Jump to content
DonRocks

Does The 2nd Amendment Provide Absolute Protection To Gun Owners?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DonRocks said:

Lobbying and spineless, corrupt politicians.

Well but it's also the fact that millions upon millions of our fellow Americans want their weapons readily at hand, either because they are fearful or so that they can have a better chance of living out their fantasies of killing somebody for a reason they believe is right. I have my opinion about why they want that - i.e., fear of the "other," generated by politicians who exploit perceived differences into fear/hatred in order to be elected/re-elected and to divide the non-elite - but it's not "corrupt politicians" so much as "awful politicians stirring up hatred" or "eh, human nature is to hate the 'other' and to want deadly power, 'twas always thus" - take your pick.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a time of relative quiet, all the indignation has completely died down. This is exactly why nothing ever gets done - people have knee-jerk reactions, and then they stop caring in a week. 

The parents at Sandy Hook Elementary School haven't forgotten, however, even though we're going on *four years*.

I wonder how many people even remember the number of 6-year-old children who were murdered that day:

SandyHook.jpg 20

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The honorable Steve King in WaPo last week:

Anger about his own colleagues being attacked was evident in the words of Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who, in suit and tie, stopped by the crime scene to pray, was viscerally angry about his own colleagues being attacked.

“America has been divided,” he said, “and the center of America is disappearing, and the violence is appearing in the streets, and it’s coming from the left.” King did indicate it was impossible to separate the hyperpartisan climate in Washington — especially people protesting President Trump — with Republican members of Congress being gunned down at a baseball scrimmage.

“The divisions within the country, people that can’t accept the results of the election that are determined to try to take this country down, take this organization down,” King said. “This city was filled up with demonstrations the day after the inauguration, where you couldn’t drive down the streets.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2017 at 3:48 PM, lovehockey said:

Rep. Mo Brooks, not long after being shot at:

Here's something nobody has ever been able to answer for me:

* The 18th amendment (prohibiting alcohol) took effect on Jan 16, 1920.

* The 21st amendment (repealing the 18th amendment) took effect on Dec 5, 1933.

For nearly 14 years, prohibition was every bit as much "the law of the land" as the 2nd amendment.

Someone answer me: Why would it be any "less patriotic" to fight for the repeal of the 2nd amendment in 2019, than to fight for the repeal of the 18th amendment in 1925? Both were absolute law, and both had exactly the same weight. 

So, was someone who wanted the 18th amendment rescinded in 1925 "unpatriotic?"

---------

The U.S. Constitution stated, in crystal-clear terms (refer to Article 1, Section 2), that a vote cast by a Negro only counted for 60% of a vote cast by a Caucasian.

Was it "unpatriotic" to want that law overturned? Well, I guess a whole lot of people in the American South thought it was - perhaps because they built their wealth, literally, with the blood, sweat, and tears of the enslaved Negro.

"The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787)" on blackpast.org

---------

Let's not even go into 245+ years of Slavery (1619-1865), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Plessy v. Ferguson, etc.

---------

I invite every single person in the world to debate me on whether my wanting the 2nd Amendment repealed makes me "unpatriotic." 

---------

Acceptable collateral damage, and the way things have gone up until now, this society is going to need a hell of a lot more of it, in order for fewer innocent people to be harmed.

Was John Brown mentally unstable? I suspect he was; he was also absolutely correct.

Please remember this post fifty years from now - I find it so ironic that it won't be the guns themselves that repeal the 2nd amendment; it will be the targets of those guns.

And I find it even more ironic that the real purpose of the 2nd amendment - defense against a tyrannical government - is going to be *exactly* what brings it down. The reason it hasn't happened yet is because the tyrannical government doesn't yet realize that, yes, *they* are the tyrannical government.

---------

At this point, I would usually say, "For the record, I am not against gun ownership," but instead, I'll just say, "Fuck you."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2017 at 4:27 PM, DonRocks said:

I find it so ironic that it won't be the guns themselves that repeal the 2nd amendment; it will be the targets of those guns.

