HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » appal_jack » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: North Carolina
Member since: Wed Aug 11, 2004, 06:57 PM
Number of posts: 3,813

Journal Archives

Regardless, 'regulated' applies to the militia, not the arms.

In the 2nd Amendment, the word 'regulated' applies to the militia, not the arms. While I may not go quite as far as Mr. Pratt, I find his commitment to upholding this particular Constitutional liberty refreshing.

And before anyone goes and calls me a rw troll or one-issue gun nut; I feel that we Americans should be similarly steadfast in standing up for the rights to speech, privacy, habeus corpus, equal protection, etc.


ZOMG! People who sell things want to keep doing so!

ZOMG! People who sell things want to keep doing so!

Why, exactly, should the gun industry not support the NRA &/or other 2nd Amendment organizations? As a Democrat, I hate how the NRA has climbed into bed with the right wing fringe (and therefore I am not a member of the NRA myself). I would rather that there be some pro-rights groups that welcome all supporters of the full Bill of Rights powerful enough to speak on the national stage. But there isn't at present. Too many Democrats are trashing the 2nd Amendment right now, so of course industry forces are standing up via the NRA, and thus aligning themselves with Repubs. Hopefully, we pro-BoR & pro-RKBA Democrats can develop a voice and organizational framework of our own over time, so that this sentiment is no longer monopolized by the right.


If the Republicans sweep 2014...

If the Republicans sweep 2014 (a possibility I recoil against - I am a pro-RKBA, pro-choice, pro-speech, pro-privacy, pro-liberty Democrat), I'll be sure to remind you about these contemptuous words. Methinks that your 'strategy' for garnering a majority is flawed at best. Arrogance & hostility are rarely good recruiting traits.


I support the vigorous exercise of all rights...

I support the vigorous exercise of all the rights enumerated in all ten amendments. Does this make me a good liberal (after all, I am pro-choice, pro-speech, pro-privacy, pro-trial-by-jury, etc.) or does tnis make me an eeee-vul gun nut (because I also support the Second Amendment)?

It's not that complicated: I simply believe that our Constitution and nation both are strengthened when we choose to interpret each right as broadly & vigorously (i.e.-'liberally') as possible. Why would any self-respecting liberal have a problem with this?


Do those blinders make you less nervous in traffic?

Only the willfully ignorant pretend that there is some inviolable wall between science, economics, and the social lives of people. Scientists (and all people) have biases, money talks, and we humans have to live among the results.

If the environmental science program you lead pretends that science exists in one sphere, and economics and social pressures exist in entirely separate fields, it is a poor program, doing a disservice to its students.

And, ON-Edit: any comprehensive examination of the science of GMO's would show that just a few of their negative primary impacts have been to make the pollen and root exudates of Bt-engineered plants toxic to non-target lepidopterans, thus reducing the efficacy of Bt as an organic pest control while harming beneficials including some important pollinators. Additionally, the engineering of various herbicide-resistance into crop plants has caused chemical usage to skyrocket, increasing water pollution and damaging soil life.

2nd Edit: I have been active in or at least cognizant of the anti-GMO movement for at least as long as this guy, and I've never heard of him before now. Who is he and why should I care about his sudden epiphany? Without touching a search engine or other reference, I can name the people who have really started and sustained this movement: Mae Wan Ho (Institute of Science in Society), Peter Montague (Rachel's Health & Environment Weekly), Vandana Shiva (too much to name), D. Samuel Epstein (same), Dr. Alfred Putszai (can't be sure of the spelling - I really am doing this without a reference).

These people have only deepened their resistance to GMO's as their knowledge of and experience with GMO's has grown.


Yes, mis-informed & ahistorical.

The 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' analogy was employed by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes regarding a case about socialists printing anti-draft literature during WW 1. It is purely a Twentieth Century limitation on the First Amendment, and in retrospect, a gross over-reaction to a phenomenon that presented no imminent, existential danger to the USA.

Even Holmes himself sought to dial-back the restrictions he had unleashed upon the 1st Amendment later in his career, but that genie was out of the bottle by then. Like too many abrogations of 'inalienable' rights, We the People lost out.

The cartoonist thus inadvertently makes a point on behalf us pro-2nd-Amendment folks: an unnecessary further restriction on the types of firearms and magazines that can be kept by peaceable citizens will inevitably diminish the liberty enjoyed by us all in the long run.


Well, that escalated quickly...

So I post about how we Democrats might ought to try and be more united about protecting all our rights, and you practically wet your pants with glee about some prospective future tyrannical government annihilating me and my family with drone-launched Hellfire missiles.

Nice, real nice.

Glad we can really be team players around here.

I suppose I'll be able to derive some satisfaction from the fact that while it will cost this possible tyrant $250,000 a pop to knock-off armed families such as mine, they'll be fine using some $20-an-hour rent-a-cop to put your sorry, unarmed ass onto a train to the labor camp. Be sure and stand smartly when they yell, "Papiere bitte!" Now, that's a good homelander.



Until violent crime is 0 and holding...

Until violent crime is 0 and holding, a responsible citizen may choose to procure tools for self-defense. You, Nadin, might be comfortable with low odds of criminal assault, but others might not like that risk.

Also, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that transcends any given needs. So even after violent crime descends to 0, citizens will have the right to Keep & Bear magazine-fed semi-automatic handguns and rifles for hunting, target-shooting, or the simple joys of collecting interesting machinery. For more than a century, magazine-fed semi-automatic firearms have been considered well within the Second Amendment's purview. The DU'ers I respect least at present are those among us who are pretending that a change to this scope of the RKBA can or should be done via simple legislative action. That is nonsense: abrogating the Second Amendment should require the full process of a Constitutional Amendment.

The gun-grabbers (yes, if you want to deny Americans' right to own the most popular highest-selling sporting arms of the past few decades you are advocating the grabbing of guns - own the term or change your stance...) know full well that a repeal of the Second Amendment will never fly in the USA. For that reason, we Democrats should be exploring other options besides magazine or firearm bans for enhanced security: better mental health care, increased security at vulnerable targets, etc. But an end-run around the Second Amendment is not an honorable course of action. At best, it will provide security theater to people ignorant of Constitutional principles and firearms technology both. It could very well also provoke a horrible backlash against Democrats during the Congressional mid-term elections. This is not an outcome that I, an avid DU'er, desire; nor should it be an outcome desired by any DU'er.


Nancy, keep SS cuts 'off the table.'

I'll get more actve in 2014 IF the elected Democrats stand firm now, keeping SS cuts 'off the table,' entirely. If we can't accomplish that while 'we' control the Presidency & the Senate (and have Pelosi's leadership at the helm of the minority in the House), what would a few more seats really accomplish?

I'm not calling for anythng radical; I just want to see my President, with the support of Pelosi & Reid, stand firm for a core Democratic program, one which contributes nothing to the Deficit.

If Democrats cut Social Security now, I will switch my affiliation to Independent, because the D's will have shown that they stand for nothing.


Time for Ireland to evolve away from this theocratic bullshit.

Maybe it's not my place to tell the Irish what to do.

But as someone who was raised in a half-Irish-American, way-too-Catholic family, I do feel confident to tell the Catholic Church that it needs to back the fuck away from the personal lives and decisions of women, and everyone else for that matter.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next »