to the battle of wits
(Teabagger)
Picture by: dunno source Caption by: littlebrowndog via Advanced Lol Builder
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous The longer you stare | ….and then I said Next »
» 638 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
keshet the adequate on Ballistic Marshmallows Dave on Must Be Blah History Mont… Kate on Keeping the Internet Hone… Kate on Keeping the Internet Hone… Kate on Keeping the Internet Hone… Deacon Blues on Spock Facepalm imnotreallyhere on Prop 8 Ruled Unconstituti… LaFeeVerte on Ballistic Marshmallows imnotreallyhere on Prop 8 Ruled Unconstituti… BJ on Prop 8 Ruled Unconstituti… 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
VIDEO: Seattle Aquarium's New Otter Pup's Second Vet Exam
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
No gurls allowed
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
Maybe if I Stay Very Still I'll Be All Right
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Great Escape
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Nom Distraction
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Two-by-Snores
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
So Why Was It The Best I've Ever Had??
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Counteract That Yoga With Cookies
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
SUCK IT, NOT TREBEK!
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
Accurate Claim is ACCURATE
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
American Idol Kyle Crews Totally Looks Like The Big Green Patrick Reena
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Big Head Harry Potter Characters
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Ring of the Day: I'm Batman
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
String Theory
Wedinator - Your special day... is hilarious.
Skyrim First Dance
Five Minute Getaway - Beautiful Travel and Vacation Photos
Gaudí-esque complex, Punta del Este, Uruguay
Set Phasers to LOL - Sci Fi and Fantasy LOLs
I Didn't Know
Animal Memes - A Meme-nagerie of Famous Internet Critters
Crazy Girlfriend Praying Mantis: It Was My Doctor. He Says I'm Dying. How Bad Do You Feel Now, Lady?
I came with my chainsaw
Your chainsaw can’t do sh!t to my Second Amendment right to owning Armed Bears.
Bear Army, ATTACK.
Well I have a right to bear-arms. I love plastic surgery.
beard > liberals
So these guys must be really conservative? – click
I’m going to guess “yes”.
Beards are larger than liberals? What a peculiar statement, even for a sqwirk.
This ( > ) is greater than, not larger than. It compares quantities. Learn math.
Yes, and a number higher than another number can be described as being larger. Learn English.
Wow, you’re a d!ck.
can we raise our hand in support?
Say that to their faces and see how long they remain unarmed.
Oh I see.. the implication is that they only support the constitution as it pertains to firearms, not free speech?
Just so you know, most so-called gun-nuts, myself included, may not agree with everyone’s opinions, but we believe everyone is entitled and shouldn’t be threatened for having them. You take away one right, you may as well take all
Well, with the small exception that gun ownership is not NECESSARY, it is a luxury for the “gun nuts”.
Freedom of speech, equality, etc. – THOSE are mandatory basic rights that should be afforded to any human being.
Owning a gun is not an obligatory part or right of being human. I doubt those pesky British still feel like attacking.
Interesting how it’s only your personal definition of “obligatory human rights” that matters. Stay classy.
You are a riot.
Not only is that linked article a great piece of satire, but you apply some of the same principles here as well, no?
Devaluing something someone says by just makin up something completely untrue about it?
It is not my personal definition, it is the definition of almost every democratic country in the world.
The only country who felt it was necessary to include the ridiculous gun ownership is the US.
So please take your own advice and base your arguments with some actual fact rather than Fox talking points and slander.
You’re welcome!
I’m confused — what, exactly, are you trying to argue here? All I see is some nonsensical ranting about Fox and the world.
Fox
Socks
Box
Knox
Knox in box.
Fox in socks.
Knox on fox in socks in box.
Socks on Knox and Knox in box.
Fox in socks on box on Knox.
Chicks with bricks come.
Chicks with blocks come.
Chicks with bricks and blocks and clocks come.
Look, sir. Look, sir. Mr. Knox, sir.
Let’s do tricks with bricks and blocks, sir.
Let’s do tricks with chicks and clocks, sir.
Win!
Dr. Seuss is always a win.
But trolling is always a loss.
Oh I *SO* know you weren’t calling diss a troll.
Because if you were………………………
I’m unfamiliar with how quoting a well known children’s book makes one a troll. Please explain so that we can point and laugh at you.
He needn’t bother explaining. We should just point and laugh at him for calling Diss a troll.
*points and laughs at dan*
*joins HOW in pointing and laughing*
*points and laughs….menacingly*
*menaces and points….laughingly*
*Laughs and menaces….pointedly*
Whoops, fail. Replied to the wrong comment. Not that it matters. Anyway, *points and menaces… laughingly*
(according to Chrome, “laughingly” is a word. hmm…)
*Joins in the pointing and laughing*
Don’t know why, but I just like laughing at you, Dan.
Thank you for the most sensible post I’ve seen so far. Certainly we are seeing faux and socks and knocks here.
I would have to disagree with you Diss.
What do you know about tweetle beetles?
Well…When tweetle beetles fight,
it’s called
a tweetle beetle battle.
And when they
battle in a puddle,
it’s a tweetle
beetle puddle battle.
And when tweetle beetles
battle with paddles in a puddle,
they call it a tweetle
beetle puddle paddle battle.
AND…
When beetle battle beetles
in a puddle paddle battle
and the beetle battle puddle
is a puddle in a bottle…
…they call this
a tweetle beetle
bottle puddle
paddle battle muddle
AND…
When beetles
fight these battles
in a bottle
with their paddles
and the bottle’s
on a poodle
and the poodle’s
eating noodles…
…they call this
a muddle puddle
tweetle poodle
beetle noodle
bottle paddle battle.
What do you have to say to that?
Hmmm….well, I would say:
Now wait a minute, Mr. Socks Fox!
When a fox is in the bottle where the tweetle beetles battle
with their paddles in a puddle on a noodle-eating poodle,
THIS is what they call…
…a tweetle beetle noodle poodle bottled paddled
muddled duddled fuddled wuddled fox in socks, sir!
Fox in socks, our game is done, sir.
Thank you for a lot of fun, sir.
*holds up sign reading: Now is your tongue numb?*
*stands to applaud*
Brava! Brava!
I read Fox in Socks out loud to my first graders last week. I’d never attempted it before and it was challenging to say the least.
That is definitely one I would recommend practicing before hand.
The Swiss find gun ownership even more necessary than we do
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/754.html
yet I don’t hear you bashing them
The Swiss require every male citizen, i’m not sure about female citizens, but i remember reading a story about the Swiss requiring every male citizen to join the military. After their service is complete they keep their personal rifles. It’s a good comparison to make, the Swiss have some of the lowest crime rates in the world while they also have the most guns per citizen ratio. However, you have to serve in the military to earn that right in Switzerland, as opposed to the US, where you just have to go to a gun shop.
Depends on the state you go to. In NY no you just can’t go to a gun shop…. actually I don’t think anywhere anymore, the only way around most gun purchase laws is Gun Shows.
Also are saying we should force everyone to serve in the Military? I think that’s what I’m hearing here.
No way ILPB, i’m not suggesting a draft. Just making a comparison between the Swiss and the US. Where they do love their guns there, but there is also a military training requirement, also their’s is a tradition of passing the ‘family’s’ rifles down from generation to generation. They treat guns and gun ownership differently than we do here, was my point. Plus i just find it interesting.
Ok… just one point draft is a little bit different than mandatory service. A draft incorporates a lottery, not EVERYONE is picked for a draft, plus rich people are usually excempt from the draft.
You’d be surprised by how many more responsible gun owners there are in the US than not. When all you’re told is how “bad” things are you start to believe it. The Percentages came out to under 1% of Gun Owners have accidental injuries or deaths. That’s less than the percentage of people that died from Swine Flu.
As a believer in natural selection, I fully support your right to kill yourself with a gun because you have no clue what you’re doing with it.
(not you specifically PB, just a generic anyone dumb enough to shoot themselves you)
There is also a huge difference between a long gun and a handgun. Handguns are associated with a host of mishaps, including suicide (highest rate of success is if there is a gun in the house), folks accidentally shooting friends or family members, and the weapon being used against the owner.
Not so much with rifles or shotguns.
I’ve occasionally wondered if we should institute a short period of mandatory national service — say, a year or two after high school. Not military service per se, but more like support roles, or the sort of stuff National Guard units would be doing if they weren’t deployed overseas.
I’ve been saying that for years. Military if they want to, something else if they don’t. Do most 18-20 year olds a world of good.
I agree. Kids today.
*claps hand over mouth*
Dear gods.. I’m OLD!
I think most Americans would feel a lot safer if Military service was a perquisite to legal gun ownership gun ownership. Then again I think you should have a licence to legally bear children.
Actually, I think Swiss women can (and very often do) go through whatever training process is required for licensing; you can buy government surplus rifles, too. Sport shooting is very popular there.
Diss: DOn’t you know the only reason to own a gun is to use it to commit violent acts upon other human beings and/or animals…….
*sniff*
That poor black-and-white outline guy on the target…he’s so abused.
His name is Will. Any time some one says “Fire at Will” that’s who they’re talking about….Poor guy.
Not to mention all the violence committed upon milk jugs and pop cans.
When will someone think of the pop cans!
Also, hee hee, you said “jugs”.
I would expect that more people agree with his definition than agree with a definition including gun ownership as a human right.
On the other hand, most people would agree that defense of yourself and others IS a human right, although they might disagree on the appropriate means by which to do so.
True. I was interested to see how the UN Declaration of Human Rights dealt with that. Apparently, they do not state that self-defense is a human right, but that every person has the right to “…security of person.” They do not include anything about self-protection thought, viewing that as the purview of the State. I guess that could justify or allow a wide range tools for implementing that ‘right’.
I say the right to own a sharpened katana is a basic human right.
You’re missing the point. The issue isn’t gun ownership; it’s hand-wavingly invoking magical “obligatory human rights” as a way of invalidating laws you don’t like.
I understood your point. I was making conversation.
If by “conversation” you mean “unsuccessful strawman argument”, then yes. My mistake.
No, that was your strategy. And it failed.
Why, because you said it did? Just because you think gun ownership is “ridiculous” doesn’t mean that it’s not something that should be afforded to everyone in the United States. In this case, if you disagree with it and prefer a nation that does not allow gun ownership, I’d suggest catching the first plane to England and staying there.
Or he/she could use his/her winning personality and once-in-a-generation rhetorical skills to win over the American people and convince them to support amending the Constitution.
But banishing him/her to England has so many other perks…
You must be a really charming, balanced person. I pitty the people that have to put up with you in real life.
No substance, only hate and personal attacks.
wha– who?
No, not because I said it did but because he got the same answer not just from me but from others as well, pointing out his false claim.
I would prefer to just ban the gun-nuts to Australia. Oh wait …
But again, thanks for not reading the actual arguments but just venting right-wing frustration.
Just out of curiosity, why are you alternating email addresses between posts?
Apparently you can’t read, as he did NOT get the same answer from others. He didn’t get complete agreement, but he certainly wasn’t shouted down as wrong.
@diss: I honestly have no idea.
@froo: Read it again, the reading problems seem to be on your side. I didn’t say he was shouted down wrong – and others agreed with my point – are you now making a word-for-word same answer the standard? Nice tactic, but also FAIL.
Oh froo, you did NOT just pull the “if you don’t like it, get out” argument. I hate that argument so very very much.
Well, if you don’t like it, then you can leave.
I don’t use it much, but in the case of something that’s Constitutionally protected, I whip that one out of the holster faster than John Wesley Hardin
Did you just whip out a John Wesley Hardon?
Sorry, that was what I read at first. Should have specified that.
Why are we whipping John Wesley Hardon?
“Excuse me while I whip this out.” *reaches into pants*
Whip it good.
Please explain. What was the straw-man element of my comment?
“gun ownership as a human right”
Please point out where I referred to gun ownership as a human right.
Assuming that he relied upon only his ‘personal definition of “obligatory human rights”’, it seemed necessary to point out that most peoples’ conceptions of human rights would agree with Roro’s. I simply suggested the closest apparent alternative. Clearly a weak alternative – the alternative you are claiming as a straw man, but as Diss responded it is not so ‘black and white’ either.
Where did I ever say you were referring to gun ownership as a human right?
As I stated before, I was making conversation.
Perhaps — but I suspect most folks would be uncomfortable with Roro’s affinity for extrajudicial enforcement.
Regardless, since your “conversation” has absolutely nothing to do with my original point — and if you did in fact understand my original point you should agree — then you’re being irrelevant at best and disingenuous at worst. Either way, your “conversation” probably isn’t worth my time.
Then stop replying.
No.
Trying to follow Dhoti’s logic is very challenging, I admit. He is trying to evade everything and yet somehow claiming he won the argument. Interesting.
How he gets the notion that I favor “extrajudicial” enforcement is beyond me. Maybe he is mixing in his own fantasies here?
But then, just making up stuff about others as you go along is a common right-wing tactic, so let’s not dwell on this distraction attempt.
Your original point was understood by everyone here. But apparently noone agrees with it. Just claiming noone understands and if they did they “should” agree is the argument a 5 year old would make.
But you are right in one thing, you are no longer worth my time.
While conversing with you might be pointless, I have some small hope that pointing out your logical fallacy might not be. Call me a hopeless optimist.
I have yet to commit a logical fallacy on this thread. There was no straw man argument. A weak comparison, but no straw man. What other fallacy have I committed? Please tell me. I prefer to be logically flawless. Consistent to a T.
Well, you are welcome to start, any time. Haven’t seen it yet but you just keep claiming it and it will come true, right?
Wino, can I be consistant to a Z?
T or W, not other choices.
I’m consistent to a 7. I’m not really sure how that happened.
I’m consistent to a three snaps up in Z formation.
I’m consistent to pi.
I’m consistant to pie. Especially blueberry.
Just T and W. Pretty inconsistent otherwise.
No – they got it right, the point was gun ownership.
Since you had no real arguments, you made up the argument of someone “inventing” “magical” rights.
Let’s phrase it this way: Fundamental Human rights as accepted by the majority of democratic thinking people, just as the posters above wrote as well.
Your attempts at distracting from a valid point which you don’t like is quite obvious.
The majority of democratic thinking people also think that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Does that work for you?
First, how does this relate to the discussion about gun ownership in the constitution?
On the issue of gun-ownership as a constitutional right: It is a powerfull lobby and a somewhat fanatic community of gun-owners that thinks this is a constitutional right. The rest of the world is laughing at this.