"Country Music Guitarist and Vegas Shooting Survivor Says He's Reversed His Gun Control Stance" by Luchina Fisher on abcnews.go.com

Good for you, Caleb Keeter - the thing that saddens me is that people might not change their positions until they're victims in events like this - if only they would just open up their minds and think instead, this wouldn't need to happen.

So many people will read this and think, "Rockwell's a totalitarian who would come for our guns," and that is false. The solution begins with:

* Every single gun being registered with a serial number and owner.
* A gun-owner's permit, just like the ones people have for owning a car.
* A shooter's license, just like a driver's license, that demonstrates people have passed a rudimentary written and field test.

The above three items are already applicable to automobiles, so this is a proven model that works.

I'll let the politicians debate about taxes, penalties, etc. - I think these three things alone would go a long way; unfortunately, given the number of guns outstanding, there can be no grandfather clause - these must apply to guns already in private possession, and that's going to be a sticky wicket. However, even if they were only applied going forward, that would at least solve the problem in the long term, i.e., several decades after the laws were enacted. Waiting fifty years may seem unacceptable, but at least our children and grandchildren would begin to see the benefits of such a program.

---

"House To Vote on Gun Silencer Legislation This Week" by Gabrielle Levy on usnews.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think the SCOTUS decision on this was a sort of revenge for abortion. The complaint was that there is no right to privacy stated directly in the Constitution, so Roe v Wade "found" a right that just isn't there. In a similar fashion SCOTUS has "found" an individual right to arms where there is none. The Constitution clearly says it's about militias. IMO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MC Horoscope said:

I really think the SCOTUS decision on this was a sort of revenge for abortion. The complaint was that there is no right to privacy stated directly in the Constitution, so Roe v Wade "found" a right that just isn't there. In a similar fashion SCOTUS has "found" an individual right to arms where there is none. The Constitution clearly says it's about militias. IMO

I don't know if the two are Related, but the two are related.

People shouldn't feel comfortable until abortion is declared safe and legal by the Legislative Branch, because there *is* no explicit "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and that ruling will always be in jeopardy.

One thing so many people don't understand is how you can hate that ruling, and still be pro-choice (because as soon as you say you hate that ruling, all words that follow are a jumble of noise).

By any means necessary, I guess, but whoever authored the 14th Amendment could have used courses in both Logic and English Composition.

39 minutes ago, Al Dente said:

Color me cynical, but I suspect you can add at least one zero to the end of that dollar amount.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While driving home past NRA headquarters on 66 yesterday, I saw their one and only statement on the Las Vegas shootings. Their flag was flying at half mast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2017 at 8:05 PM, Mark Slater said:

When the second amendment was written, guns held exactly one bullet. How is there equivalency with machine guns?

And when the 1st amendment was written, the press was pretty much just that...a few guys with a printing press.

Should the press, as it exists now with a 24 hour cable news cycle and the internet, still be allowed their freedom? Surely the founding fathers never envisioned the 21st century media.

That's the danger of going the "that's not what the founding fathers meant" route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mtureck said:

That's the danger of going the "that's not what the founding fathers meant" route.

Fair point, but playing devil's advocate: If you don't go that route (either "original intent," or "original understanding") then what route do you take, and why? I'm a firm believer that the Legislative Branch exists to make laws, and the Judicial Branch exists to settle disputes based on what is written. I want to know exactly (or as closely as possible) whether or not I'm breaking the law at any given moment, and the only way for that to happen is to have it spelled out in writing. I believe that a reasonable person should know what is, and isn't, the law, and you shouldn't need to memorize arcane court cases to know what's legal and illegal.

Quite frankly, I'm not thrilled that my 12-year-old was bombarded by violence and pornography - all in the name of the 1st Amendment which I find to be an incredibly bogus concept.

