Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What The Hell Is Wrong With Donald Trump Supporters?
#61
(09-07-2016, 10:35 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 08:30 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 11:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The video mentioned three comments.  The first was the "second amendment" people comment.  Most of the crowd probably consider themselves second amendment supporters, so of course they cheer for the possibility of voting for someone who will preserve the second amendment.
Except there's no threat to the 2nd Amendment out there; perhaps a threat to the stupid, creepy Scalia/Heller interpretation of it. Even so, gun control is legal under Heller/Scalia too anyway.

I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit.  The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation.  The minoriity interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.

Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms.  That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.

And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever.  It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.

No, it would not "eliminate any individual right to bear arms."  As the four dissenting judges noted, it would instead impose limitations (no handguns and required trigger locks on  long guns) in the District of Columbia just as machine guns, bazookas, and ICBM ownership is limited.  These are exactly what states and localities should be able to limit or not, depending on their own community's  circumstances and culture.  If a community believes hand gun ownership deters crime, then it should have the right to allow such ownership; if a community believes otherwise, it should also be allowed to impose those limitations.  Same with trigger locks.  There will always be communities with free-wheeling gun allowance; you can vote with your feet and practice your 2nd Amendment Right.

The Clinton campaign is pushing gun control at a national level, which kind of eliminates the "vote with your feet" argument - not that it's okay to require people to move in the first place in order to have individual liberty.

A national ban on all guns will happen only when the zombie apocalypse happens, i.e., it will NEVER happen.  You all have been spewing that alarmist bullshXt for decades.

I'd like to see a national limitation on high capacity (more than 10 rounds) and high muzzle velocity (at least nothing over 2500ft/sec) weapons that are essentially military weapons platforms - that would leave most guns, by far, alone.  And the likelihood of such limitations is rather remote at the national level.  On the other hand, this should be an option for any state or locality to decide, and that includes "federal enclaves" like DC, which is what Heller might preclude.

My hunting days (i.e. real hunting involving dragging several hundred pound carcasses out) are now officially over according to my spousal unit.  But that doesn't change the fact that they'd still would have to pull my prized hunting rifles from my cold dead hands or those of my sons/nephews and one niece that I fully intend to gift these to - just in case that zombie apocalypse happens after I'm gone. Tongue
Reply
#62
(09-07-2016, 11:05 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 10:35 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 08:30 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 11:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Except there's no threat to the 2nd Amendment out there; perhaps a threat to the stupid, creepy Scalia/Heller interpretation of it. Even so, gun control is legal under Heller/Scalia too anyway.

I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit.  The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation.  The minoriity interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.

Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms.  That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.

And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever.  It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.

No, it would not "eliminate any individual right to bear arms."  As the four dissenting judges noted, it would instead impose limitations (no handguns and required trigger locks on  long guns) in the District of Columbia just as machine guns, bazookas, and ICBM ownership is limited.  These are exactly what states and localities should be able to limit or not, depending on their own community's  circumstances and culture.  If a community believes hand gun ownership deters crime, then it should have the right to allow such ownership; if a community believes otherwise, it should also be allowed to impose those limitations.  Same with trigger locks.  There will always be communities with free-wheeling gun allowance; you can vote with your feet and practice your 2nd Amendment Right.

The Clinton campaign is pushing gun control at a national level, which kind of eliminates the "vote with your feet" argument - not that it's okay to require people to move in the first place in order to have individual liberty.

My NRA (I say "my" because I'm a lifer) really screwed the pooch by hitching its wagon to such a horrendous candidate. For those concerned with the 2A the choice is between a forked tongue pol who says she's not coming for our guns meanwhile lauding the extreme controls in other English countries, and, a Putin loving, anti-Western fiend, who is insane. In other words, a choice between pain and possible death, so to speak. Sadly, I must vote against my NRA. In this election, the NRA should have withheld its endorsement for either major party candidate and should have hitched its wagon to Johnson or someone else who is not overtly terrible.

IMO The NRA screwed the pooch many decades ago when it went from being a respected organization educating people on guns and gun safety to being a vehicle for the social-cultural resentments of Red America.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#63
(09-07-2016, 01:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 11:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But you claim that I am one of those gullible, blind people. That disqualifies your statement.

Maybe these Republican lie-believers are not inherently "stupid;" almost all Americans have the potential to use their (God and/or Evolution-given) brains and hearts intelligently. But they are not, and thus are acting stupidly and gullibly. They could and should know better. They only need to take "a closer look," as Seth says.