On the issue of same-sex marriage: I don’t think anyone has the right to tell anyone who they can or cannot marry.
You are basing this comparisson on a misconception. It is not the majority of democratic thinking people that oppose same sex marriage, it is the majority of conservative people who oppose same sex marriage.
Try again.
It relates in a discussion about quote unquote “fundamental human rights.” If you’re arguing that owning the means to protect yourself in cases of danger is not, in fact, a fundamental human right because the majority of democratic-thinking people say it’s not, then you also have to follow that logic into another hot-button issue voted down by a democratic majority.
I believe that owning a gun is my fundamental right as a human. The majority of democratic (not Democrat) voters think so as well.
If I believe that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right, I’m also backed up by a majority of democratic voters, who have voted it down every time it’s been on a ballot. Whether it’s the conservatives who exercised their right to vote and caused that to stay in place is irrelevant to the discussion. We don’t take the religious affiliation of the voter as they walk out the door, nor are they asked to press a button saying who they are and what they believe. They simply vote up or down with a measure.
You cannot argue that a right is a right because the majority says so.
I’d point out that it doesn’t really matter whether we define ownership of firearms as a “fundamental human right”, as it’s a right we are clearly guaranteed under the United States Constitution. In other words, if you really, really don’t like it, do be sure to tell your elected representatives that you’d like another Constitutional amendment.
(Not so much a reply to you, Froo, as to roro above…bit of a nesting fail.)
Actually, this is the definition of democracy:
If the majority says so, it is a right.
And the majority of democratic thinking people worldwide think different about gun ownership. This should give the people here pause. Also, common sense is involved, but you seem to lack quite a bit of that.
But arguing with you is useless, I see.
The “majority rule” is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government or constitutional protections of individual liberties from democratic power it is possible for dissenting individuals to be oppressed by the “tyranny of the majority”.
Well, the Swiss might take offense to that.
Random post-Winter Olympics thought: How the hell do people in countries with very strict gun-control laws practice or compete in Biathlon?
Roro, I don’t live worldwide, nor does the worldwide voter make up the rules of America. So therefore, your argument about what constitutes a right is as invalid as Shaq holding this panda.
Lazer beams
And you are just snarky and exposing your ignorance. America is not a democracy, but rather a democratic republic. Can you even explain the difference?
@Dhoti: Aren’t you conservatives always ranting about “less” government?. But to the point: “Tyranny of the majority”? Seriously? You have me cracking up here.
@Diss: I believe they get issued sling shots for practice. It is all the same, really!
@diss: By pointing and yelling “BANG!”, presumably.
I had a Russian coworker who used to talk about “checking rifles out” from his local police station in the Soviet Union. He’d head out to Siberia for a six-month university-sponsored field expedition, and the cops would hand over half a dozen AK-47s for the trip. Presumably the biathletes have a similar system.
@Justa…
You say the US is not a democracy. That is funny – you should tell your marketing department – this is what Bush and others before him have been claiming for years – the greatest democracy on Earth?
And your point is? I think you are exposing your ignorance here, not vice versa. I understand how your electorate system functions, how does this make the US not a democratic country?
The US is not the only democratic republic, it is a quite common form of democracy, one of the few true democracies is Switzerland where people vote directly, not via intermediaries.
Ignorance and doucheness – well done. But try again.
So what you’re saying, Roro, is that you can’t explain and don’t understand the tyranny of the majority, and dont’ know the difference between a democracy and a democratic republic?
@Fro…
Well, but this was my original point, so your reply is just whiny and quite irrelevant.
@Froo
As I stated I understand them and their application, and went on saying that they are irrelevant to my point.
I seriously doubt that you even understand the concepts.
You seem to have some mighty problem with reading. Try it again, we will wait.
And they’re armed. Quite good shots, most of them, apparently.
And yet you failed to explain the difference. I think we all know who the ignorant one is here.
You’ll also find that I’ve spoken up about the foolishness of our politicians marketing, otherwise known as “spin,” for quite some time.
Who is this “we” to whom you refer? I only see you standing over by yourself shouting that you’re right right right and no one can tell you differently.
@Diss: Touché
@Justa+Froo
It is funny, the only ones standing here shouting they are right and noone can tell them differently are you two. But I will not repeat myself, I believe you have exposed your ignorance quite nicely, no more work required on my part.
@Roro: Sometimes I think the Swiss have the right idea regarding firearms — arm all the non-crazy people and train them to use them properly.
@Roro. I haven’t declared myself right. Just simply pointed out that you don’t seem to possess the ability to explain the difference between a democracy and a democratic republic. Something that weighs heavily to your earlier attempt at logic.
You are the one being nasty with a handful of people here today. You made a statement, and others found it to be wrong, and asked you to back it up. Something which you have failed miserably to do.
@Roro. By the way, are you to lazy to cut and paste something from dictionary.com, or have you figured it out that you are wrong, and posting the definition would prove it?
@Roro – its not entirely true to say that Switzerland is ruled by direct democracy. It is a highly devolved political system where most important political decisions are made at the Canton level rather than at the national level. National decisions are usually put up for referendums, but they don’t have to be.
@wicket: no you’re stupider.
@wickets ebil twin: no you are!!!
ahhh, dammit. tricked again!
Ah, but the USA is a REPUBLIC – not a democracy, despite the frequent use of that word by people who really should know better. There IS a difference.
It is also a fact that laws taking guns away from the law abiding populace does not reduce gun crime as criminals don’t obey the law anytway … DUH.
If you want to outlaw guns because crazies use them to hurt people, then you must also outlaw sharp knives, baseball bats and automobiles, because crazies use those to hurt people, too.
Another fact – if someone really wants to hurt or kill someone else, they will find a way – gun laws or not.
Yes, the Repuplic for Richard Stanz, whoever he is. Still trying to figure that one out.
Outa here for the day — night, all!
*hand on her heart, finishes up the pledge*
….with little tea and just rice for all.
Froo
“If I believe that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right, I’m also backed up by a majority of democratic voters, who have voted it down every time it’s been on a ballot.”
But wouldn’t this also fall under the banner of Tyranny of the Majority? Why should the majority decide who should marry who? No person or person’s pocessions is being harmed by their action to marry their same sex. You may not agree with it, but you’re not being harmed. So why vote against it? Cause “we have the numbers and we say so”?
Isn’t that tyranny of the majority?
Yes it is. I’m trying to show this idiot the flaw in his logic.
Kn0, “tyranny of the majority” is not the same thing as “the law disagrees with my preferred position”. You have to demonstrate that the system is oppressive first — actually oppressive, not “I disagree, therefore my view is oppressed”.
Hel Help I’m being repressed!!
Come see the violence inherent in the system!
*Takes tin foil hat off froo*
The repression is over!!!
Froo
Thanks, I just needed clarification on your position. I approached another “conservative” about the issue before and he swore up and down that it wasn’t.
Dhoti
The law you’re speaking of is DOMA correct? I personally don’t think the federal government should be in the business of putting defenitions on social practices. If they could say “what you’re doing is not recognized as this in our eyes because we say so”, I think we could end up heading down a slippery slope.
I wasn’t referencing any law, actually; I was merely pointing out that disagreeing with a majority position codified in law is not the same thing as the “tyranny of the majority”. The fact that your objection starts with “I personally don’t think” tells me that it’s personal — which is laudable, but not legalistic, and therefore not a systematic flaw.
Really!!! did you really just say people THINK it’s a constitutional right? It IS a constitutional right, second amendment in the bill of rights to be exact.
A trait of slaves throughout time is the inability to own arms.
Self defense is an inalienable right because the police can’t be everywhere.
And on the case of same sex marriage national polls have shown less than 50% of all Americans approve of actual marriage.
Divorce Rates have also shown this..
which is why it was democratically voted down…just all the same-sexers forgot to vote that day.
Not to distract anyone with logic, but where in the constitution or the bill of rights does it say anything about gun ownership?
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Amendment II – Right to Bear Arms
That doesn’t mean you have a sleeveless bear running around.
*shakes fist*
Frooooo! You ninja’d me.
BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
*does a Dirty Harry-style finger flip of the iPhone with the handy dandy Constitution/Bill of Rights/Declaration app*
I thought we were supposed to cut the arms off of bears…?
*quickly throws a sheet over the bear arms hanging on her walls* Nothing to see here, go about your business…
*gropes Janie blindly* I wish I could see this..
@froo I always thought that amendment was terribly worded, see the way I interpret that is that it is to have a well-regulated and well armed militia is the right of the people and is necessary to the security of a free state and shall not be infringed.
Bloody eductated 18th centurians and their flowery language though maybe they also meant that every militiaman gets a free bear arm when they join up
Just remember that comma in the middle doesn’t mean you stop for breath
It’s all one statement, phrased as such because everyone back then had guns. THey were saying it should remain so.
According to the Supreme Court, a statement in there regarding WHY they thought it was important doesn’t actually limit the part of the sentence that reads “right…SHALL not be infringed.”
Of course, the arms they were referring to were front-loading muskets.
Arms is arms.
I disagree. And so does the Supreme Court if I’m not mistaken. Diss would probably be able to quote, but I’m fairly sure that they’ve upheld limitations on automatic weapons.
@Mabs: Well, not right off the top of my head, but I believe you are correct about that. We can’t own grenade launchers and cool s**t like that, either.
Although apparently you CAN own your own tank. (link).
In the Second Amendment: “…the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
*facepalm*
*points at casprd*
YOU!! Back to school! How were you ever allowed to graduate high school!!??!!!
Serious question: Why is gun ownership a right? Just because it’s in the constitution? Is the constitution infallible? Why do we treat the constitution like it’s infallible? Just because a bunch of dudes in the 1700s decided it’s a right doesn’t mean it’s true. I fail to see how owning a gun compares to freedom of speech or religion. Frankly, if we have to allow people to have guns (and I hate guns so very very much), then why isn’t it under “privilege” instead of “right.” If it was a right, then anyone should be able to have a gun. And frankly, I think letting anyone have a gun is a really stupid freaking idea. /rant
“Just because it’s in the Constitution?” Um….yes. That IS pretty much how we define “Constitutional Right”.
Personally, I’d rather give up freedom of religion and have to sit through services at the Official State Church every week.
As far as “Just because a bunch of dudes in the 1700s decided it’s a right doesn’t mean it’s true,” I would again point out that, should a sufficient number of voters feel that way about it, there IS a process by which the United States Constitution can be amended.
I’d rather shoot myself in the face than attend any church. So let’s hope that they keep guns legal!
My neo-con mother actually said she didn’t want a state religion in our talk last night. I told her that she’d just have to get happy with same-sex marriage then. It made her concede my point.
She still doesn’t want a state religion.
I don’t WANT a state religion; I was just saying I’d be happier doing that than having the government tell me I can’t have my own damn gun in my own damn house.
PK just moderated out my response to that, which was ‘wow’. Grrr.
It was an interesting conversation. She’s opposed to same-sex marriage, but on a religious stance instead of a legal one. She can’t give me a good reason for it other than “God said it was bad.”
I asked her “What about someone who doesn’t worship the God you and I worship? Why do they have to do what a god says if they think that god is imaginary?”
She replied “Should it matter? DOesn’t God’s Law apply even if you don’t believe in him?”
I said “Perhaps, but that’s like asking me to obey the laws of Mexico while I’m living in America.”
Mom said “Then go to Mexico.”
I said “I don’t want to go to Mexico. It smells there. Besides, you can’t force people to leave based off a religious viewpoint unless you have a state-run religion. THEN you can hold people in your country to a religious moral principle.”
Mom said “Well I don’t want a state-run religion.”
I said “Then get used to the idea that same-sex marriage is happening.”
She conceded the point, and we had cookies.
DAMMIT!!! Q8-<
I didn’t say “constitutional right.” I just said “right.”
And of course we can amend the constitution. I’d love to. However, if I said we should amend the constitution to nullify the 2nd amendment, I’d be declared an unamerican nazi communist fascist for taking away the most importantest right ever made.
Hyperbole? Hell yes, but that’s how I roll.
The constitution is not infallible.
I’ll give you that one. But, still, yes, being in the Constitution makes it a right.
As far as “infallible”….as it means “incapable of making errors” I don’t think that’s precisely the word you’re looking for; the Constitution is a document, it makes no judgments.
Oh fine then. It’s isn’t perfect. How about that?
*grumblehatearguingwithalawyergrumble*
Ok!
*grumblelikeidon’thearthateverytimei’marguingwithsomebodygrumble*
Then we need to amend the Constitution. Just saying “Hey, we’re not going to let you have a gun because we think it’s a bad idea!” ain’t gonna work.
The Press have been pretty stupid lately, can we take away their rights too?
And what constitutes “excessive bail?” Wasn’t that like $3 back then? Can we do away with that one?
When was the last time the government tried to quarter soldiers in your house? I think we can get rid of the 3rd Amendment, no problem!
While we’re at it the 5th Amendment seems obsolete. By declaring the 5th you’re saying you won’t incriminate yourself, and therefore you did it. Seems kinds circular to me.
Sorry people’s this would have been fun to be part of, but I’m on travel and now must wiegh in.
STOP picking and choosing which Constitutional Amendment you want inforced. I own two guns, does that make me a gun nut, I wouldn’t think so. I also value the freedom of speech, inability of search and seizure without a warrant, my alcohol, the fact that everyone can vote regardless of sex, race, religion, etc……
Rando: You ask why we should follow the US Constitution, and act as if it’s infallible at times, SIMPLE! The only Amendment (not one of the original) that’s ever been repealed was one that took something away from the public, The Right to Drink. Also the Constitution is a Living document, that grows with the country (maybe lags behind at times).
RORO: STFU and GTFO!!!! If you want to take away one Amendment b/c “the rest of the world laughs at us” (which is one of the stupidest statements I’ve ever heard) then maybe you really don’t undertand what America is about. Maybe that’s why only American Citizens get to vote in America, b/c we really don’t want the rest of the world’s laws in our country, we govern ourselves. We’ve fought a few wars to be able to do that.
I never asked why we should follow the constitution. I asked why people treat it likes it’s perfect. I’m not allowed to call it infallible anymore. *sticks tongue out at diss* I asked why gun ownership is a “right,” when I think it should be (at best) a privilege. I mean, seriously, it doesn’t seem to fit with the other important rights to me.
*sticks tongue back out at Rando*
Love the new avatar, btw.
The kids were watching Spongebob and Patrick said something funny and I just had to put him as my avatar.
I think we covered it, the right to protect oneself.
But why gun ownership? You do realize that most violent crimes are committed by illegal firearms, right?