I think the real problem is a permanent stalemate in the Legislative Branch, so people try to find other ways to get things done (active Judicial branch, Executive orders, lobbyist bribes resulting in cramming bills with unrelated pork, etc.)

8 hours ago, mtureck said:

And when the 1st amendment was written, the press was pretty much just that...a few guys with a printing press.

Should the press, as it exists now with a 24 hour cable news cycle and the internet, still be allowed their freedom? Surely the founding fathers never envisioned the 21st century media.

mtureck, I assume you're drawing a parallel with "muskets vs. AK47s" and "printing presses vs. internet" - if so, it's a legitimate parallel, and one which must be respected (how many teens committed suicide in 1789 because they were slut-shamed across the world?)

On the other hand, where does it stop? I remember a column by Art Buchwald - perhaps 30-40 years ago - entitled "Let's Get Land Mines Legalized."

I sincerely believe the NRA has *finally* come up against a situation that they can't defend - i.e., bump-stock devices - due to the time-sensitive nature of them needing to get some kind of statement out, and the impossibility of a PR victory using their traditional stances. My guess is that they feel it's a small concession to make, and that they're willing to concede this immaterial battle in order to keep winning the war. After Sandy Hook, I thought there was *nothing* they wouldn't have the gall to propose; keeping bump-stock devices legal seems relatively tame compared to their downright-evil "let's arm our teachers" idea.

---

This has nothing whatsoever to do with mtureck, who has *always* been a model of intelligence and thoughtfulness.

To all gun sissies proposing violence: I'M STILL HERE, I'm smarter and more educated than 99.9999% of you, and the only way you're going to shut me up is to kill me. So, where's the bullet in my head, pussies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Al Dente said:

Last week they were for a ban on bump-stocks, and now they're back on message.

"NRA Opposes Outright US Ban on Gun Devices Used by the Las Vegas Killer" on cnbc.com

Just like a company announcing bad financial news on a Friday afternoon at 5 PM. Nothing unexpected here, I suppose.

In the long term (months, years), they're only hurting themselves - I'm almost *glad* they aren't backing down. They'll be looked at with the same derision as the KKK in fifty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre Won't Commit To Backing Bump Stock Bill, Tells ATF To 'Do Its Job'" by Emily Tilett on cbsnews.com

[I so desperately want to make one, single exception to the "no personal attacks" rule - I won't do it, yet, but I'm very close to being susceptible to being talked out of it. That said, if anyone wants to criticize a person's *actions* - by all means, do - just be prepared to substantiate your claims.]

I have fantasies of *the most beautiful* poetic justice that could ever be executed in the history of mankind. And should that day ever come, I'll open the finest Champagnes I can find, and keep pouring them for everyone, until my stocks are depleted. Because on that day, untold numbers of innocent lives will be saved, and the United States will have a new national hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 4:00 PM, DonRocks said:

Fair point, but playing devil's advocate: If you don't go that route (either "original intent," or "original understanding") then what route do you take, and why? I'm a firm believer that the Legislative Branch exists to make laws, and the Judicial Branch exists to settle disputes based on what is written. I want to know exactly (or as closely as possible) whether or not I'm breaking the law at any given moment, and the only way for that to happen is to have it spelled out in writing. I believe that a reasonable person should know what is, and isn't, the law, and you shouldn't need to memorize arcane court cases to know what's legal and illegal.

*This* is what happens when you have "legislation by the judicial branch," i.e., umpires making up rules as they see fit.

Show me where the rule says *anything* about "stolen bases." Maybe it does, but this article doesn't mention it:

"Nationals Believe Umpires Missed Call That Would Have Stopped the Bleeding in the Fifth Inning."

According to the article:

But when Baez swung, his wild backswing grazed Wieters. If so, Baez seemingly should have been out, under rule 6.03(a). The pertinent section of the rule states:

“If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Al Dente said:

Fuck the NRA. Fuck the 2nd Amendment.

The Texas Church Shooting

I  have a solution to mass shootings in this country, but it's going to take some serious backbone that I doubt our electorate has: Essentially, treat guns as cars - my right to own cars has never been infringed since I turned 16.