This just illustrates the point.  Any statement that contradicts your blind gullible position is disqualified?  One does not listen to anything that one doesn't want to believe?

You are just illustrating that partisan thinking is not limited to one particular perspective.

Eric's superiority complex is ugly as hell.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#64
(09-07-2016, 05:33 PM)Odin Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 01:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 11:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But you claim that I am one of those gullible, blind people. That disqualifies your statement.

Maybe these Republican lie-believers are not inherently "stupid;" almost all Americans have the potential to use their (God and/or Evolution-given) brains and hearts intelligently. But they are not, and thus are acting stupidly and gullibly. They could and should know better. They only need to take "a closer look," as Seth says.

This just illustrates the point.  Any statement that contradicts your blind gullible position is disqualified?  One does not listen to anything that one doesn't want to believe?

You are just illustrating that partisan thinking is not limited to one particular perspective.

Eric's superiority complex is ugly as hell.
I agree with both of you. He has show that in politics, way of looking at the world, music and how to woo people. He is not open to any of it nor in listening to people. Not even considering that people may legitimately feel differently from him. He just calls it wrong. So how people react is wrong according to him. It ticks me off especially when it comes to groping and music as that is so diverse and as for groping well respectful people respect a person's private space and their feelings. Which he clearly does not care about. Only that the person being groped should not smack the person or punch them...but the groper groping is ok evidently. I bring it up because he shows that he thinks people should think and act the way he does and be damned what anyone else thinks.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#65
To add to that I should point out that the character he displays in his posts is not a tolerant one. If he sees this and says I am not the tolerant one I have consistently had disputes with him over not listening to EVERYONE'S POV and their FEELINGS. Our disputes are over that.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#66
(09-07-2016, 02:53 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 02:37 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 10:35 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 08:30 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit.  The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation.  The minoriity interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.

Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms.  That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.

And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever.  It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.

No, it would not "eliminate any individual right to bear arms."  As the four dissenting judges noted, it would instead impose limitations (no handguns and required trigger locks on  long guns) in the District of Columbia just as machine guns, bazookas, and ICBM ownership is limited.  These are exactly what states and localities should be able to limit or not, depending on their own community's  circumstances and culture.  If a community believes hand gun ownership deters crime, then it should have the right to allow such ownership; if a community believes otherwise, it should also be allowed to impose those limitations.  Same with trigger locks.  There will always be communities with free-wheeling gun allowance; you can vote with your feet and practice your 2nd Amendment Right.

The Clinton campaign is pushing gun control at a national level, which kind of eliminates the "vote with your feet" argument - not that it's okay to require people to move in the first place in order to have individual liberty.

A national ban on all guns will happen only when the zombie apocalypse happens, i.e., it will NEVER happen.  You all have been spewing that alarmist bullshXt for decades.

I'd like to see a national limitation on high capacity (more than 10 rounds) and high muzzle velocity (at least nothing over 2500ft/sec) weapons that are essentially military weapons platforms - that would leave most guns, by far, alone.  And the likelihood of such limitations is rather remote at the national level.  On the other hand, this should be an option for any state or locality to decide, and that includes "federal enclaves" like DC, which is what Heller might preclude.

My hunting days (i.e. real hunting involving dragging several hundred pound carcasses out) are now officially over according to my spousal unit.  But that doesn't change the fact that they'd still would have to pull my prized hunting rifles from my cold dead hands or those of my sons/nephews and one niece that I fully intend to gift these to - just in case that zombie apocalypse happens after I'm gone. Tongue

I need to challenge the velocity argument. Not everyone wants to use ammo that is .30+ or even the upper .2s. I read a very interesting article about use of mid .2 for things like the elk we have here out West. Granted, there comes a point where long range hunting / high velocity hunting and sniping are hard to tell apart other than the target. Still, velocity is probably a non starter. Mag capacity, that one is probably worthy of discussion.

I'm kind of doubtful that he even understands the concept of velocity as it pertains to firearms or how those velocities are created. He's likely just parroting something he read (he does that often) that stimulated something in the portion of his brain that causes one to be a cheap shill. The velocity argument tends to come specifically from infographic readers who are terrified of black AR-15 platform weapons as a symbol. Most rounds for the AK-47 already run under 2500ft/sec. Essentially a "military platform" yet with lower muzzle velocity (cause, bullet weight).