I think the argument that they we should all have guns because the bad guys all have guns is dangerous thinking. How can other countries have little to no gun crime, but this country it’s everywhere? We’re doing something wrong.
Did you check into those countries violent crimes laws?
Also if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Who’s to protect the citizens? Or police forces are already over burdened.
Once again I quote DC Gun Ban lifted crime goes down.
Guns and violence are glorified by the media (think rappers). People fail to understand that the second amendment is not the right to run around philly with a gun killing other gangs, but the right to own a weapon to defend yourself from tyrannical government.
Yep, gun control has almost never resulted in lower crime. Every country that has banned guns has experienced an increase in crime. The major cities of the US that have put in gun control laws have seen increases in crime rates. Yet entire countries and areas of the US with the lowest gun controls in place show the least crime.
The “guns are bad, they should be banned” argument always fails.
ILPB: There are other ways to protect oneself.
None of them are as effective as a weapon comparable to what your assailant has. I refuse to carry a knife to a gun fight.
You’re not ILPB.
I agree with Froo…..
What ways are that? A knife, pepper spray, a really big stick, bad breath?
Only a month late.
Well, that one is actually if you are questioned or testifying about someone else’s activities and answering the question will incriminate yourself. Of course I believe you can usually make a bargain with the DA to not prosecute you for whatever you did in exchange for your testimony, providing your crime is less than their crime….
Off topic, but on subject. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was unconstitutional in it’s goals, but because Marijuana use was not as popular as alcohol at the time, and as a result of the “refer madness” type of propaganda the public didn’t mind that “right” being taken away from them without touching the constitution. However, when it came to alcohol, a much wider used drug at the time, the public was very aware that a constitutional amendment would be necessary. Just amazes me, both are drugs and both were banned, but it took a Constitutional amendment for one, while it took some sleazy back-door “Tax Act” to illegalize the other. Food for thought.
Yep. The govt says you can’t pain relief or stoned unless you get it from a guy in a white labcoat, then get it handed to you by someone up on a platform. That is, unless you get smashed on alcohol.
Fine – you have no gun. The wacko breaking into your house with murder on his mind – as he is a CRIMINAL (an so does not abide by gun laws) DOES have a gun. You and your family are all dead, because it will take the police 5 – 10 minutes to get there, assuming you get a chance to call 911.
I was raise with guns, learned to shoot them and learned to respect them and be VERY VERY careful with them. It used to be that way, once. The problem is NOT guns – it is the attitude, fostered by society through movies, music etc. that life is cheap and if someone makes you mad you ‘cap’ them.
I’m a light sleeper, so I woke up when I heard him breaking down the door, I grabbed my sword, hid in the closet, waited for him to pass me and stabbed him in the back. Now I’m up on charges. Sh!t.
Why are you up on charges? Because some criminal killed someone with a sword and as a result some sword control idiot made it illegal for you to defend yourself from harm in your own home.
No…no one has made it illegal to own a sword, at least not in this state. You’re really stretching here aren’t you?
Not really – the reason there are gun laws is because of criminals killing people with guns – which is dumb because criminals don’t obey gun laws. The fact that you cannot hurt / maim / kill an intruder in your house without facing the possibility of being charged with a crime is ridiculous, but there you go. Any cop will tell you that the chances of them arriving in time to stop an intruder – assuming you have a chance to call 911 in the first place – are virtually nil.
Hmmm…clearly we’re not doing a good enough job of keeping illegal weapons from criminals. If they didn’t have guns, we wouldn’t need guns. Someone needs to get on that.
Yeah I think maybe if we enforce the current crime laws on the books prior to adding new laws.
What? That’s just crazy talk.
No that’s my brother, Crazy Talk.
I just try to not have anything valuable. Thus, there is no motivation to steal it. If I ever have valuables, I am going to have to move to a neighborhood with people much richer than me so that relatively speaking it appears that I have no valuables.
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” — George Washington.
Too bad nowadays there is much less “disciplined”, and much more “armed”.
Maybe we should make a Constitutional Amendment for that.
It’s a constitutional right because Americans continue to again and again find themselves in positions where the Government feels it can infringe on the rights of its citizens. If you believe that it’s silly for citizens to be empowered to defend themselves from those who would take things away from them watch a little RT or Al-Jazeera. Take a look at what happens to democracies where citizens aren’t allowed to bear arms. Ask yourselves why we aren’t being turned away from polling places or being forced to riot in the streets every month to have our constitutional rights upheld. America isn’t Switzerland or Australia or any other country. Our relationship with the gun is unique and much more involved than our relationship with religion or even free speech. We have the right to bear arms because it is a right we originally believed to be essential and a right we continue to feel is essential.
“Our relationship with the gun is unique and much more involved than our relationship with religion or even free speech.”
I find that disturbing.
Only a small exception to a small mind. Try getting outside the box.
Its not about the guns necessarily, its about the fact that we have the right to defend ourselves. And the best defense is a gun. IF you don’t like guns, DON’T CARRY ONE. But leave those who wish to protect themselves and those around them alone.
Guns are not “necessary”!?
Libs think that because of civilization that humans no longer need or have a right to defend their own lives.
Affordable taxpayer-subsidized healthcare is a right…good paying jobs are a right…iphones are a right…equality is a right…free food is a right…everything is a “right” to liberals except the common sense notions of survival and civility that all men should share.
The Bill of Rights is not about making men equal, its about giving men an equal set of rights in the eyes of the law to attempt to survive and prosper.
Civilization sure has a lot of criminals in it, and you know what all those gun-toting street thugs and gangsters carry? GUNS! ILLEGAL GUNS! And they all vote Democrat.
The right of a human being to survive…to defend himself from physical harm or death is the first right of all creatures. You’d think that since libs are big on evolution they would support that, but they are too dumb.
They ALL vote Democrat?!
You got a cite for that?
“tea bagging” has an overtly sexual reference….for those who know. Its dangling your familyi jewels in the face of your fallen enemy by squatting on their face.
Now. Go ahead and run around saying disgusting things like that about people…and see how far you get. In most states, public urination is enough to get tagged as a registered sex offender.
And the award for Regurgitation and Missing the Point goes to…..
*breathlessly opens envelope*
VALIANTDEFENDER!!! Come on up and get your trophy!!! *hands VD a trophy of a horse’s ass cast in bronze*
As an aside, if you’re going to knock someone for a reference to a vulgar sexual practice, you might want to look at what the first letters of your chosen name stand for.
*anxiously awaits test results*
It’s bad news, honey. I’ve got Valiant Defender. Better get yourself checked.
DAMMIT!!! And we used protection and everything *pout*
Well… there was that one time in Bangkok, but I hardly think that counts.
One night in Bangkok makes the hard man humble.
Lol. If you Got some VD (Valiant Defender) in you. It would only be good news for you. I am Valiant…and i will defend truth and honor. I give respect to those who have earned mine.
You could do with some respect and honor.
Darling, you’ve shown neither so don’t expect any in return. I’ll continue to laugh and your trollish antics as I am frequently amused by the crazy.
I hear ya, Jane. I hope this guy sticks around. He’s fun to read!
“I am Valiant…and i will defend truth and honor.”
Oh cool, he’s a super hero! Tell us about your super powers, VD? Are you something we can get from a toilet, or does it have to be intercourse?
And I thought Superman was the douchiest of super heroes.
What? Captain Planet, seriously.
No love for the mullet, Diss?
Friends don’t let friends get mullets.
Rape! Rape! No means no!
Wow. What an intelligent argument.
Points made = 0
logic used = 0
inane use of symantics = 1
What a winner you are. *cough*
Perhaps you know the definition of Valiant? Perhaps you don’t know what a defender is? Put the words together? And you come up with VD.
I’m supposed to be impressed with your ability to make pointless remarks and personal attacks.
ROFL
I do! It was an automobile manufactured by the Plymouth division of Chrysler Corporation in the United States from 1960 to 1976. (link)
Oh yeah. The slant 6 engine was/is legendary!
Hell yeah we have Valiants here as well but it was the 1970-1975 Valiant Charger and its gorgeous 3 litre Aussie built V8 that won people over. Only 32,000 built here and their desirability is such that even one in a not so great condition goes for about $30 grand.
Mind you a mint 1970 Ford Falcon Phase III GTHO from the same era just went for a cool $1 million! Oh and the 1978 Ford Falcon Cobra, Holden Monaro (we exported the new versions to the US as the new Pontiac GTO if that rings any bells) *drools*
1970′s muscle cars rule
My Communication 101 prof told me there’d be people like you. Silly me to think people take anything seriously these days.
Thanks for not throwing in personal attacks, however. Kudos.
Quack.
Echo…..
LIAR!!! That can’t happen!!!!! *cries*
Mythbusters busted it
Is that show anything like Mythbusters?
I was watching the Discovery Channel the other day, and they had this show on where they challenged common myths. It was great. They should make that a regular part of the lineup.
That show sounds great, but I should tell you about Mythbusters…
I think it’s similar, but I should tell you about this American TV series that gets shown on SBS in Australia. It stars these 2 dudes, 1 has a dodgy walrus moustache the other is Adam something there’s also a hot chick and a couple of other goofy looking guys, they troll the internet looking for common myths then try to prove them. I think it might be Mythbusters
Sorry, but that show sucks. It’s a complete rip off of an American show we have called Mythbusters.
Oh please. Everyone knows that Myth Busters is way better than that other crap.
Sorry, hon, did you want the “Very Serious Argument With No Humor Allowed” website? They’re down the hall on the left.
*reads sign* Interwebz Srs Bzns….Ohhhhhhh…….
Sarcasm and joking on a humor website? I’m shocked, Froo, simply horrified. We must look into this. I’ll form a committee.
I guess thats fair. its a “humor site” that all too often ends up making fun. Which I take serious. Obviously.
The direction the nation is headed is not a laughing matter to me. Its a little scary.
And we’re definitely going to solve that problem on a humor site!! Carry on….
Gallows humor, m’dear. Life’s too short not to laugh at it. Try to improve things, for sure; work and fight for what you believe in; but if you lose your sense of humor (and especially your ability to laugh at yourself) then They’ve won. (Whoever your personal definition of They is. We’ve all got a They.)
Now, to lunch…
Where’s that committee???
*bares ample mammaries* Right here! Oh, wait… wrong committee?
Diss, “We have met the enemy and they are us.” What? He was a cartoonist!! That automatically makes it humor, right? *runs away*
Horse sh!t. The direction the nation is headed is absolutely hilarious, no matter which party is running the show. If it weren’t funny, The Daily Show and SNL would’ve been cancelled years ago.
Question, why are the 2d Amenders only for Fed rules when it comes to firearms and State rule for everything else?
that is awesome…fully support this!
Never enter a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent; you’ll get frustrated at best, and angry at worst. Then they will claim that they’ve won because you lost your temper.
Aint that the truth…
In all fairness, if you lose your temper then they did win…
Now we understand why the
liberalscommunists want to stop teaching REAL American history. There are just 3 types of people who use the homo term “teabagger” to describe people who are sick of paying taxes for ridiculous things:A) people who DON’T pay them
B) people who suck them up like a sponge
c) rich liberal pukes who don’t actually work for their money and want to keep “poor” people out of their neighborhoods by letting the government keep them locked in the ghetto.
welcome to the turd world.
TROLL!
Someone kill it! Quickly!
Now we understand why the
conservativesmorons need to be weeded out.. Anyone saying “killtheliberals” is just too intolerant to be left in the gene pool..Tolerance only has one side. You must be tolerant of me…not vice versa…right?
How exactly would conservatives be weeded out? Gas chamber? Sounds classy. I’ll sign up. WHich uniform are we wearing this time? Something red? of course. Swastikas? sweet. Do i get to shave my head?
While I agree that “kill the liberals” as a name is way out of line…your response is the other side of the same coin. How was it you were going to weed them out again? Put them on a train and ship them to a camp?
Sarcasm is the rhetorical device of using a characterization of something or someone in order to express contempt.[1] It is closely connected with irony, in that the two are often combined in the same statement.
And you seem to have a typo in your name – it should read “RavingDementor”.
As you are very clearly a right-wing fundamentalist fanatic, I find your overdramatic postulated claim that you are being persecuted by Nazis quite funny – they are / were the embodiment of fundamentalist right-wingers.
But keep on ranting – we are having a blast!
Big words that are supposed to make me feel bad for my beliefs? Oh noes.
Thats right. I stand up for what i believe.
I believe gun ownership is fundamental to freedom.
So “kill the liberals” name couldn’t be an overdramatic name to goad a response?
I never said I was being persecuted by Nazis. I was trying to overstate the obvious in case people don’t get it.
People cry “tolerate my belief” and then turn around and spew the same exact hate back.
IF my comments happen to strike some kind of historical vibe as to related events in the past…so be it. Your ridicule is powerless. I only change my views based on facts/education…not whining.
“IF my comments happen to strike some kind of historical vibe as to related events in the past…so be it.”
You think to highly of yourself.
too with double oooooo!
Hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɜrbəli/[1], from ancient Greek ὑπερβολή ‘exaggeration’) is a rhetorical device in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.
Total win , Valiant ( you can tell by the way the Libs scream)
The only thing that might make me scream is your blatant abuse of the space bar.
And complete neglect of the period key.
It’s probably just a little late. Periods do that now and again.
LIES!!!!!! I know you got me pregnant you bastard! *sobs hysterically*
This pregnancy test says “comma.” I have no idea what to think now.
But you can see the dot right there. Next to the colon.
If you have a dot in your colon you may want to see a doctor.
I was wondering….if we signify support for breast cancer research with pink ribbons, do we signify support for colon cancer research with brown ribbons?
Bah, Oral Day is being ruined by a bunch of trolls! Begone, foul creatures!
No, not at all. Tolerance should go both ways.
I’m sorry, you must have missed what I did there. I crossed out “conservatives” and put “morons”. I did that because kill up there put “
liberalscommunists”. Since you don’t understand, I did that in response to the fact that not all liberals are communists; in my response I was showing that not all conservatives are morons. I’m sorry that was too complicated for you to follow.Your right to Freedom of Speech, and therefore Freedom of Expression allow you to wear what you please and style your hair in any way you so choose. Unfortunately, is does not allow the putting people in the gas chamber.
I would hasten to point out, that same Freedom of Speech/Expression gives me the right to be snarky to someone on an internet forum who is very obviously trolling. You taking it so personally and becoming so viscerally offended when I wasn’t even talking to you really lets your own tolerance shine through. So shiny it’s almost blinding..