1) Do not make guns a right unless you're in a militia (e.g., The National Guard) subject to the same rules and regulations as all other militias.

2) Require all other guns to be treated just like cars. Tax them, assign a unique serial number to each gun, and maintain a national database linking all guns to their owners.

3) Define specifications that all guns must adhere to, and annual tests the guns must pass, just like a car.

4) Require all gun owners to regularly pass both a "written test," a"field test," and a "background investigation," showing that they're responsible and competent enough  to own and use their guns, just like a drivers license.

5) For items 2)-4), decide whether or not you want to grandfather existing guns into these requirements. If you do, your gun problems will be over in about 50 years; if you don't, your gun problems will be over in about 100 years. Political backbone will be the thing that saves 50,000 Americans (I'm approximating 1,000 dead Americans annually due to mass shootings in the upcoming century- it could be many more than that). 

There's your disarmingly simple, five-point plan to solve the mass-shooting problem in the United States.

As for Texas, I don't have enough tears in my eyes to adequately cry for them, and I'm forced to look at them as casualties of war. If I met one as an individual, that would be different, but not in such large numbers. Yes, it's sad, but this involves more grief than one man is capable of enduring. My plan will end, or minimize, that grief and those tears.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two novel ideas:

1) Don't outlaw any guns, but make bullets super fucking expensive. Bullets can only be sold at gun ranges for use outside of a gun range, and all sales will be registered and tracked. Set strict limits on how many bullets can be taken from the gun range. That number should be super small, and bullet should cost A LOT of money, say $100. I don't know any hunter that takes more than a few bullets, or shotgun shells, when going hunting. Inside of a gun range, bullets should be super cheap. I want people to practice shooting and become proficient marksmen. That skill should be "honed" in a licensed and registered gun range. And the whole "militia/ protection from the federal boot argument" -> raid the armory, just like our Founding Fathers did, when you are ready for the uprising. Now, this could adversely effect the poor in rural communities who hunt for sustenance. I say, "bow hunt". Use a crossbow if you want, and feel free to shoot deer, or any other game animal, year-round with a bow or crossbow. ETA: Also, the 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about bullets.

2) Gun owners should be forced to buy insurance and provide the insurance documentation when purchasing a gun. This is a perfect "free market" solution. Let the for-profit insurance companies, and their super smart actuaries, put a "price" on gun ownership. I am sure one or two guns would be relatively inexpensive, depending on what the gun is. You want to purchase a shit ton of "assualt rifles". That's going to cost you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing:

3) Voter registration is automatic at age 18. Voting will be on Saturdays. Early voting available EVERYWHERE one week prior to election day. Allow for a tax deduction for voting as an incentive.

Virginia is voting tomorrow, and I think its voter turnout is fairly normal....which is to say an embarasssment. A quick look at the voting History since 2000, an embarassing 57.7% of eligible voters (CVAP) voted in the Presidential elections. 4 in 10 could not vote, or could not be bothered to vote.

Even worse....non-Presidential elections! 30.1% of CVAP voted during "off-year" elections. That's just appalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few hours after the shooting, the NRA tweeted:

NRA-shooting.jpg.bb8f00c3764e119181bee60fdcbd2b6d.jpg

It wasn't up for long:

https://deepstatenation.com/youre-insane-the-internet-recoils-in-disgust-over-nras-tweet-after-texas-church-massacre/

A helpful vocabulary lesson from the NRA:

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/8/misused-firearms-terms/

Here's the NRA bitching about "The Ruling Class" being anti-gun. They seem to think that the ruling class consists of Bill and Hillary, Michael Bloomberg, Rahm Emanuel, and the leaders of the Women's March. The article was published 4 days ago. My understanding is that our current ruling class is made up of Wayne LaPierre's c*ckholsters, so what the fuck are they talking about?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171102/the-ruling-class-vs-the-second-amendment

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×