Arbitrary limits set in law always end up being entertaining as they are almost immediately circumvented. Want to ban 2500ft/sec as a way to get around openly banning AR platforms? Oh look there is already *gasp* an effective alternative!. I don't even need an FFL transfer to buy the upper. Don't like that velocity either? How about an even slower one? Essentially he's arguing for everyone to purchase a suppressor for their weapons and use sub-sonic rounds.  Big Grin

It's another silly attempt to legislate basic physics. I can change the velocity of a bullet by changing powder load, bullet weight, barrel length/twist and weapon design. Will the police be going door to door with chronographs now? If so, which rounds will we be using to measure? Which cartridge?
The single despot stands out in the face of all men, and says: I am the State: My will is law: I am your master: I take the responsibility of my acts: The only arbiter I acknowledge is the sword: If any one denies my right, let him try conclusions with me. -- Lysander Spooner
Reply
#67
(09-07-2016, 01:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 11:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But you claim that I am one of those gullible, blind people. That disqualifies your statement.

Maybe these Republican lie-believers are not inherently "stupid;" almost all Americans have the potential to use their (God and/or Evolution-given) brains and hearts intelligently. But they are not, and thus are acting stupidly and gullibly. They could and should know better. They only need to take "a closer look," as Seth says.

This just illustrates the point.  Any statement that contradicts your blind gullible position is disqualified?  One does not listen to anything that one doesn't want to believe?

You are just illustrating that partisan thinking is not limited to one particular perspective.

I tend to be partisan, yes, but that is not a problem.

All you did was claim that I am gullible and partisan. You did not debate any of my points in that statement, or show how any of my points were blind and gullible. You can always try and put it out there, even if I don't agree. Which you do when you are not indulging in the bad behavior that sometimes stalks this site.

Many Republicans are believing lies now, as you admit. Those who do so, are by definition blind and gullible in their behavior. I was only pointing out they have the potential not to be.

As for Odin, he just proves how immature and unforgiving he is by making such statements about me. He is smart enough to know better, but he keeps doing it. Some of the worst posters from the old forum, who behave like Odin and Taramarie, have unfortunately been the ones to migrate over here. We have some good ones too, I am happy to note. I don't know how Odin hopes to communicate with folks by insulting everybody all the time.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#68
(09-07-2016, 06:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 01:49 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 11:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But you claim that I am one of those gullible, blind people. That disqualifies your statement.

Maybe these Republican lie-believers are not inherently "stupid;" almost all Americans have the potential to use their (God and/or Evolution-given) brains and hearts intelligently. But they are not, and thus are acting stupidly and gullibly. They could and should know better. They only need to take "a closer look," as Seth says.

This just illustrates the point.  Any statement that contradicts your blind gullible position is disqualified?  One does not listen to anything that one doesn't want to believe?

You are just illustrating that partisan thinking is not limited to one particular perspective.

I tend to be partisan, yes, but that is not a problem.

All you did was claim that I am gullible and partisan. You did not debate any of my points in that statement, or show how any of my points were blind and gullible. You can always try and put it out there, even if I don't agree. Which you do when you are not indulging in the bad behavior that sometimes stalks this site.

Many Republicans are believing lies now, as you admit. Those who do so, are by definition blind and gullible in their behavior. I was only pointed out they have the potential not to be.

As for Odin, he just proves how immature and unforgiving he is by making such statements about me. He is smart enough to know better, but he keeps doing it. Some of the worst posters from the old forum, who behave like Odin and Taramarie, have unfortunately been the ones to migrate over here. We have some good ones too, I am happy to note. I don't know how Odin hopes to communicate with folks by insulting everybody all the time.

It is funny though that many see the same qualities in you that I also point out. It is not bad behaviour. It is noting what you say and you hate it being repeated back to you. What you hate is the truth about you which you are unwilling to face or you say you have every right to behave that way which is an excuse to keep it up and never change. The never-changer is an appropriate name for you from Terror Tara. Hey I can give you a name too as you did bestow onto me right?
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#69
(09-07-2016, 06:35 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 06:24 PM)Copperfield Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 02:53 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 02:37 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 10:35 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The Clinton campaign is pushing gun control at a national level, which kind of eliminates the "vote with your feet" argument - not that it's okay to require people to move in the first place in order to have individual liberty.