At least we can agree on that.
Again, apparently you missed what I did there. Please see Wino and Rando’s definitions of sarcasm and hyperbole. If you still have questions because the words were too big, feel free to respond again with something nasty because your inability to interpret the world around you makes you lash out at people who weren’t even speaking to you in the first place.
kill – your words are wasted on liberals. All liberals have to do is call you a redneck or a racist and in their mind….they win. They can’t argue with you. They can’t produce valid reasoning for their arguments. So they just attempt to assassinate (can I still use that word….or is that racist too?) your character, 50 of talk about how redneck or racist you are, and they walk away without making a point. Much like Kn0wledge1ne below. No point. Just a quick quip about nothing to do with your argument and then they run.
You know, I suspect somebody posting as “killtheliberals” doesn’t so much want to have a reasoned conversation anyway. It seems a little overly confrontational, to the point where I suspect the reaction they are getting is exactly what they expected and wanted.
ya srsly
A big, fat “no one cares what you think” is all the trolls deserve…
Your name says it all.
@retard (cause you don’t deserve to be named a conservative)
Why don’t you bless us with you almighty wisdom and point out to us kill’s gems of intellectual arguements. Go ahead.
Was it his psycopathic screen name?
Was it his condescending tone?
Was it his rediculous stereotypes?
Was it his uninformed notion that liberals are somehow all “rich” and elitist?
What in his post was even close to intelligent, informed, or even a valid point?? We await your “reasoned” arguement.
And last I checked, no one said anything about rednecks or racism. If your reading comprehenssion isn’t up to par, I seriously doubt your “arguements” will be either.
I…I’m rich? Just because I’m a liberal? Woohoo! *looks down on all the poor conservatives* Should have been a liberal!
We can argue with you. We just think you’re too stupid to understand.
And you can’t reply to the valid arguments WE give, you just accuse us of pointing fingers. How are you ayny different?
On behalf of the conservatives of PK fvck OFF!!
“Homo term?” Uh, whut?
Froo, I’m going with “faaaaabulous” as my “homo term”. Better pick yours fast before the best ones are gone!
Dammit, you got the good one! What about “2 die 4″ complete with hand motions? I’ll take that one!
I call dibs on calling everyone sweety or sweet heart!
Dibs on calling everyone ‘Dahlin’!!
Homo sapien. You know, killtheliberals isn’t one, so he takes offense as that “homo term.”
@killtheliberals Because the conservative value system says kill anyone who doesn’t agree with you?
I’ve never heard any real conservative express that, nor can I find it in the Constitution.
Put up an honest argument in the arena of ideas, not a bunch of vulgar hate.
And conservatrolls are the angriest mother fvckers I’ve ever seen. Are you still butthurt that the liberals are running the show? Poor baby. You’ll get your chance to destroy the country again someday.
You funny, please don’t breed.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Oh wait, this isn’t funny..
Agreed. *yawn*
I’d rather be called a “teabagger” than a communist.
Death toll so far: Teaparty people: ZERO
Communists: more than all wars combined.
so who is worse?
College Acquaintance: Young Obama Was ‘Pure Marxist Socialist’
http://www.breitbart.tv/college-acquaintance-young-obama-was-pure-marxist-socialist/
Well, the teabaggers DID kill your capacity to think for yourself, that counts.
Other than that – reading your post all I can say is BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
First off “Tea-Bagger” is a misnomer. “tea bagging” is the act of squatting on your oppenants face, dangling your family jewels, repeatedly. THis is done in video games by some immature folk out there.
Second – Gun Ownership rights are not just about revolutionary war. Our founders had a painful decision to make…and they didn’t wan their children or great grandchildren 200 years later to have to make that same decision. Individual rights are protected from Big Brother when individuals are lawfully armed. When people try to Ban that right, its ripening to the time when we might just need them again.
Third, anyone who still believes Obama has their best interest at heart is sersiously delusional. How many unctonstitutional things has he done? How many blatant socialist/quasi dictator acts has he commited? Shall we name them? starting with the Nationalizaion of private industries and ending with shoving health care through when polls clearly show its no supported. He can’t get the votes so has to play special congress cards to pass it anyway?
Third – the inevitable response here is that I must be some Repub loving guy. NOPE. I love freedom, truth, honor, vitality, cleanliness, respect, knowledge, etc. If any person or party shows themselves to be selfish and corrupt, I don’t support them..no matter what “color” their party is. (Thats a comment about Blue and Red – not a racial remark).
Where can I buy this video game? Please, let me know – I have not seen one yet in my long career of gaming and I would like to purchase it.
Gun ownership? Reading comprehension fail. Big time.
And to your third and third – I will let this one stand for itself.
Fourth: BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Um….. any FPS where you can squat. o.O Hello?
And so i went back and edited a point and forgot to renumber them…this never happens to anyone EVER. I know. Lets make fun of someone for it! Weeeeeee. Now I’m powerful!
And if you really are laughing at a love of freedom, truth, etc… I guess that explains why you would be such a douche.
Also. If my comprehension of Gun Ownership is such a fail…why don’t do your help me out here? What is it I’ve missed?
Your comprehension of freedom? You seem to grasp that you can say whatever you want regardless of truth without being prosecuted. Your comprehension of truth….ehhh, not so much. No one is taking your guns away. No one is taking your freedom away. You listen to way too much talk radio and/or Feux News to understand that you aren’t having anything “shoved” down your throat, anymore than you had Bush tax cuts for the wealthy “shoved” down your throat. It’s called politics, and if you were older than 30 you’d realize this is how it works. You elect officials you agree with. If the elected officials disagree with you, it probably means your official lost the election…deal with it and stop acting like a juvenile FPS who gets voted out for having the “annoying little kid” voice. Socialism means you have no private property, tell me when a President takes away your private ownership of anything, and i’ll stop ignoring you when you call them “socialist dictators”. Grow up. Go give some money to an insurance company so you can feel better about being an American.
I hate cleanliness.
you dirty, dirty boy.
But it’s next to Godliness.
That’s always bothered me. There are three whole letters in between C and G in the alphabet….shouldn’t SOMETHING else be in there between Cleanliness and Godliness?
Well there’s Dirty and Filthy. I need an E.
Evil.
You must not know about our war on God.
*drunkenly lifts head up*
I’m here to fight for you, your Holy Drunken-ass…
*passes out*
Well better hurry up, apparanetly your plan to get rid of guns will hurt your war on god.
Pffffbbbb – We don’t need no stinkin’ guns to fight God, silly non-believer!
Pssssttt, Wino…uuhhhmmm, how are we fighting God again?
Flame throwers created by severely inebriated belching and a lighter?
Is that covered under the Constitution? What Amendment is that?
Well, it’s not specifically forbidden anywhere now, is it?
You know, like AK-47s and so forth. Not forbidden.. So Constitutionally protected right?
Yes, Nationalisation of Health Care is quasi-dictator like. Because Canada, England & Sweden are all dictatorships. Pthbthbthbt!
ROFL.
thats what I said too! Obviously! Woot. You are so durn smart! Luk at chu.
C’mon. I asked for intelligent points Charro…not made up remarks.
Let me help you out and i’ll quote myself.
“How many blatant socialist/quasi dictator acts has he commited? Shall we name them? starting with the Nationalizaion of private industries and ending with shoving health care through when polls clearly show its no supported. He can’t get the votes so has to play special congress cards to pass it anyway?”
My point isn’t that nationalized healthcare = dictator. its the METHODs used.
It is unconstitutional for the Fed Govt to take over GM. Then he paid off the labor unions and not the bond holders. Another move he made without authority…these are quasi dictator in nature. Without vote or authority he simply DOES what he wishes.
THEN on with my point about healthcare. When he can’t get the votes….he just pushes it anyway!
Lets see if Charro has the ability to make an intelligent remark. I’m sure shes waiting with ‘baited breath’ to make another personal attack cause she doesn’t have anything logical, lawful, honest or true to say.
We’ve replaced Valiant Defender with a raging harp toad that can’t do anything but spew vitreol and idiocy out his crazy little mouth.
Let’s see if anyone notices.
I didn’t notice.
vitreol, idiocy, RAWR!!!elebenty11!!
It’s “bated breath”. Pthbthbthbt!
I think VD has baited breath, though. Definitely smells like catfish bait. *pukes*
*pats Rando gently*
I have ginger .. ale and crackers. Let’s go sit by my moat.
Oh that sounds good, thank you.
I’m happy to help.
You must be new to the political scene, if you think polls say anything, and if you think reconciliation is something new go back and talk to your PolySci prof again. You’ve obviously never bought a car, if you think bargaining for a price is somehow the car dealerships fault and not the car buyer’s responsibility (blaming the President for Senator’s wanting pork???). And in the midst of a recession, NOT buying out GM would mean more hurt for the country than doing so…your decision is obvious, however i don’t think it would’ve been the right one (more hurt vs less hurt…seems an easy decision to me).
Just keep screaming Socialist dictator until all those other id1ots realize that you are the one making sense. Those reasonable people that are offering some form of solutions are the ebil ones.
Mind you, nationalising any company is the best way to send it to hell in a handbasket. Short term it may have done some good, but long term it would mean a slow decline into the junkyard.
My point was “action or no action”. I think action was the correct decision (thats the main difference between liberal and conservative policies). It may turn out to be a huge failure, or GM could fix itself and return privately owned, back on it’s own path. But without government intervention, they wouldn’t have had any choice except a straight dive into the junkyard, as opposed to a possible slow one.
First off, the teabaggers themselves came up with that term before they figured out what it really meant. They’re stuck with it, as far as I’m concerned. Calling them “tea party ‘patriots’” conveys a level of respect I don’t think they deserve.
Second – the right to own firearms is not going to protect you from the local constabulary, let alone the considerable might of the U.S. Armed Forces. Ask David Koresh how that went…oh yeah, you can’t.
Third, if you have an alternative to what President Obama has done, I’d love to hear it. “Letting the people keep more of their own money” in the form of yet more tax cuts is not a satisfactory alternative. It has already been demonstrated its ineffectiveness.
Oh, and regulating interstate commerce is well within the bounds of the Constitution. I suggest you read it more thoroughly; it contains far more than just the Second and Tenth amendments.
Third (the second one) – you teabaggers would love to have us believe you are some kind of diverse apolitical movement that has nothing to do with certain physical characteristics of the current President. You would be flat-out lying through your teeth.
Uhhh stupid person post long post full a fvcktardness!!!
His screen name is truly accurate, however.
PS how is Health Care “interstate commerce”? That’s a pretty big reach, longer than any of my “strawman” arguments.
You obviously have no grasp of history if you presume to claim that communists have killed more people than all wars combined.
Hard to discuss with someone who has no grasp of facts.
Don’t reason with the troll – laugh at his verbal diareah like I did and get it even angrier – it will be funny to read the replies!
Now read what Igdo said and imagine the voice of Cesar Millan. “Don’t REASON with it, DOMINATE it. Be the pack leeeder.”
“The most important thing that we have to provide every day is that we are the pack leader, that we set the rules, the boundaries and the limitations, and then we love.”
Socialism is not the same as Communism.
No one cares what you think.
Yeah – how dare someone compare like…target to wal-mart…or like…oh wait. They are pretty similar.
Saying no one cares doesn’t make it true. Perhaps Charro here could say “I don’t care”. I didn’t vote for Charro to be my voice, therefore, he is NOT.
No one cares what you think. Not even Charro, who is a WOMAN, you fu(kweasel™.
Hey, no fair trademarking fu(kweasel!!!
I don’t want to pay licensing fees!
I trademarked it months ago. Now pay up! I will accept icy cold pitchers of Stoli and lemonade.
Hey, that sexy mermaid picture could be an ingenious piece of misdirection.
No one cares what you think.
Awwwww, you’re so cute when you’re indignant. Really though, no one cares what you think.
Mmm hmmm. Yah. I don’t care that you don’t care. What arey ou going to do about it?
Nothing…cause you can’t. AWE. poor you. Can’t do anything about it.
I like how you make SO many points and valid arguements. Why are you even on this forum? Oh i forgot. Nothing. Go do something pointless somehwere else.
I don’t CARE if CHARRO is a woman…i still didn’t vote for “it” to be my voice. (Sorry if I can’t get GENDER out of a name….way to make a point out of it like it means anything….OhNOESICalledYourLoverADudebymistakeCauseIdidntknowsothereforeImustmakefun!) Rolls eyes. Seriously.
*smacks VD while he’s rolling his eyes so they stick that way*
HAH!!
I’m sorry, was this English? My translator must be broken again.
Don’t worry, Jane. Most translators don’t work translating ass maggot to English.
Whoa now Rando. Don’t go insulting ass maggots like that. They’re armed, ya know.
Oh great. Even ass maggots are covered by the 2nd amendment. Where’s the line, dammit!!!
Nothing, because we don’t care. You seem to be missing this point for some reason.
I agree with almost everything you are saying VD. They are calling you a troll because you stick around standing up for what you believe to be right. When there are very few gun owners/republicans/conservatives its easy for them to all gang up on you, and you keep standing your ground. Good for you. I think it is a waste of time to argue some of these points on the internet. Where we need to argue these ideas is in the real world. I am sure they will have some comment on word usage, or grammar or what have you, but that seems to be the only argument they have against you anyway.
That being said, I think gun-ownership is vital to any free country’s survival. Without the common folk being armed, the government is able to walk all over us. And the US Armed forces are a majority of conservatives, or at least republicans, and they are unhappy with the direction the country is going. And when they are ordered to go take away someone’s rights, I think a majority will stand firm in their beliefs. Before you know it, there will be a revolution. How can there not be a revolution? The country is split almost in half (somewhat like the civil war), and when there is that kind of unrest, there is bound to be some sort of conflict.
Hey, it’s not my fault that you can’t handle someone pointing out the painfully obvious. What is it that you’re defending? Your inalienable right to be a complete idiot?
And I’m so sad you didn’t vote for me.. Boo hoo.
Things would be so much better if this was a dictatorship…..as long as I’m the dictator…
Still using the free version of the World Domination iPhone app, huh?
I still don’t know what to do with the woman of ill repute *sigh*
Sorry froo, I have to vote for charro. She’s a durty librul and a heathen, like me!
Hee hee. Love it!
No one cares what you think. Although it’s fun to toy with you and get your hopes up.
Yes because every single person in this world is either a teabagger or a communist. The lunatics are only at the ends of the spectrum, the vast majority of people don’t fit in to either group. Believe it or not, there are many people out there capable of thinking for themselves.
