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#173
Yes	bongbong	Aug 2012	#174
Whatever you say	Equate	Aug 2012	#69
LOL	bongbong	Aug 2012	#90
There are fledgling gun-right organizations and movements in other countries.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#52
Yeah, but they don't make any progress, and one major reason for that is the US.	DanTex	Aug 2012	#63
They are new, and growing.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#83
That's only part of the picture.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#24
wanting gun laws and sane gun control does not make one anti-gun	samsingh	Aug 2012	#26
"Sane gun control" is code for gun prohibition.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#35
that's such an emotional over-reaction.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#56
Actually, the city supported by the Brady Campaign and numerous anti-gun groups and luminaries	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#74
Experience, not emotion. I gave you the example of HR 1022.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#84
As opposed to Pro-Choice?	rDigital	Aug 2012	#38
as long as you don't infringe on my personal safety by supporting a culture that allows maniacs to	samsingh	Aug 2012	#58
Your straw-man's on fire	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#60
We already have a plethoria of gun laws	Equate	Aug 2012	#39
i guess we need more because they're not working	samsingh	Aug 2012	#59
they're not working because they're not enforced	Equate	Aug 2012	#68
BTW....	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#71
I knew Justice Stevens did	Equate	Aug 2012	#73
You're very welcome	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#76
Stevens agrees 2nd is individual right? Not exactly.	russ1943	Aug 2012	#161
The actual language used by Stevens in his dissent can be found here:	AnotherMcIntosh	Aug 2012	#171
Gun violence has been decreasing for the past 18 years.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#85
The 2A grants nothing. Article is fundamentally flawed.	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#57
Because Strict Gun Laws Work SO Well in Chicago and NYC...	liberallibral	Aug 2012	#80
Wow!	bongbong	Aug 2012	#91
it actually makes me want to cry - yes, we starting bailing water when the boat was	samsingh	Aug 2012	#119
So what is the author Fareed Zakaria's recommendation? Call people un-American and insult them?	AnotherMcIntosh	Aug 2012	#86
why don't you ask him?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#112
Earlier, when you were asked about your age, you said (#125) "actualy 17 is a compliment."	AnotherMcIntosh	Aug 2012	#138
Never give up basic human rights...	ileus	Aug 2012	#94
yes trivialize death	samsingh	Aug 2012	#114
There is no Constitutional protection	xxenderwigginxx	Aug 2012	#141
there are many debates going about what the constitution protects and does not protect.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#148
hey... why not make cars illegal?	Adrahil	Aug 2012	#181
It now turns out that the author is accused of related plagerism and has "apologized profusely for	AnotherMcIntosh	Aug 2012	#169

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.