A national ban on all guns will happen only when the zombie apocalypse happens, i.e., it will NEVER happen.  You all have been spewing that alarmist bullshXt for decades.

I'd like to see a national limitation on high capacity (more than 10 rounds) and high muzzle velocity (at least nothing over 2500ft/sec) weapons that are essentially military weapons platforms - that would leave most guns, by far, alone.  And the likelihood of such limitations is rather remote at the national level.  On the other hand, this should be an option for any state or locality to decide, and that includes "federal enclaves" like DC, which is what Heller might preclude.

My hunting days (i.e. real hunting involving dragging several hundred pound carcasses out) are now officially over according to my spousal unit.  But that doesn't change the fact that they'd still would have to pull my prized hunting rifles from my cold dead hands or those of my sons/nephews and one niece that I fully intend to gift these to - just in case that zombie apocalypse happens after I'm gone. Tongue

I need to challenge the velocity argument. Not everyone wants to use ammo that is .30+ or even the upper .2s. I read a very interesting article about use of mid .2 for things like the elk we have here out West. Granted, there comes a point where long range hunting / high velocity hunting and sniping are hard to tell apart other than the target. Still, velocity is probably a non starter. Mag capacity, that one is probably worthy of discussion.

I'm kind of doubtful that he even understands the concept of velocity as it pertains to firearms or how those velocities are created. He's likely just parroting something he read (he does that often) that stimulated something in the portion of his brain that causes one to be a cheap shill. The velocity argument tends to come specifically from infographic readers who are terrified of black AR-15 platform weapons as a symbol. Most rounds for the AK-47 already run under 2500ft/sec. Essentially a "military platform" yet with lower muzzle velocity (cause, bullet weight).

Arbitrary limits set in law always end up being entertaining as they are almost immediately circumvented. Want to ban 2500ft/sec as a way to get around openly banning AR platforms? Oh look there is already *gasp* an effective alternative!. I don't even need an FFL transfer to buy the upper. Don't like that velocity either? How about an even slower one? Essentially he's arguing for everyone to purchase a suppressor for their weapons and use sub-sonic rounds.  Big Grin

It's another silly attempt to legislate basic physics. I can change the velocity of a bullet by changing powder load, bullet weight, barrel length/twist and weapon design. Will the police be going door to door with chronographs now? If so, which rounds will we be using to measure? Which cartridge?

Careful there with stereotypes. I believe he was in battlefield ops in 'nam. Not saying that implying he'd do anything with his skill but I believe he actually does have firearm experience. Maybe not the latest knowledge though.

You think so? Rolleyes

As an addendum to the generalized snark, being in the military (or police for that matter) should never imply expertise with firearms. A great many military personnel fit comfortably into the "I haven't fired a weapon since boot camp" category. Claiming 'nam on a resume isn't as impressive as you might think it sounds. Having known more than a few actual military-grade killers in my lifetime, I'm reasonably confident that he ain't one of em. Believe at your own risk but most everyone on the previous forum had sniffed him out as being a liar a long time ago.
The single despot stands out in the face of all men, and says: I am the State: My will is law: I am your master: I take the responsibility of my acts: The only arbiter I acknowledge is the sword: If any one denies my right, let him try conclusions with me. -- Lysander Spooner
Reply
#70
(09-07-2016, 02:37 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 10:35 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 08:30 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 11:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Except there's no threat to the 2nd Amendment out there; perhaps a threat to the stupid, creepy Scalia/Heller interpretation of it. Even so, gun control is legal under Heller/Scalia too anyway.

I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit.  The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation.  The minoriity interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.

Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms.  That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.

And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever.  It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.

No, it would not "eliminate any individual right to bear arms."  As the four dissenting judges noted, it would instead impose limitations (no handguns and required trigger locks on  long guns) in the District of Columbia just as machine guns, bazookas, and ICBM ownership is limited.  These are exactly what states and localities should be able to limit or not, depending on their own community's  circumstances and culture.  If a community believes hand gun ownership deters crime, then it should have the right to allow such ownership; if a community believes otherwise, it should also be allowed to impose those limitations.  Same with trigger locks.  There will always be communities with free-wheeling gun allowance; you can vote with your feet and practice your 2nd Amendment Right.

The Clinton campaign is pushing gun control at a national level, which kind of eliminates the "vote with your feet" argument - not that it's okay to require people to move in the first place in order to have individual liberty.