I love this guy! Can I keep him? I bet it wouldn’t take long to house break him. Or maybe I’ll just keep him in a cage in the backyard where he can bark at the wild turkeys. I need something to scare off the wild turkeys.
Can I come by and poke at him with a stick now and then?
Sure! Make sure to use this pointy one!
Make sure it gets all it’s shots and doesn’t have any diseases. I don’t want it giving my Sqwirk rabies.
How many of you f*cking trolls do I have to kill today? Shoo. Go away….at least until I’ve finished cleaning all of my guns.
There has NEVER been a Communist nation, EVER! I don’t care what your UnclePaw told you has never happened.
P.S. “Commies” don’t give money to banks, bit of an oxymoron, moron.
Only countries that pretend to be communist as a way to oppress their people. You’re right, a true communist nation has not existed to my knowledge.
Of course they came unarmed to a battle of wits. They didn’t want to take unfair advantage of the liberals.
It’s good to see that you don’t carry.
If you’re being sarcastic, thumbs up! d(^.^)b
If you’re being hateful, then you are simply showing us all that you fell out of the idiot tree and hit every branch on the way down.
*sigh* I remember when teabagging used to be fun.
Mindmelda? From E-Block? How’s it hanging?
I’m going to guess “repeatedly” and “in someone’s face”…
*spit-take*
Bravo!
Funniest. Comment. Evar.
Yeah, but he’s got three rifles on the gun rack in his truck; all loaded so he can make sure he blows his head off when he backs out of the driveway and hits a trash can full of Bud empties.
This is what we call the principle of natural selection.
There were no assumptions made in that remark. Nope. None.
Maybe he doesn’t even own a gun. I don’t and I support the NRA. o.O
Maybe he doesn’t even DRINK BEER. I don’t and I have a beard too.
Maybe he knwos about gun safety. Most gun owners do! I do, and like I said. I don’t even own one.
Besides. What are you going to do when the zombie apocolypse starts? I’m headed to the guys house with the loaded guns.
You don’t own a gun? Shame – but I guess natural selection will find a way.
Maybe a heart attack from screaming at the internet with a red face?
I think I’m developing a crush on you.
Given that he says he’s unarmed this time I think it’s a reasonable assumption to think that he does in fact own a gun. It’s also safe to assume that he’s a total jackass.
Assuming can be fun. For example, I assume that you have sex with farm animals. I might be wrong, but it’s fun to assume that.
He hasn’t denied it !!!
*crickets*
That’s baaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
That’s what sheep said!
You can’t pull the wool over your eyes.
Now I’m on the lamb.
Ewe woold be!
Solyent Green is made of sheeple!!! SHEEPLE!!!
The point of coming armed to these events is so the Secret Service can tackle them and carry them away… Thus *proving* that the liberals and “Obama’s Socialist Muslim Gestapo” want to take your guns away. They seem disappointed that this hasn’t happened. I’m just glad there are agents keeping a close eye on them and snipers on every building just in case.
Ah yes, the Division Fallacy. Bravo.
Right. Which is why he is unarmed.
We aren’t disapponted that this wouldn’t happen. We want to keep our guns.
Oh, and there ARE bills before congress trying to make gun ownership very painful. They’re taking “baby” steps because if they just tried to ban them….they know the result.
VD – I, personally, don’t care if you have guns… if you are responsible with them. But, I recognize that the reason that gun ownership is protected in the constitution is not for the sake of hunters, but to provide the populace with a means to overthrow the government. (Understanding that back when the amendment was written, the average farmer was as well armed as the average soldier. They *were* the same people/arms in many cases.) Now… You are NEVER going to have more guns/flamethrowers/cruise missiles than the government. So, your armed revolution is doomed to failure before it starts. So, the only way this any headway is by assassination and terror. THIS is why I’m glad there are snipers on the roofs with their sights trained on each one of these people as they exercise their right to bear arms (in a place where there should be absolutely NO need for them.) They don’t strike me as responsible.
So this fool is going to shoot anyone who tries to guarantee him healthcare? What a genius.
o.O
Get your hand outta my pocket! Grant me the Freedom to Choose. The free system has generated the best advances in health care the world over.
Other countries come here (their aristocrats and their politicians) for our “dirty capitalist health care” when they could get it “free” at home.
Why pay for it here when they could get it free elsewhere?
Guarantee me healthcare…HA! If only thats what the “healthcare bill” was about.
Does healthcare need reform? Yes. Are there laws trying to remove the right to own weapons? yes. Does this guy have the right to protest? YES. Was anyone arrested at these events? to my knowledge, no.
Now. “This time” referrs to the fact that when the Government tries to undo the constitution and remove the right for her citizens to be armed, we may have to retake the government…protect the constitution…if force is necessary, it won’t be because thats what is wanted. All of our soldier take the same oath. To protect the constitution.
Thank you.
Still, no one cares what you think.
I’m sorry, was there a point to this doggy doo?
No point. Just froth.
Frothy doggy doo. I think VD needs to go to the vet for that.
*pokes it with a stick*
Be careful. I think it might be rabid.
I heard it has a venereal disease.
That too??? Well, the humane thing to do is to put it out of its misery…with a round through the skull.
Using Bear arms?
My bears are currently using their arms. Any other ideas?
Maybe we could do tests to see what kind of cheese could be fired from a cannon and penetrate his thick skull.
All I’m saying is that when all hell breaks loose, and the teabaggers’ take up arms against this majority elected ‘oppressive regime’, I got dibs on a tank!!!
PEW PEW PEW!
Inconceivable!
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. — Justice
Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court
The Constitution shall never be construed …to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. — Samuel Adams
I find it amusing that those who claim that the word “people” in (a) the Declaration of Independence, (b) the Preamble, (c) Article I, and (d) the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments refer to individuals, but assert that the Second Amendment uses it as “only specifically selected agents of the government, and no others”.
After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. — William S. Burroughs
It’s always better to be a combatant in a gunfight than a target in a shooting gallery.
An unarmed citizen is a subject. An armed subject is a citizen.
If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
You are right, a misspelled word is very much the same as a gun crime. The effects can be lethal and traumatic.
The FAIL is strong in this one!
Dear God why?! Why did he never learn that ‘i before e, except after c’ rule?! WHY??????!!!!!!!11!!!!1ELEBENTY!
While the pencil may not have caused the misspelled word, he couldn’t have written the misspelled word without it. Think about it. Yah.
O.o
*can’t spell without Firefox’s built in spell check…contemplates the pencil in front of her. Stabs Why bother with it* Ha! Didn’t misspell anything with it!
Ooh want to see a magic trick?
Ahhhhh.. It’s gone. It’s maaaagic.
“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed… facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once”
The person knocking on the door to ask directions and getting blown away because of a castle law didn’t get a second chance either.
Neither did the person mistakenly identified as being ‘threatening’ or the person shot in the back running away.
Or the person killed because someone was in a rage and with a gun to hand that had fatal consequences.
I don’t see anything wrong with a gun per se as a genuine last resort for self defence.
But that isn’t what the pro-gun lobby want. They talk about responsiblity, but they don’t want to take responsiblity for their gun use.
They lobby for laws to protect them when they kill; because that’s what they really want. They want legal sanction to meet out their own version of justice.
Guns for them are about power not last resort self defence.
Now wait a second, you’re using the same argument that I’ve heard from the anti-welfare crowd: These people/persons/ethnic group/club is misusing welfare, so we need to get rid of it and do something else. THe general counter to that is “Well, you want to abolish something that does some good because a few people in the system abuse it?”
You’re leaving out all of the good things that happen when a contiencious gun owner is attacked in his own home and he protects his family, or when someone foils a bank robbery by drawing down on a suspect and holding him until the cops arrive, or when there is a shootout in the streets that is stopped by armed citizens helping before the police are able to arrive (happened in a town near me).
And you’re also misconstruing the gun lobby as a whole.
Yup. We had an incident in my city in the past week where a guy was running around a store’s parking lot with a knife trying to stab people. He attempted this on a patron who was carrying his (licensed and legal) weapon. Situation stabilized.
I’m saying that if a gun is a last resort then the gun owner should accept responsibility.
When you decide to carry a gun or keep one in your home it should be the result of rational (even solemn) deliberation and self examination.
Not imagining the ‘good’ that you might do or indulging in heroic home invasion fantasies, while expecting that the law will let you off in the event of mistakes.
If you have a gun you are demonstrating your willingness to kill. If you kill mistakenly then you shouldn’t expect the law to view that as ‘reasonable’.
This was the common law position. There is no basis for castle laws or concealed gun laws in common law.
You’re right. Back when that law was formed they carried them out in the open, which I personally think we should go back to.
You’re acting as though every person who buys a gun is doing so in order to shoot up a shopping center. Most of us buy them to protect ourselves from the idiots shooting up the shopping center.
You’re also assuming that people just randomly buy guns with no thought to what the gun is capable of, and that’s a wrong assumption.
Sorry I was being a bit polemical as per usual (when I’m, not being a troll).
I like the troll
I have guns, and I have been expertly trained to use them, however, the false belief that average gun owners protecting their families or foiling a bank robberies is something that happens on a regular basis is a view I’m going to challenge.
During a recent similar discussion, some acquaintances and I looked up various statistics re: annual incidents where a crime was prevented or stopped in progress by the use of a firearm (not counting law enforcement personnel) vs. the number of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths and injuries caused by firearms.
We came up with a general consensus that the (reported) outcomes were: 300-400 self-protection successes annually vs. 35,000 deaths and an additional 110,000 injuries annually.
So, due to our ‘right’ to be armed, Americans are over 1000% more likely to be killed by a firearm than protect themselves from an assailant with a firearm.
Firearms are the third leading cause of death (in the U.S.) among children aged 0-19
And where we (the U.S.) have 9,369 firearm related homicides on the more recent record, England has 14, Canada has 144, and Australia has 59 – In fact, there are only 3 countries on the plant with higher firearm homicide rates: South Africa, Columbia and Thailand.
Silly you and your facts. Discussions on politics have nothing to do with facts.
Yeah, I know. Kind of makes me sad.
I reckon it’s a good thing guns are illegal in the UK: the place would be like Beirut otherwise. I wouldn’t trust myself to own a gun, and I certainly wouldn’t trust many others. Incidents of people being attacked in their homes by armed people unknown to them are virtually non-existent.
You mean in a place where they may/not have other means of protecting themselves. Unlike the streets where they don’t?
Like what, a cricket bat?
Well I do have a small stash of nuclear missiles at home. So far it has proved an aqequate deterrent.
Or even adequate..
So far.
I personally prefer to use aqueducts as deterrents. Maybe a nice moat even.
From what I understand, the UK just does not have the same violence by unknown person rate as the US. Partly because they have to get close enough to see faces, due to being limited to things like knives and clubs. So violence is mostly by the nearest-and-dearest.
There are a few areas where knife crime is a problem. And there are a lot of places where chucking-out time at the pubs is the prelude to mass brawling. Weapons are usually improvised. I wouldn’t want to throw guns into that equation.
From what I can tell, they DO manage. (link)
Funny, I don’t often read the Mail but I read that today as well. Sad and sick.
Yeah, I noticed it earlier when I was reading something else so it was still in my head.
Hey how many stadium riots have we had in the US?!?!?
Exactly. We’re not as peaceable a nation as all that. The consummate thuggery of the lower orders was what, when harnessed, enabled Britain to grab the biggest empire ever seen. And that’s why guns are a no-no.
When I went to England many years back it happened to be during the first Scottish v English football match in London in quite some time. In preparation for the crowds they had shut down all the fountains and had the cops out in mass.
Why, why does PK keep eating links? Grrr.
Anyway, we don’t have our riots in the stadiums, we wait until we get OUT of the stadiums. Because there’s just no cars to turn over and set fire to IN the stadiums. Jeez.
{http://theplaybyplay.com/2008/11/25/rooting-and-looting-when-sports-fans-attack-in-america/}
That’s only College PArk MD and DEnver….
That’s what I was thinking, but then I remembered that there’s a reason why my son’s school has metal seating at the football field — a losing team set the former wooden ones on fire many, many years ago, but that wasn’t really a riot.
If the Canadians can riot after a Stanley Cup victory, then no one is safe from sports related violence.
….and Philadelphia, and Boston, and Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh, and Chicago….
Vancouver’s still recovering from the Olympics!!!! They say you can see the fire s from Seattle.
And we get no gratitude for our cultural exports. Harrumph!
Dis: You know what I don’t see there? A Conservative City!!!
planet… not plant
Damn. I wanted to live on the plant.
Horton would hear you.
Hopefully not a cactus?
But if I were tiny, then I could use the needles as a ladder.
I think of you as a vest-pocket Venus, but not THAT small!
And in each of those cases I’d be willing to wager the gun was owned by a parent who was too stupid to keep it out of the reach of the kid. Which means the parent should go to jail for a long damn time.
As far as the other statistics, I’ve got to do some digging. Having a legal gun in your house is still safer (IIRC) than driving to work every day.
When I was in Junior High, this girl was shot in the head and killed.
This is because the mom who owned the house kept her gun under the couch. Yeeeeeeeeeeah.. That’s safe.
Two words: gun. safe. Every gun owner should have one and use it, particularly if they have kids in the house.
(A few more words: Actual. Training. At a range. To learn how to safely and properly USE the damn thing. Not a freakin’ toy and you can’t just copy what you saw in the movies. [/rant])
Unfortunately the operative word there is ‘should.’ There’s a reason why we pass so many laws that are simply designed to protect children from the idiocy of their parents/guardians. I mean, we have to make it a law before someone will NOT leave their five-year-old home alone? Before they’ll buckle their child’s seat belt?
I’m torn on that. I feel terrible for little kids who are injured or killed by stupid parents, but there’s some mean part in the back of my brain whispering “Natural selection at work…”
Well, it’s like drunk drivers: if they only killed themselves, it would be natural selection and the problem would be self-correcting. Unfortunately that’s seldom the case (two sisters run down this weekend by a man whose 4th DWI is awaiting trial). Usually the children of idiotic gun owners kill/maim other people’s children.
Well, yeah, but that was mainly in response to “I mean, we have to make it a law before someone will NOT leave their five-year-old home alone? Before they’ll buckle their child’s seat belt?”
Ah, but they don’t usually die, just get seriously injured and become a burden on society.
This is where I personally get torn. I hate to see kids or anyone get hurt, but at what point do we stop?
Do we as a society decide everything for everyone? Do we become a complete nanny state and babysit everyone from cradle to the grave?
