Jump to content
Most of us don't believe Alex Jones and his tropes about prescription drugs, once we realize he's funded by Adnan Khashoggi, who also has a shady agenda:
Sorry, fellow Eric, just sayin'.
Plus, he went to Chico State...
/me ducks and covers
"no way for any 'Concealed Carry' citizen to take that wack-job out!"
Or increase the body count in the crossfire. Please whip out your cellphone and call 911, before firing a gun in a confused situation out of any gun-toting hero delusion you may harbor. Let the trained professionals respond, please.
Response to this post, two weeks later? Crickets, as expected.
Right. Criminals steal guns from honest citizens. Dishonest citizens knowingly sell guns to criminals. What I don't understand, is why it's a joke to try to distinguish the honest from the dishonest, via registration. Just like with vehicles. The best way to single out criminal perpetrators, is by ruling out the honest citizens who comply with the laws, IMNSHO.
Sorry, but what about people who have heart attacks driving, and plow into crowds of pedestrians? Don't make me google for links, we all know it's happened. Were those drivers violent? Or did their vehicles do the killing, because Physics?
Or how about all those red-blooded American gun-loving toddlers who've shot a friend or sibling while playing with unlocked (or locked, technically, don't nit-pick), loaded handguns? Did they mean to kill their playmates, because as human beings, only they could be violent, let's not go blaming the guns?
Or did those guns do the killing, because Physics?
That's why one of the biggest travesties of our modern bastardization of everything America once stood for, is the glorified system of legalized bribery we once called a Democratic Republic. Cash-and-Carry legislation is what lead to tort immunity for gunmakers, taking this exact issue out of the hands of We the People, because nobody who opposes the NRA stands a chance at getting elected, otherwise. Let Juries decide, i.e. citizens not corporations or special interests.
Special-interest politics may be the prevailing situation in the 21st century, but it sure as hell isn't one of our founding principles. Inanimate objects may not be violent, but they sure can kill, despite any intention on the part of anyone wielding/operating them. Why can't I blame the object, and those who make/irresponsibly-own them, again? I favor seatbelt laws, not helmet laws, because nobody who ever lost control of a motorcycle didn't recover it for not wearing a helmet, while seatbelts are exactly the opposite.
Good on the folks mentioned in the article, for reaching out via quilting. Notice two of the links for related stories here, are about quilting. Despite the fact that quilting needles are inherently dangerous despite the best of intentions on the part of the human beings wielding them, the fact of the matter is that mass-killing-by-quilting-needle hasn't begun to reach the epidemic levels of gun violence in this country.
Otherwise I'd think we should also do something about that, and why I think Chuck's opposition to reasonable snow-tire legislation on I-70 because it didn't also include Cowdrey, is more ideological than rational. Like most of the participants in this thread who oppose what even a plurality of gun owners find to be commonsense measures. We are our government, and can do whatever we feel is warranted, so long as it doesn't affect anyone's rights.
And I, as my comments show, I think the entire "militia" thing restricts the individual right of gun ownership, to a privilege, unless you're in the National Guard or something -- and even that's subject to debate, as unlike in Colonial times, members aren't expected to provide their own weapons in modern America.
Ah, but this is exactly what he's in favor of. Brian clearly favors the "insurrectionist" view of the Second Amendment, which, despite a lack of support in the writings of the Founders, he believes was written as some sort of defense against government.
Let's agree to that for a moment, and move on to the consequences. If owning a gun is an individual right of citizenship, like voting, then of course it shouldn't be taken away from anyone who commits a felony. Personally, I think even convicted felons should be allowed to vote (once released, after having paid their debt to society), because who better than they to vote on the very law they obviously disagreed with? If even rehabilitation doesn't change their mind, I'm willing to listen.
Whereas my view of the Second Amendment is that it's a collective right, meaning if you're convicted of a violent crime, I think it would be folly for society not to rescind your individual privilege of gun ownership. You're welcome to vote to change that, I just think you should expect an uphill battle.
Those who say they're in favor of gun ownership as an individual right, need to fess up that this also means they favor gun ownership for those convicted of violent, gun-related crime. Because even if they've abused that right in the past, it's still God-given, meaning government has no place to take it away... exactly what I believe about voting, because a vote not turning out the way someone wants has rarely gotten anyone killed in this country, with a few notable exceptions.
And that's where I have a problem with modern-day interpretations of the Second Amendment as somehow being in line with the views of Madison and Jefferson. You know they both voted in favor of a campus-wide gun ban at the University of Virginia, as trustees, after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified, right?
Um, to get your gun(s) back if stolen? Or at least deny complicity by reporting the theft, if used to commit a violent crime? Kinda exactly like your vehicle (also subject to theft and subsequent criminal use including homicide) registration/VIN?
How would that make things safer? By singling out irresponsible gun owners for ridicule, over not keeping their weapons secure, perhaps?
Both of whose replacements are about to come up for re-election, trailing by landslides in the latest polls.
The irony here, is that Tom's position interprets the Constitution by the modern meaning of the term "bear arms", which is exactly the sort of thing "living document" types love.
Whereas John is willing to concede the point of founders' intent due to the meaning of "bear arms" changing over time.
So the person arguing against living document is actually in favor of just that, while the person arguing against strict constructionism is actually in favor of just that.
What we need here is a constitutional lawyer, or something. I just get confused, and resort to the fact that in a Democratic Republic, either side can always get the law changed. Even a constitutional amendment, see Prohibition...
Nevermind. I will continue to stay out of this, else I'm a hypocrite for complaining about Wedel v. Oak Creek.
Last login: Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.