A national ban on all guns will happen only when the zombie apocalypse happens, i.e., it will NEVER happen.  You all have been spewing that alarmist bullshXt for decades.

The same decades that the Reagan court has been protecting our second amendment rights along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, yes.  And now with the demise of Scalia that protection will soon be gone.
Reply
#71
(09-07-2016, 08:40 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 02:37 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 10:35 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 08:30 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit.  The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation.  The minoriity interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.

Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms.  That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.

And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever.  It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.

No, it would not "eliminate any individual right to bear arms."  As the four dissenting judges noted, it would instead impose limitations (no handguns and required trigger locks on  long guns) in the District of Columbia just as machine guns, bazookas, and ICBM ownership is limited.  These are exactly what states and localities should be able to limit or not, depending on their own community's  circumstances and culture.  If a community believes hand gun ownership deters crime, then it should have the right to allow such ownership; if a community believes otherwise, it should also be allowed to impose those limitations.  Same with trigger locks.  There will always be communities with free-wheeling gun allowance; you can vote with your feet and practice your 2nd Amendment Right.

The Clinton campaign is pushing gun control at a national level, which kind of eliminates the "vote with your feet" argument - not that it's okay to require people to move in the first place in order to have individual liberty.

A national ban on all guns will happen only when the zombie apocalypse happens, i.e., it will NEVER happen.  You all have been spewing that alarmist bullshXt for decades.

The same decades that the Reagan court has been protecting our second amendment rights along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, yes.  And now with the demise of Scalia that protection will soon be gone.

Japan is generally understood as one of the freest countries in the world for politics and personal expression. It is also very repressive on weapons and severe in its treatment of crime.  One consequence is that Japan has one of the lowest rates for violent crime in the world. American soldiers in Japan have more to fear from the Japanese civil justice system than from the criminal-justice system of the American military. American soldiers well know that.

It is also possibly the worst country in the advanced industrial world in which to be a criminal. Japanese crooks either reform (the penal system uses mind control similar to that used in Communist countries against political offenders) or emigrate. But someone like me who has much empathy for a political dissident in China has little empathy for a mugger in Japan.

The Second Amendment is grossly exaggerated as a protection of individual rights. In recent years many of have heard the expression "use your Second-Amendment tights to protect your liberty" against some wayward politician, usually of the liberal variety.

Afghanistan, Chechnia, Iraq, and Somalia are awash in firearms. Nazi Germany had plenty of privately-held firearms, in part because just about every Nazi in good standing had them. (Before someone claims that the Jews would have been safer had they had guns -- Nazi law prohibited Jews from keeping dogs, excellent warning devices and brutal defenders. Break into a dog-infested house, and four 80-pound Dobermans that the family trusts might as well be one 320-pound tiger -- maybe even more dangerous than one 320-pound tiger for having four times as many teeth and claws. Dogs are the strongest and most powerful mammals for their size, and they are more likely to confront a crook than run away as will a 320-pound tiger. Man fares badly with almost any hostile encounter with a large carnivore, including a not-very-large dog. An attack by a kitten-sized Yorkshire tiger -- I mean terror -- no, terrier -- can require hospitalization.*
 
Just ask me about an incident that I had taking Census data in 2010. I forget what the dog breed was, but I never had so much fear in my life. Yes, I even saw someone whom I eventually interviewed cleaning a rifle as I approached. The dogs charged the door, and all that I saw that might have kept me from being killed was the latch. I had enough tome to get away before the latch could break while walking back to the car. I usually get along well with dogs. That time the dogs must have thought that I was a burglar, a/k/a meat. Maybe the prospect of being killed and eaten is simply a primal fear.  

I have more fear of the government imposing a demand that I carry an internal passport (as in the old Soviet Union, Apartheid-era South Africa, or China today) than I have in the government taking away my right to bear arms. Just to enforce the intended deportation of illegal aliens as Donald Trump envisions, an internal passport would take away far too many liberties to be worthy of the risk. (Yes, deport criminal aliens even if such implies breaking up a family... let the illegal aliens whose status is the only violation stay here while a mugger or gang-banger be deported to San Pedro Sula, if necessary.