Maybe we could start by instituting automatic sterilization for anyone convicted of child abuse or neglect.
That sounds great, but I’ve seen to many people falsely convicted of crimes to follow through with that.
Meh….It’s not like we’re killing them or anything. If it turns out later to have been a legal error, we can give ‘em a kid from the state.
Diss, I’m with that idea for SEVERE cases. The couple who let their child starve to death because they were too busy playing online with their virtual baby. Drug addicted babies. The child who just died here with so many broken bones it still makes me cry. Unquestionable guilt.
After every thing I’ve been through with divorce and getting custody of my sons, I get PISSED at the idea of real abuse happening to children.
However, I’ve read cases of what social services calls abuse (in Charlotte NC) and I’m just mortified. And it always seems the monsters get away with it, and the people who make a simple mistake get total HELL for 2 years from them.
We have a case now where a woman (under investigation for years) left her infant and toddler alone with a 7 year old, and the house caught on fire, and the 2 youngest died. This is not the first time she has left them alone either.
Then we have the cases where they want to take someone’s kids because they don’t believe in immunizations.
Got you beat, there, JAC, we’ve got a real Mother of the Year candidate locally whose 2 and 3 year old sons died in a house fire when she left them home alone because she didn’t want to take them shopping with her.
We had a mom who was drinking at a party with her friend, DROVE home with her toddler unrestrained in the back seat and had a wreck. THe toddler was, of course, killed (through the windshield). People were quoted in the paper saying, “Oh, but she was a good mom.” NO!!!! GOOD moms do not drive home DRUNK with their child in the car with them — DRUNK — and unsecured!
BTW, my mom — and most medical practitioners of her generation — would argue that not vaccinating children is child abuse. There’s something about learning medicine at the time when there was the polio ward, the whooping cough ward, the measles ward, etc in the children’s hospital that reinforces that argument. Having to listen to babies die of whooping cough is apparently one of the most horrible things she experienced as a young nurse.
Ours doesn’t even have THAT excuse. According to the latest, however, she “faces two to four years in prison on the reckless homicide charges and 15 to 25 years with no parole on each count of aggravated child neglect involving children under age 6.”
I sincerely hope that she gets the maximum on each count, served consecutively.
Regarding vaccinating children: I think your right to be a whackadoodle and not get the normal regular vaccinations ends at…let’s just say at your property line. If you plan to ever take your kids OUT OF THE HOUSE, you better get them vaccinated. Just like you have to get your pets rabies shots.
Not vaccinating is child abuse? Oh that’s ridiculous.
And many parents of Autistic children are very vocal about immunizations causing it. (I don’t agree with that, but it’s not my decision)
So it gets back to the point of where do we draw the line? What seems foolish to us today as abuse may be considered abuse in just a few years. And who should make the decisions on what is or isn’t abuse?
I’m okay with that, Diss. It’s so sad when you realize that we had essentially eliminated these diseases and now we’re having mini-epidemics. Here and also in the UK (for the same reason). Some children can NOT be vaccinated (a good friend is one of the very few who had an allergic reaction to a vaccine). Risk your own kids’ lives? Okay, as you said, natural selection. But not her life.
Rando, technically I think it would fall under “neglect” rather than “abuse”….
There is absolutely NO credible research showing a link between autism and vaccinations.
I think you’re right, Diss. It’s not abuse until you bring your whooping cough infected unvaccinated child out in public and infect some infant who WILL die (older children often just seem to have a severe cold).
I think it’s been fairly definitively proven that there’s NO link there. Also, 400 years ago, the same parents probably would have claimed it was because a witch cast a spell on the kid and then burned the cranky neighbor lady at the stake.
I don’t think we have a good fix yet on what does cause disorders in the autism spectrum, but I think to some extent the perceived increase in incidence is due to an increase in diagnosis and a broadening of the range and severity of symptoms considered in making a diagnosis.
We’ve done selective immunization on our kids. Most of the major ones, some of them seem unnecessary. And I don’t discount the connection between autism and immunizations yet.
I agree Wino. But it’s not something you and I should force on others. Look at it from this perspective, how long was lead paint considered safe?
Here’s a link to a national cartoonist who’s strip I love to read, all about raising an Autistic child and large family. And a rather interesting blog and thoughts on Autism.
{http://karenmontaguereyes.com/CBW/index.htm}
In case you don’t know, my step son is a high functioning Autistic.
Rando, that I can entirely understand; it does seem like there’s just a lot MORE shots now.
Come to think of it, I’m due for a tetanus booster myself.
A couple that I know we’ve done offhand are polio and MMR, although we had it broken up. We totally skipped chicken pox, and there was one that is notorious for bad side effects that we skipped.
My wife and sister in law are both psychologists and tell me that about the only thing we do know about the causes of autism is that they are unrelated to vaccines. A lot of research has gone into this over the last 10 years and has been pretty inconclusive.
People talk about ‘forcing vaccinations’ on parents. Well, what about people forcing their unvaccinated kids into MY child’s school? Those who don’t vaccinate are counting on enough other people doing it so they don’t have to worry about it. (I’m talking about serious diseases, not chicken pox, btw, which has almost no serious complications.)
If your kids are vaccinated, then what are you worried about?
Rando: You’re sounding like a *gasp* conservative. Funny how you’re fighting the government forcing you to do something so vehemently… now you know how we feel.
1. Vaccinations are NOT 100% effective.
2. Vaccinations are given at different ages. Unvaccinated children bring diseases that might not affect their vaccinated school mates, but will affect younger children. I see babies every day accompanying their parents as they take their older children to school.
3. Some children can NOT be vaccinated due to other health concerns. (And wow, yes, I can be concerned about OTHER people’s children.)
4. There may be parents and staff at the school who are pregnant. German measles vaccines can become less efficacious after time, which they will find out only when their child is born severely retarded.
The choice not to vaccinate only works for people because the majority of people are doing it. So, imo, the statement ‘I’m not going to vaccinate my child because there may be risk for HIM’ is in reality “I’m not going to vaccinate my child because everyone else will do it and take whatever risks I believe are there so I don’t have to.’
The special needs teacher at the school I work at put it this way, “Autism won’t kill your child. Not vaccinating them might.”
Then be glad your kids don’t go to school with mine because they haven’t had all the vaccinations and must be some walking time bomb.
Be as sarcastic as you want, my husband’s colleague’s daughter died because someone gave her whooping cough (she was too young for the vaccine). That unvaccinated child’s parents chose HER life over some totally unproven possible risk to their child. So as far as I am concerned, you are the one now making a dead baby joke. She is DEAD. At three weeks. You are making fun of people who are concerned about this for extremely legitimate reasons. There are more outbreaks every year of these preventable diseases because people aren’t vaccinating.
Yeah, I made a dead baby joke because I somehow knew about that event. Way to take a heated conversation and make it a dagger back into me. If you wanted to make your point, you could’ve done it without going there. I already said there are only a couple we haven’t done, which I believe were because they were entirely unnecessary or had a greater risk of nasty side effects.
CLEARLY this subject is too emotionally charged to continue civilly, so I’m getting the fvck out now before I say something really nasty.
Hey, I have seen you jump on people for making jokes without realizing that to you they were not funny. That’s what I meant by that. You were doing the same thing — making a joke of something that can be very serious. You do not realize that it is NOT a joking matter to a lot of people for very good reasons.
Regardless, I apologize for upsetting you.
Seriously, if your kids have not had the chickenpox vaccine, I STRONGLY recommend that you do everything you can to make sure your kids get chickenpox before they are adults. Chickenpox in a kid is a pain in the butt (unless they are immune-deficient). Chickenpox in an adult (or immune-deficient kid) will cause hospitalization-worthy pneumonia, and might very well kill them. PLEASE take care of this before they hit 18!!
Hey, VG, I did know that about chicken pox, but someone told me she thought it was better for her daughter to get chicken pox than the vaccine because of possible complications during pregnancy if the vaccine failed and she got it then. Do you know anything about that?
I don’t know how long the vaccine is good for. Wish I did. I DO know that pregnancy plus chickenpox equals scary pneumonia, with a 20% chance of mortality (used to be 80% mortality, so we’ve some success). The mom has a good point. The only question is whether she can find someone to expose her daughter to…and can she keep said daughter away from anyone with immune-deficiency.
They’ve both had chicken pox. It was a few years back. What I’ve heard about the chicken pox vaccine is that if/when it wears off, catching it as an adult is a real nightmare, like VG said. Since MOST of the time it’s not a major threat to children, I’d rather my kids just catch chicken pox now. Isn’t chicken pox in an adult called shingles or something like that? I’m not sure.
Shingles is a re-activation of the chicken pox virus in an immune-compromised adult. A friend of mine had it twice, during a 3-year stretch of under-employment. Really really painful.
Immune-compromised? In what way? A friend of mine had shingles in high school, same week she sprained her ankle and burned herself cooking(she has a tendency to do things in clumps like that). Other than those she was perfectly healthy.
When a person is ‘wicked stressed’, the high cortisone levels in their body will cause a decrease in the production and activity of their white blood cells. So their immunity is compromised for a while. You don’t have to have AIDS to get shingles!
I’ve had that same thought recently, Diss. What if we just let people be people? We’d lose some, but then we wouldn’t be complaining about greenhouse gasses and overpopulation, now would we?
/fascist rant
I know….and it’s one of those things that’s difficult to articulate without sounding like a Nazi.
That’s probably because people are so quick to bust out with accusations of Nazi when people suggest letting nature take its course. Natural selection can’t work if you protect the idiot from himself.
/rant again
NAZI!!!! *runs off laughing since she started it*
Well, to be fair, it may be in part because I tend to go off on a rant about how if stupid people are protected from taking themselves out of the gene pool and “accidentally” have 10 kids each because they couldn’t be bothered to figure out how conception and contraception work, then in a few generations we’re going to be completely overwhelmed by masses of stupid people.
Then I look at 95% of network television and realize we already are…
And lo, The Wang looked upon all that he had wrought, and deemed it “groovy.” And groovy then it was. And The Wang said “let us gather together fibers to make a rug, for verily the rug doth tie the room together.” And it was so. And The Wang was please.
I can understand that, Diss. I rather like the lady in CA who offered people money to get fixed. She was actually focusing on women who’d had drug babies, but you could expand that. Most sterilization is reversible — for a price — so if someone changed their mind and could afford to reverse it, probably they could afford a kid.
My idiot cousin and her husband had five accidents. FIVE. ACCIDENTS. Six if you count his accident from a previous marriage. They shouldn’t be allowed to breed. I have a horrible urge to sterilize their children before it’s to late. Actually, I’ve been trying to convince someone to sterilize most of my family… I do have a friend studying to be a vet I’ve agreed to let practice spaying/neutering surgery on my family.
Yeah, but innocent kids shouldn’t have to suffer because their parents are moronic fvckwits.
And therein lies the problem; although the argument can be made that they have an extremely high likelihood of growing up to be moronic fvckwits themselves.
And thus an Idiocracy was born.
Yeah but at what point does the government gets out of my house. I grew up in a house with hundreds of guns, all types. Never once did I shoot myself, friends, or myself….. trust me I have scars on my hand from 2nd degree burns from trying to build a cannon, so I wasn’t one of those goody two shoes.
So because you grew up with a bunch of guns and survived, that means everyone will?
I think that means ILPB passed the natural selection test and may now reproduce.
Yes, yes it does……. Sorry I don’t want to live in a nanny state. When do we institute the “license to breed” laws?
I had a friend in high school whose brother shot himself. I’m pretty sure she doesn’t give a flying fvck about a “nanny state.” I think she just wants her brother back. I’d love a world without guns. Love. It.
ILPB – I am a big believer in the “license to breed” laws because there are way too many idiots around and so many people should not be allowed to be parents. However, Diss’ “natural selection” type of licensing seems like a good way to go.
I’m sorry for her lose Rando, and no matter how I answer it to protect my individual freedoms will be viewed as selfish, but I still will not change my stance. I do not want a nanny state.
HOW: Watch out Rando’s coming for your Guns!!! He’ll steal the gift I gave you…. so not fair.
All I care to say about gun ownership is that a person should not be allowed to own a gun unless they are educated and trained about gun use and unless they’ve passed background checks & psych tests. An IQ test would be helpful but that’s where the whole “natural selection” population control idea comes in. Are the requirements unreasonable?
Only if we require that for speaking, voting, and other rights given to us in the Constitution. Words have been known to incite riots and violence, however when that is brought up, there is no waivering on the 1st Amendment. People vote in idiots into office (of course it’s usually only idiots that run see last 17 years of Presidency) which can cost the lives of thousands (whether it be war, terrorist attack, downfall of economy, etc….) There just seems to be this stigma about guns that scares people.
Wait, you really think anybody should be able to have a gun? ANYBODY?
Double edged sword my friend….. It’s hard to treat the 2nd Amendment different than any other. And in fact that’s what we’re doing. However I understand the need to regulate at some point, however at which point do we not allow people guns?
@Rando – I know this is completely super unliberal of me but, yes, people should be allowed to have guns. But not “anybody”. Not convicted felons, not the crazies, nobody under a certain age, etc.
That is a very good question. I think HOW had some good ideas on how to treat gun sales actually. Psych tests sound fine to me. I think letting someone have a gun is far more dangerous than letting someone use freedom of speech or religion.
HOw and Rando: Here’s where we get into shadey spots. Hasn’t a convicted felon who’s served his/her time (not on probabtion but done with sentence) paid their debt to society? When do they “come out clean”? PErhaps we do a convicted felon who used a gun in a crime. Do you think a non-violent criminal is just as dangerous with a gun?
Psyche evals, how do you make that un-subjective? How do you ensure that the person doing the evaluation doesn’t have some sort of “anti-gun” stance and uses the position to say NO one is sane enough to own a gun? What about someone who’s “cured” of mental illness?
And to Rando: Not to throw out Goodwin’s law, but Hitler’s tongue was far more dangerous than the firearm on his hip. Malcom X never “hurt” anyone, however his words inspired those to hurt. How many skinheads or militia leaders use words to con the naive or ignorant to do their dirty work, but not directly.
ILPB – Ah, but see, there are legal recourses for using your speech to incite violence and riots and that causes harm. Speech that incites “imminent lawless action” (such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection.
HOW: To a point. if it’s shown the person’s intent was not to cause a riot, and the people acted on their own, then the person is exonerated. That’s why some stupid Evangelicals like Pat Robertson don’t get in trouble when people take his “sermons” “out of context” and do bad things.
