Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
27. A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:15 PM
Jul 2012

Note: My previous comments are in italics, Atypical Liberal's responses are in bold

Private citizens have no, zip, zilch, nada use for automatic weapons.

The good news is we live in a free country where I don't have to satisfy someone's definition of "need" before I can buy something. Whether it is a boat, a camper, or a gun, I don't have to show anybody that I "need" it before I buy it.

Wholly unresponsive. Which means, I suppose, that Atypical Liberal agrees with me. And the purposes of boats and campers is not "killing people", which is the sole purpose of automatic weapons.

They can fulfill the intent of the amendment with bolt action rifles.

With the exception of sniper rifles, the modern infantry no longer uses these.

So what? We are speaking of civilians, not military.

Handguns have exactly two uses: Killing people and acting as penis substitutes for those who want to be macho but aren't well endowed. Police and the military have legitimate uses for them, no one else does.

Police and military use handguns to protect themselves. Why is it legitimate that they can do so but civilians cannot?

Civilians should not need to protect themselves. That's the job of the police. If you gun nuts didn't cry, "Oh, no, registering guns is too onerous. Having our penis substitutes is far more important than the safety of the general public!" you wouldn't talk about needing to protect oneself. No, the problem here is too many firearms, and the gun nuts' refusal to admit that reasonable restrictions should be placed on them.

The UN is having a conference on international trafficing in small arms. The NRA is making the hysterical -- and baseless -- claim that the treaty could "seriously restrict your freedom to own, purchase and carry a firearm."
(See http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/03/nra-kicks-off-un-arms-treaty-conference-with-fe/186926 for a write-up.) That's the typical reaction of the gun nut lobby.

Concealed Carry" is gun-nut speak for "penis substitute", and don't try to pretend it's not.

Again, this is a crock of shit. Are you saying that every woman with a concealed carry permit wishes they had a penis?

I don't know. I do not see any reason for concealed carry. If you can give me a better reason than "I need a penis substitute", then I'd be happy to hear it.

I will never support nor comply with registration of firearms.

Thereby demonstrating that "gun nut" is the proper name for you. Your penis substitute is more important than the safety of the general public.

well said DrDan Jul 2012 #1
I've poked around looking for early second amendment debate information. brewens Jul 2012 #2
I think Justice Stevens' Dissent in Heller is an excellent discussion of 2nd Amendment. Hoyt Jul 2012 #4
Let's hope, we need to win congress in Nov. that will help nt flamingdem Jul 2012 #5
Lots exists from the founders. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #8
I meant that there isn't all that much on specifically the second amendment. brewens Jul 2012 #12
Start with Wikipedia Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #15
within the context of a well-regulated state militia magical thyme Jul 2012 #30
But they have several erroneous points. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #32
their point is that the 2nd amendment is very specifically written to address magical thyme Jul 2012 #34
and the dissenters evaluation of the decision is also an interesting read magical thyme Jul 2012 #31
And Congress HAS regulated civilian uses of weapons. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #33
the 2nd amendment is about maintaining state militias magical thyme Jul 2012 #35
That is true. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #37
Fuck the NRA. I'll donate to any politician who publicly states russspeakeasy Jul 2012 #3
You realize the NRA supports Democrats, right? Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #7
Oh my, well in that case iamthebandfanman Jul 2012 #10
Yes, I realize that. That doesn't make the NRA any less despicable. russspeakeasy Jul 2012 #16
Good to know you think supporting Democrats is despicable. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #19
Hey, are you Ron Paul ? russspeakeasy Jul 2012 #20
I don't get it. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #22
K&R. Well said. Overseas Jul 2012 #6
Many errors in his video Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #9
Then the Assault Weapons Ban wasn't strong enough. Chorophyll Jul 2012 #11
+1000 gtar100 Jul 2012 #13
So how would you have changed it? Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #14
And the problem with that is? Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #17
The weapons shown are neither an AK-47 nor an M-1 carbine. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #18
OK, I don't know about those two specific weapons. Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #21
Ah the old "penis" canard. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #23
It's not a canard, it's a major reason why gun nuts collect guns. Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #24
Crock of shit. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #25
A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #27
A question for you. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #28
Latest Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #39
I notice you didn't answer my question: Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #40
Because it's a stupid question, which does not deserve answering Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #42
My question is no more stupid than your statement that prompted it. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #43
You are wrong, it is NOT the job of the Police... MicaelS Jul 2012 #41
well said. DCBob Jul 2012 #38
My guess meanit Jul 2012 #26
Exactly right. K&R! Rhiannon12866 Jul 2012 #29
remember how after 9/11 conservatives said the Constitution isn't a suicide pact? yurbud Jul 2012 #36
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Bill Moyers: "NRA tu...»Reply #27