*My idea for a title for a horror flick: The Attack of the 200-Pound Yorkie.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#72
(09-07-2016, 09:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Second Amendment is grossly exaggerated as a protection of individual rights. In recent years many of have heard the expression "use your Second-Amendment tights to protect your liberty" against some wayward politician, usually of the liberal variety.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure Trump had heard the phrase too, which makes his repeat of it all the more chilling!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#73
(09-07-2016, 08:40 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The same decades that the Reagan court has been protecting our second amendment rights along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, yes.  And now with the demise of Scalia that protection will soon be gone.

Thank goodness. Scalia's departure is an opportunity to move forward again in our society, if we choose to take it by putting Hillary in the White House and keeping Republicans out of it forever.

Meanwhile the Reagan-Scalia Court has run roughshod over things that really count, such as voting rights.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#74
(09-07-2016, 09:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 08:40 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 02:37 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-07-2016, 10:35 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 08:30 PM)playwrite Wrote: No, it would not "eliminate any individual right to bear arms."  As the four dissenting judges noted, it would instead impose limitations (no handguns and required trigger locks on  long guns) in the District of Columbia just as machine guns, bazookas, and ICBM ownership is limited.  These are exactly what states and localities should be able to limit or not, depending on their own community's  circumstances and culture.  If a community believes hand gun ownership deters crime, then it should have the right to allow such ownership; if a community believes otherwise, it should also be allowed to impose those limitations.  Same with trigger locks.  There will always be communities with free-wheeling gun allowance; you can vote with your feet and practice your 2nd Amendment Right.
The Clinton campaign is pushing gun control at a national level, which kind of eliminates the "vote with your feet" argument - not that it's okay to require people to move in the first place in order to have individual liberty.
A national ban on all guns will happen only when the zombie apocalypse happens, i.e., it will NEVER happen.  You all have been spewing that alarmist bullshXt for decades.
The same decades that the Reagan court has been protecting our second amendment rights along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, yes.  And now with the demise of Scalia that protection will soon be gone.
Japan is generally understood as one of the freest countries in the world for politics and personal expression.

It may be understood that way by the left, but if so, they are denying reality.  We're talking about the country where the attitude toward personal expression is summarized in the saying, "the nail that stands up is hammered down", and that attitude is backed up by strict laws.  We're talking about the country where people are driven to suicide so much that the suicide rate is higher than the U.S. suicide and homicide rates combined.  We're talking about the country where a higher percentage of people kill themselves by just one method - hanging - than the total from all types of gun death in the U.S., including accidents.

Japan is correctly understood as the most repressive democracy in the world.
Reply
#75
I admit I didn't know about Japan's high suicide rate. I see it is declining, but still high. It is a youth phenomenon, so probably has to do with the high demands and competition among students.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#76
(09-07-2016, 06:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As for Odin, he just proves how immature and unforgiving he is by making such statements about me. He is smart enough to know better, but he keeps doing it. Some of the worst posters from the old forum, who behave like Odin and Taramarie, have unfortunately been the ones to migrate over here. We have some good ones too, I am happy to note. I don't know how Odin hopes to communicate with folks by insulting everybody all the time.

There you go again, Eric, dismissing any disagreement as a personal failing of the person you disagree with.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#77
(09-08-2016, 03:13 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: It may be understood that way by the left, but if so, they are denying reality.  We're talking about the country where the attitude toward personal expression is summarized in the saying, "the nail that stands up is hammered down", and that attitude is backed up by strict laws.  We're talking about the country where people are driven to suicide so much that the suicide rate is higher than the U.S. suicide and homicide rates combined.  We're talking about the country where a higher percentage of people kill themselves by just one method - hanging - than the total from all types of gun death in the U.S., including accidents.

Japan is correctly understood as the most repressive democracy in the world.

Also, Japan is still sexist as hell and pedophilia (in the broad sense including underage teens) is widespread.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#78
(09-06-2016, 01:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 11:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The video mentioned three comments.  The first was the "second amendment" people comment.  Most of the crowd probably consider themselves second amendment supporters, so of course they cheer for the possibility of voting for someone who will preserve the second amendment.

Except there's no threat to the 2nd Amendment out there; perhaps a threat to the stupid, creepy Scalia/Heller interpretation of it. Even so, gun control is legal under Heller/Scalia too anyway.

I'll skip the political arguments where no one is interested in being convinced anyway, but I will address this a bit.  The majority opinion in Heller, which as you point out allows gun regulation, but not de facto bans, is really the only reasonable interpretation.  The minority interpretation would have to be based on the idea that the government needs protection from the people of the government's right to use arms, which is pretty far fetched and entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights, which is all about protecting the people from the government.