Try shooting someone in the head with words and see how far it gets you. I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think it comes even close to comparing. Guns are far more deadly weapons than speech.
I don’t know enough to be able to decide effectively what all the criteria to keep the wrong people away from guns are. I think if you’re gonna own a gun, you should have proper training. Lots of proper training. Training that says “If you’re planning on keeping this under your pillow so your 3-year-old can find it, just leave it at here and go home and beat yourself in the head with a frying pan until you pass out.”
Hey
Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me!!! Where does it say bullets, NO WHERE!!! So only sticks and stones are stronger than words. :-p
Seriously though, with the right crowd, and right setting words are FAR more dnagerous than a gun. Anyone of the rights we have if abused can be a WMD.
If you take a driving course (not a right but privelege) it doesn’t tell you NOT to keep your baby in the car on a 90 degree summer day. I believe we have laws in place already to “protect” children from guns, they’re called neglect and abuse laws. Why special ones for guns? We don’t train people to use knives, however a child can find a butter knife and stab themselves. We don’t do training to own a dog, however there was a story where a golden retriever killed a child eating (for the food), so why just guns? And if guns, where do we stop?
*runs in and throws handfuls of bullets at ILPB* Take that! And that! And that!
@ DU – LOL. Try this. *hands DU a tank cannon shell*
@ILPB – Now you’re raching: “leaving your baby in a car for 90 minutes”. C’mon. Maybe if the crazies were not allowed to build up arsenals because they failed the psych test there wouldn’t have been a Virginia Tech or a Northern Illinois.
HOW: I’m not reaching, WHO decides who’s sane enough to own a gun? How do we take the subjectivity out of it? And YES there are parents who leave their children in the car and boil their children alive. Every summer there’s at least four or five stories in DC area alone. So first it’s “protect the children”, now it’s “stop the crazies”. Who defines crazy? What defines crazy?
Isn’t that what we have trained psychologists for? To decide who is and isn’t crazy? I know a few people who would scare the sh!t out of me if they bought a gun. And that’s just relatives.
Why do you need a special license to drive a car, but somehow owning a gun is a right?
Rando: Simple, where in the Constitution does it say Right to Drive a Car?
Trained pyschiatrists are still subjective. Even though it’s somewhat apples to oranges I’ll go with your License to drive analogy:
Written test: You either answer the question correctly or not. Answer enough questions you pass.
Pass written test go to driver’s test: Drive within speed limit, within the lanes, use turn signal, do K-turn correctly without hitting a cone, and Pass. How do you do that with someone’s mental state?
Just popping back in to point out that it’s already illegal (and has been for some time) for a convicted felon to own a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Well if not trained psychologists, then who is gonna decide this? Because I don’t want some violent schizophrenic running around with a gun.
Niether do I, however without a non-subjective measurement of who’s sane enough to carry a gun, and put the rest of the COnstitutional Amendments to the same scurtiny I can’t feel just in doing so.
Mmmmmm Rando.. And ILPB.. And everyone else.. Allow me to poke a little hole in this for you.
Psych evaluations are not interminable. If we’re going to require psych evaluations, they would have to periodically redone.
I don’t know much about gun laws (because I’m not allowed to own one so I don’t care) but as far as I know it’s 18 for shotguns and rifles, 21 for handguns and assault weapons.
From the DSM-IV:
“The onset of Schizophrenia typically occurs between the late teens and the mid-30s, with onset prior to adolescence rare (although cases with age at onset of 5 or 6 years have been reported) .. Schizophrenia can also begin later in life (e.g. after 45 years).”
So just because I’m 40 doesn’t mean I’ll never become schizophrenic. But if I have my permit under the interminable psych evaluation, well then they may never know.
“Diagnostic criteria for 301.83 Borderline Personality Disorder – A pervasive patter of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: .. (5) recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior.
The impairment from the disorder and the risk of suicide are greatest in the young-adult years and gradually wane with advancing age.”
So, since I’ve been diagnosed with BPD, under the interminable psych evaluation (or in IL.. hrmpth) I can never own a gun.
I can’t legally own a gun for another year or two and not because I’m a danger to other and people and society, but just to myself. I’ve tried to kill myself twice in the past, and suffer from severe depression, is it fair to restrict my right to own a gun because of this? I think so.
As for subjectivity, it is possibly to create a test that wouldn’t be subjective to the psychologist administering it. It could be done with multiple choice questions. It wouldn’t be as thorough, but it could be done, you could even through in questions like, on a scale of 1 -10 how much do you want to kill your boss/neighbor/spouse etc… Something like that which would rile out the obvious idiots who want a gun and really shouldn’t have one. You can take it every, say 5 years, if you fail it because as Charro pointed out, mental well being changes over time). Though I don’t think you should be required to retake it every five years if you pass it the first time, unless you’re buying more guns. Also, the fact that you can get a gun at a gun show with almost no oversight is something I find very worrying.
Now, I’m not saying we kill all the stupid people. We should just take all the safety labels off and let things work themselves out.
You mean coffee might be hot? I shouldn’t blow dry my hair in the shower? COme on man……
*ahem* Coffee should be hot. However, if you have been made repeatedly aware that your coffee is being served hot enough to cause third degree burns requiring skin grafts and deliberately continue to serve your coffee at that temperature, you deserve to get socked for damages when you put somebody in the freakin’ hospital. Spilling coffee shouldn’t put you in the hospital getting skin grafts, in my opinion.
And I wouldn’t necesarily put something HOT between my legs… but I kinda like my twigs and berries…….
It’s kinda 50/50 for me on that though, SHE did put the coffee between her legs….. there has to be some responsibility on her part for that, and MCD’s for having too hot of coffee..
Yes, 20% fault was assigned to her by the jury…and of course the ginormous figure you always hear about for punitive damages was reduced by the judge anyway. I always thought it was interesting how the jury came up with their number for punitives in that case: they awarded her an amount about equal to TWO DAYS worth of McDonald’s coffee sales, presumably they thought that since McDonald’s had dealt with approximately 700 injury claims over the previous decade without making any adjustment, that was about the minimum that would get their point across. Worked, too — after that, McDonald’s stopped requiring stores to hold coffee for serving at a minimum of 185 degrees (normal temp for coffee is about 140).
I think a lot of this “not my fault blame company” started with the cigarette law suits. I understand a need for law suits, but we NEED to cut down on the suing in this country, we’d all save some dough.
Actually, I’d agree that people in general need to cut down on suing, or wanting to sue…there’s a strong perception out there that if you get injured in some way you’re automatically entitled to pretty much hit the lottery. Not so much in reality, but that seems to be what a lot of “potential clients” think. *sigh*
Problem is, you don’t want to discourage legitimate lawsuits because that’s how the market acts to discourage dangerous products; it’s in a very real sense part of the economic equation there. “Make defective sh*t that hurts people, and we’ll make you PAY them” seems to get through to companies where “Making sh*t that’s defective and hurts people means reduced return customers” doesn’t get through as well.
I could see some of the original cigarette suits due to the manufacturers covering up research indicating the links between cigarettes and illness; however, anyone who started smoking post-about-1970 or so, uh-uh, no dice, you knew damn well it was bad for you!
@ILPB: TwigS??? Lucky man.
Botched plastic surgery……. did you know that they procreate?!?!
*hugs* I think I love you.
Questions to your facts:
1. Does the study take into account the crimes that never occurred b/c the person was armed? Probably not, impossible to measure. Just look at what happened in DC, Gun ban is lifted and oddly enought the murder rate went down, so did violent crime, could be a coincidence. Chicago has one of the highest violent crime rates, however has Gun Bans? DC was there, but we already covered that.
2. How many of those inuries and/or deaths were caused by illegal fire arms?
3. Once again how many of those deaths from 0-19 were accidental discharges of firearms, how many fire arms were legal, etc…..
So really your facts are somewhat skewed.
From what I’ve read (I’ll admit to not being an expert on this), the majority of the guns involved in within-household shootings (rather than gangbanger stuff) are legally owned-and-registered firearms.
I understand, but Semper’s number included ALL violent crimes, not just accidental injuries. His numbers are skewed b/c he doesn’t incorporate the correct information.
I’ll defend your right to long-arm guns, in part because my father was a hunter. And it also takes longer/more room to load and aim, so less chance of accidental or anger-induced miss-use. My opinion is heavily influenced by the number of hospital working folk that I know.
I don’t see any need the general public to own or use handguns or semi-automatics. If you want to carry a concealed weapon, carry a can of hairspray. Same distance weapon, and a great deterrent. Plus it doesn’t cause permanent damaged to innocent bystanders.
I would LOVE it if we got rid of the gun shows–AKA loopholes–as well. They are now the major source of illegal weapons being used by the Mexican drug trade against their police and army.
I’ll defend your right to speak freely only for Christians though. And the police can only Search your car and basement without a warrant.
Yes b/c every single one of those guns is legal and made in the US, I read that article too. However when you dig deeper the article was about 95% false, and proven so.
I find it very dissappointing that people tend to pick and choose which American right to try and squelch.
Again, we’re back to the constitution being perfect. It’s not. We can and should change the 2nd amendment. At least limit it. Just because it was put in the constitution 200 years ago does not mean it’s set in stone forever.
If I disagree with something in the constitution, why is that disappointing? Why do I have to accept everything in there blindly as the ultimate list of American rights? I think something in there is wrong.
Then we need to take out free speech for liberal pundits, b/c they cause a danger to the US for pushing Health Care in a $hitty economy. I don’t agree with it, so we’ll take it away. Since I’m allowed to picka nd choose. Hell I don’t like women voting b/c they tend to vote democratic and as a REpublican that threatens my safety against terrorists……….
*beats ILPB In the face with a cast iron skillet*
I’ll vote dem if I feel like it, I’m a liberated liberal woman. Hrmpth.
Now you’re just being silly.
ILPB,
I understand your logic, but I’d like to ask a few things.
1. How many Americans, aged 0-19, are killed by words?
2. If your child was killed by a bullet, would you really care whether the gun was registered or not?
3. Do you care if it was ‘an accident’ vs. murder or suicide? What possible difference could that make?
It really does not matter whether the gun that kills you is legally purchased (as in the VA Tech shootings) or illegally purchased (as in gang drive-by shootings and such) you are still just as dead.
The point is simply:
more guns = more deaths & injuries
When the Second Amendment was written, they were speaking of muskets. There was no way they could have anticipated the evolution of handguns.
However, that being said, if, as you say, it is the inalienable right of every citizen to own weapons, then so be it.
But, we cannot continue to be shocked or upset by Columbines, VA Techs and other mass shootings, or by innocent people caught in crossfires, or killed by snipers, burglars, rapists, etc..
It’s a natural consequence that we (as Americans) must learn to bear to retain the right of unregulated weaponry. With rights come responsibility and consequences.
US Emergency Department staff know that the most important factors involved in depressed folk injuring or killing themselves when suicidal are 1) alcohol and 2) the availability of a firearm in the house.
That is why in IL you cannot get a FOID card and therefore cannot lawfully own a weapon if you have been in the crazy house.
So we pick and choose amendments for people now? Gotta love it.
I think that (as well as the “no convicted felons owning firearms” law) falls under the scope of “reasonable restrictions”. Although with the “crazy house” thing, maybe if you could get a doc to say you weren’t really crazy you should still be able to. I dunno.
But once again, does a “White Collar” criminal still pose a risk with a gun? I thought this was the country of re-birth or second chances, if you do the time shouldn’t you start a new? I also don’t see anything about “reasonable restrictions” in the Constitution. If someone’s a racist nut bag who was arrested for crimes then lose his/her right to freedom of speech? It just seems wrong to me that’s all.
You’re right, ILPB. The constitution trumps everyone’s safety. The constitution says anyone can have a gun, so let’s let convicted felons, dangerous mentally ill people, and idiots who don’t know how to use them have one. Because upholding some stupid ass amendment is more important than the safety of the people. Your way of thinking switches the 2nd amendment from protecting people to putting them in possible danger.
I say repeal the mother fvcker.
And the money you don’t have to spend patching up gunshot wounds could make a universal healthcare system much more affordable.
Then let’s take out the 1st Amendment, the 5th, hell fvck it, let’s just repealt the entire constitution, b/c it’s inconvenient to have it, and some liberals don’t agree with it all the Amendments.
AND once again still awaiting the answer is a White Collar criminal equivalent to a murderer in terms of violent crime? How about a drunk driver who kills someone? Hell he’ll probably shoot drunk and kill a whole bus full of peaceful protesters on their way to a Health Care Rally followed up by a flower sit in. Seriously WTF? I’m sorry I don’t like to pick and choose my rights under the constitution, seems kind of Hypocritical of me.
And add on, I would love to take the dumba$$ racists a$$hats who hide behind the first amendment to preach hate, or the $hitbirds that burn the flag… love to take that from people…… but you know what, I can’t pick and choose.
I think racist hate speech and a$$hattery more generally are much more dangerous than burning flags.
*pushes burning flag with foot out of ILPB’s sight*
Some states prevent felons (who’ve served their time) from VOTING. That’s a heck of lot more serious right to take away, IMO.
And I don’t necesarily agree with that too…. while in Prison by all means I can understand, but once you finish your punishment then you shouldn’t have to pay the rest of your life.
I actually disagree with that. In a totalitarian, the government is slowly taking over type of Orwellian situation, the people in prison have no right to vote so the government can simply find a reason to jail them and take away that right. I know it’s an unlikely situation, but well, if I wanted to start a take over putting my enemies in jail like that would definitely be helpful.
No no no, don’t you see? NOTHING in America is more important than the right to a gun. Have you learned nothing from today’s discussion?
Um. Okay. You do remember that I DID apologize, right? *goes to play somewhere more fun*
mabs that was aimed at me.
I wasn’t jabbing at you, mabs. That was aimed at ILPB.
*hugs Rando and offers fries with that*
ZOMG I love fries!
I love you.
Sorry Rando didn’t mean to infringe on your hypocritical stance of picking and choosing rights for people. Here let me go repeal the entire constitution for you, therefore you can write the way you want. We can all live in the United STates of Rando, or the Dictatorship of Rando…. start taking people’s rights and WHERE the fvck do you stop. What do you think all those women sufferage and MLK jr marches were for, RIGHTS!!!
what do you think the health care debate is about?
Government Control. B/c it isn’t about Constitutional rights, b/c nowhere can I find where the federal government can get involved.