No, Heller makes no such argument, nor is the absence of Heller a justification.  Heller merely makes the right an unrestricted individual right, rather than limit the right to the "well regulated militia" as a group.  At no point did the framers insert language in the main body or any of the amendments that implied that a right of armed resistance to government existed in any context.

Warren Dew Wrote:Clinton's team has made it quite clear that she intends to use the Scalia vacancy to reverse Heller, which would eliminate any individual right to bear arms.  That would also eliminate any ability of the people to protect themselves against the elites' making the democratic process a sham and against the elites' eliminating all other individual liberties that they don't care to grant.

Again, armed revolution is not endorsed and certainly not guaranteed.  Leaving Heller in place with the implied notion that rebellion is permissible is a great argument for reversing Heller ASAP.

Warren Dew Wrote:And with the shift from individual firearms to nuclear weapons as the critical weapons of war, that could mean we would be saying goodbye to democracy and individual rights forever.  It has only been governments' need for large numbers of armed citizens to fight their wars that has forced the government to grant citizens power and freedom; without that need, the elites can ignore the citizens' welfare entirely.

If you truly feel imprisoned by the overreach of government, you should consider alternatives elsewhere.  The government is far from perfect, and ham handed all too often, but the weapon to overthrow it is the ballot, not a firearm.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#79
(09-06-2016, 08:08 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(09-06-2016, 10:11 AM)Anthony Wrote: Ad hominem attack's on Hillary's "dishonesty" will get the Republicans nowhere - at least among anyone under 70.

They're not running for Eagle Scout.

I'm not so sure about that.  Most analysts believe all the horseshXt innuendo surrounding the Clinton Foundation and the supposed pay-to-play has hurt her polling significantly in the last two to three weeks.

The entire meme of her lying is based primarily on the Benghazi, email server, and now the Foundation.  It is estimated that the Clinton Smear Machine is a billion dollar plus industry that depends on the stupidly and ignorance of a large share of the voting public.

These off-the-cuff remarks about her supposed dishonesty need to be called out, and the ones slinging this shXt need to be clearly identified as the ignorant/stupid shXtslingers that they are.

Don't discount the Clinton's own mendacity here.  Neither Bill nor Hillary seems capable of self reflection, which would save them countless battles against their own ham-handedness.  They do stupid things when smart things are just as easy, and the reason is always the same,  They don't take to being criticized very well, and go dark anytime they can.  When their hidden activities come to light, they seem bad by definition.  Even totally innocent activities are grist for the mill.

By now, you would think they might have learned.  Apparently not.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#80
(09-07-2016, 11:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: People ought to be more concerned about the millions killed by gun violence, and their right not to be killed, than their right to have a gun if they are not qualified to have one. No one qualified to have a proper and useful kind of gun need vote with their feet about national gun control. Just, accept reasonable gun laws, and accept that they increase your safety.

No one who believes that any restriction on gun ownership and possession is a form of tyranny is subject to rational argument about licensure, background checks or, heaven forbid, gun registration.  He's a closed book.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  BBC Video... Donald Trump and the MAFIA pbrower2a 2 42 05-29-2020, 03:47 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability pbrower2a 567 127,033 05-27-2020, 02:30 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  House of Representatives impeaches President Donald Trump Kay 51 1,656 01-27-2020, 03:31 AM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  America Is Bombing the Hell out of Syrian Civilians nebraska 0 533 01-06-2018, 09:24 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Why One Baby Buster Voted For Donald Trump Anthony '58 43 16,349 01-24-2017, 01:15 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  What if Donald Trump is the new John C. Fremont? Anthony '58 1 1,211 10-19-2016, 09:56 PM
Last Post: Einzige
  Prominent Republicans call for Donald Trump to drop out of the nomination pbrower2a 11 4,968 10-12-2016, 07:06 AM
Last Post: Odin
  Poll of the U.S. military has Gary Johnson tied with Donald Trump Dan '82 3 1,817 09-23-2016, 07:37 AM
Last Post: Anthony '58
  Americans Aren't Buying Donald Trump's Immigration Rhetoric, Polls Show naf140230 7 3,736 09-22-2016, 11:33 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  The Donald only cares about the Donald historically. taramarie 3 1,382 08-07-2016, 04:34 PM
Last Post: Anthony '58

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)