ILPB, you are very passionate about gun rights. You claim the Constitution is all powerful in your RIGHT to bear them. Understandably, i’m pretty fond of the document myself. You bring up women rights and minority rights, for the equality and the opportunities this country provides. Great, we still agree there. Let me point out two obvious yet overlooked health care stats for you. Women, on average, spend 4 times more on health care than men. Minorities, for the most part, as well as many many Anglo Americans, either can’t afford health care or they are refused when they are sick. Tell me how the glorious Constitution should react? Tell me a solution instead of some “government takeover” talking point. How do we fix this problem? The problem has been around for about 50-60 years now, and every Democrat tries to solve it, while every time get relentless opposition from the Republicans. You can’t just let the problem fester and expect the private sector to fix it, because the private sector would still be segregated both racially and genderly if the government hadn’t not only enacted laws to fix it, but actually enforced those laws. Solve the problem instead of just opposing the proposed solutions. It’s so frustrating trying to get an honest answer from the opposition.
I believe that you’re getting at creating a Health Care Amendment?
I would actually say that the Health Care problem has been around much much longer than 50 years, I bet the Irish Immigrants losing hands in factories probably didn’t have health care. I do believe that there needs to be some form of a fix, however I do not think making Health Care mandatory for ALL people (or else you’ll pay a fine) is the right answer. I don’t think that government take over is the right answer either. I think incentives to employers to create choice in Health Care, I think revamping the entire Mal-Practice law suits out there to make things cheaper on the Drs.
But neither of those options ensures that everyone who WANTS insurance can GET insurance.
a public option is neither a government takeover nor a constitutional amendment. consider when you get employed you have to fill out how many dependents claimed, in order for income tax to be calculated. Just put a box on that form that says, YES, please take out $50 bucks a month for me because i want to opt into the public option. Does that sound okay? You wouldn’t have to opt in if you didn’t want to.
By the way, my father was a surgeon and my uncle (his older brother) was a prosecuting lawyer…long story short, i’ve heard both sides of the very heated debate many times too many. I won’t elaborate anymore than saying, doctors don’t pay those settlements, it’s the Hospital’s insurance companies. Once again, the issue revolves around the ability for insurance companies to guarantee their profits at the expense of everyone else. Insurance companies are the new banks, and yet they have little to no regulation on their pricing. Tort reform does nothing except take a little pressure off doctors, while making sure the insurance companies make enough profit not to keep raising prices.
I guess we should never amend the constitution, huh? It was perfect to start with, and it will always be perfect. I want to repeal the 2nd amendment, but it clearly isn’t happening, so you can settle down a bit. And I don’t see what is hypocritical in wanting what I think is best for America. You’re doing the same thing. You think the constitution is flawless and must be followed to the letter. You’re forcing what you think are the people’s rights on the rest of us too. Why are the only rights the ones in the constitution? Why is everything in the constitution automatically the perfectly accurate list of rights? Why can’t we change things we think are wrong?
Women’s suffrage comes to mind.. Prohibition.. That’s all I can think of without Google.
Women’s suffrage. Huh. So we actually ADDED rights to the constitution. That’s awesome.
I know! How about that!
Rando: Name one Right in the Constitution given within the Constitution that has ever been taken away b/c it became inconvenient or “dangerous”. NONE!!! The only restrictive Amendment was taken out. The Constitution is about giving rights, not taking them away, and if you feel like pi$$ing on it by changing it’s intentions go ahead. I’ve never said the COnstituion it flawless, I’ve continually said it is abused, and flawless document shouldn’t be able to be abused, HOWEVER I do say it is the basis of freedom and the American ideal, and to use it to push a liberal or conservative agenda is quite depressing. If you love your freedom’s of speech, then why do you want to pick and choose your Amendments, still awaiting a response besides “it’s inconvenient or dangerous”… so are many others, but you don’t want to get rid of them b/c they benefit you.
If I feel an amendment is wrong, then I say so. If I think an amendment is right, then I say so. Just because I like one amendment doesn’t mean I automatically have to be on board with all of them. That’s just silly. I think the 2nd amendment is wrong. I think owning guns is NOT a right, and the explanations of why it’s an actual “right” simply baffle me.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not about to take your guns away from you. I know there’s not nearly enough public support to ever get that going. But I personally believe that the 2nd amendment is wrong. My best compromise is to say that gun ownership is not a right, but a privilege.
I believe felons get their rights back after 7 years.
Yes, apparently in IL they do.
In CA it’s for five years after being committed to the crazy house against your will, which only happens if you are considered an imminent danger to yourself or others. If you check yourself in you are considered responsible enough to own a gun.
side note: I had checked myself in, but something got futsed up in the paperwork and I was listed as having been checked in against my will, luckily I don’t want a gun so it doesn’t really matter)
*hugs for DU*
ILPB wrote: The Constitution is about giving rights, not taking them away…
Except for the proposed amendment to restrict certain adult citizens from marrying their chosen partner?
Again, if we follow the 2nd Amendment exactly as written, then everyone would indeed have the right to bear arms …of the kind available when the document was written.
I’m in no way anti-gun, but things have changed in the last several hundred years, and it seems like our laws should keep up as well.
so..the 2nd amendment applies to muskets, but not AR-15′s?
does the 1st apply only to hand-cranked printing presses and not TV/radio/internet?
does the 4th amendment only apply to searches of horse-drawn carriages?
does the 10th only apply to states formed from the original 13 colonies?
oh and the bill of rights GIVES nothing. it merely DEFINES rights that already exist.
the founders intended civilians to carry the same shoulder-fired arms the military had. regardless of what those were. because once a government starts getting the idea they can do whatever they want…with no consequences..they do it.
1st amendment was supposed to stop the government with the light of public scrutiny. 2nd amendment was to stop the government when they no longer gave a damn about public scrutiny.
Point taken. The reference was aimed more towards weapons easily concealed and operated by children. I.e., handguns.
I don’t believe the founding fathers could have foreseen a type of weapon kept in the home that was so easy to (mis)use that toddlers would be firing them at each other and themselves.
You very seldom, if ever, hear of a child killed by a shotgun or rifle (except that unfortunate child that accidentally shot himself in the head last year with an Uzi at a ‘gun fair’)
Even the military doesn’t issue that many handguns, relatively speaking, as they are not good for combat, but very frequently present at ‘accidental shootings’. They also do not allow military personnel to keep firearms in their barracks.
As with the 1st Amendment, there are common sense limits that apply – Slander, Liable, False Rescue Calls, Lying Under Oath, etc. are not covered as ‘free speech’
There is no reason that the ‘right to bear arms’ should not come with some common sense restrictions (like having people pass a ‘road’ test with their weapon of choice before being issued a license – for the same reason a license is required to operate a motor vehicle – operating one without a clue as to what you are doing endangers innocent by-standers)
Each of those cases where children are injured by guns in the home, and the unfortunate child at the gun show with the mini uzi, were all cases where the parents were negligent. On top of the pain of losing a child, I feel those parents should be disallowed their right to own a gun; sent to jail for a very long time; and possibly beaten publicly in the town square. Or sterilized.
Remember that the “right to free speech” applies only to dissing your government without fear of reprisal. I can talk crap about you all day and not fall under the right of free speech. I fall under slander laws, which are different. Lying under oath is also separate from free speech in that it’s not speaking out against the government.
If you’re going to change a fundamental right as given by the Constitution based on what the Founders should have foreseen and didn’t, then we also need to change that pesky right about Freedom of the Press. They’re getting pretty stupid lately. I’m sure that the Founders didn’t foresee that one either…
Agreed.
But if we can’t (as a nation) even agree on the necessity of having certain guidelines about who can or cannot possess dangerous weapons, how would we ever be able to come up with guidelines about who can or cannot be allowed to have children?
And yes, the incidents to which you refer are caused by idiotic people who shouldn’t be allowed to breed in the first place, but alas, NONE of those incidents would have happened had a gun not been present.
I know guns don’t kill people, people do… but having access to a gun instead of say, a spoon, sure makes murde , suicide or accidental death much more quick and effective.
And Constitutional rights HAVE changed based upon what the founders were unable to imagine: Slaves being freed and then, becoming 100% of a person (vice the 2/3rds they were originally granted) and women being allowed to vote.
And actually the press, even during the time of the birth of our nation, was just as nasty and spiteful as it is now… in fact, some of the political commentary and cartoons would shock us today (since, these days we stop short of using certain words and epithets)
You’re using a slippery slope argument to ban guns, or even certain types of guns. I see your point, but I disagree with it on the basis that were there no guns present, idiots would still harm themselves and others with just as much ease.
Being a gun nut from Texas, I feel as though I’m a bit of a traitor saying this, but I don’t have a problem with having to take a test to buy your first gun. We don’t require testing for every purchase of a car, so I don’t see the need for a test every time you get a new gun. I also don’t have a problem with licensing guns, provided that the government can be trusted not to act like they did during Katrina and round up LEGAL guns from law-abiding citizens for disposal. Since they can’t be trusted, no licensing.
If you’ll take your argument for changing the Constitution, slaves being freed granted a new right to people, it didn’t remove a right previously held. Banning guns or otherwise amending the Constitution to take guns away from law-abiding people is doing just that: taking something away.
I never said we should take away the right to own weapons, I just believe there should be some common sense guidelines.
Most laws are based upon slippery slope arguments that try to provide safety and recourse to victims, while not impeding the right of others to do as they please, as long as they don’t victimize anyone else.
For instance: (And I know driving is not a ‘right’ granted in the Constitution, but) Your ‘permission’ to drive is removed if you are mentally or physically unable to control your vehicle, or if you use said vehicle in an illegal manner…
I.e., Drinking of alcoholic beverages (by persons over the age of 21, of course) is perfectly legal. Getting behind the wheel of your vehicle afterward is not. Even if you don’t ‘accidentally’ kill someone, it is still a crime because of the documented risk of doing so.
That was really the point of the numbers that I posted. Namely, that it does not matter if the deaths are intentional or accidental, or whether the guns are legal or illegal, or whether the shooter is a law-abiding person or not, the mere presence of millions upon millions of weapons means we (Americans) have a 250,000% higher chance of being killed by a gun than will a person living in Great Britain.
Ah, one other point, we do indeed have different types of motor vehicle licensing. Driving an 18-wheeler is not the same as driving a passenger car, nor is a motorcycle, nor is a school bus. There are different tests and qualifications for each.
You are correct, and there should be different tests for owning different TYPES of weapon. But if all you’re purchasing are semi-automatic handguns or deer rifles, then one test for your first weapon should be fine.
It’s still a case of “if you take guns away from the people, then only the criminals will have guns.” The culture in America is so very different than in England, and I’m not sure it’s possible to lower crime by severely limiting guns to the point that I can’t have one on my nightstand.
murde , = murder
Is someone stealing my letters? First an ‘e’ and now an ‘r’ … *looks around suspiciously*
*Runs away with punctuation*
Hey (comma) bring that back (exclamation point)
Wino parentheses exclamation mark parentheses
What have I told you about ste ling punctuation p rentheses question m rk p rentheses
Now your ste ling my postrophe s p rentheses excl mation m rk p rentheses
Key word in that argument you made is “proposed amendment”. As I’ve said before the only restrictive amendment ever written was repealed, as will one about gay marriage.
Speaking of teabaggers, we’ve got them in St. Louis today since President Obama was visiting today to talk about the health care plan. The local news said things got a bit…heated amongst the protesters outside.
You have my axe.
No, the teabaggers are perverts who deliberately misname people who are protesting the deliberate takover of things the government should keep out of, and the perversion of our liberties.
But I guess it takes one to know one.
Douchebags. (you, just wo we’re clear)
Quack, you ƒuckweasel™.
I couldn’t read all of the posts, the ones I did read were entertaining. I’d like to put my 2 cent’s in, me being a certified firearms instructor and all.
Owning a firearm, is NOT a human right… It IS however an American right.
Not liking it, is not grounds to try to get rid of it. If you think it’s outdated, or wrong, I’d ask you to research some American history. If you did, you would understand that the second amendment was designed to stop American citizens from ever being at the mercy of an unjust dictatorship, and give them the tools they need to stop the tyranny of evil men. That being said, our right has been undermined by politicians who have seen to it that no private citizen can compete with any military or law enforcement. Which is a whoe different conversation.
But in my interpretation of it, we should still have well organized militia’s to train citizens how to use their firearms. Instead militias have a horrible stigma attached to them, and you’re branded a racist lunatic for joining one. That results in untrained people owning firearms (which I agree with most Democrats is dangerous and wrong). Trained people enjoying hunting or sports shooting is a great thing, and being able to defend yourself and anyone else who needs defending is too.
I’m not employed by the NRA, so they don’t pay me, they just provide my credentials. That being said, it is simple and fairly cheap to get a decent level of firearm safety and operation training. I charge $100 for a CCW training class, and $25 for a basic safety and how to aim class. There are many other options available, ranging from how to reload your own ammo, to how to carry a firearm and defend yourself and others in public. Some classes require police and/or attorney participation. Your prices will vary.
So I suggest as a happy medium, instead of trying to change the Constitution of the United States of America, encourage people who are interested in firearms to seek out proper training.
Thanks
Well said NRA Instructor
I have my concealed carry permit for the sole purpose of protecting my loved ones, myself, and those who can’t protect themselves. I believe its a Biblical mandate.
I came with my mother.
Slightly off-topic, but does anyone else immediately think of this ^^ (link) when they hear “Tea Party” or is it just me?
it sure would make things more interesting… but can i get the johnny depp version, please?
I’m late for a very important date.
…with Johnny Depp *drool*
I don’t know…I’m not a big fan of any of the film versions. Haven’t seen the new one yet.
It could be hammered sh!t but have Johnny Depp in it, and it would still rock
My understanding is that it is not Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland OR Through the Looking Glass but something completely new, although using the same characters. Probably as a way to expand Johnny Depp’s role as the Mad Hatter isn’t very significant in the books.
agreed!
CHANGE PLACES!!!
*isn’t feeling the love here*
Hmph. You ain’t got enough money, boyo.
I know. I’m a founding member of AAAM and everything.
We’ll have our own Booby Battle and we won’t invite PB!
DAMN IT!!! I knew I left people off, I hadn’t had dinner yet, and fat people with out food don’t think well… how about I blame my illiterate anti gay anti women racist convservatism….. Accept apologizes… **signs up all the GLOP**
I’ll sell my Health Care vote?!?!?
What the hell is a “GLOP”?
Gorgeous Ladies Of PK…
GLOP!!!
Thank you.
You should change the “the” in your name to a colon.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.