1 in 230 chance of being killed by a civilian with a gun. 1 in 67 chance of being killed by your own government. The facts prove my point. You just don't like the facts.
I don't like facts that are irrelevant and are incomparable.
You mean, like the Founding Fathers did? Yeah, we want to prevent that from happening ever again.
I'm sure you are the exact kind of intellectual we need to throw a rebellion and then stitch the country back together into something that works great for everyone.
I'm not saying I'm going to start a revolution. But I want the rights protected for when we DO need to start one. You want to give up those rights because you think our government is all so hunky-dory now. How short-sighted can you be?!?
So, Rick Santorum gets elected and decides that all gays need to go to re-education camps to "un-gay"... you've been disarmed and now you can't do anything about it. Say goodbye to protection of minorities.
Nuts with guns account for an infinitesimally small percentage of total deaths, especially compared with government nuts with guns.
But a far larger percentage of deaths than nuts with knives and axes.
Boy, I wish we could live in your fantasy land where no guns exist anywhere. If the government will agree to destroy all of their guns, I'll agree to destroy mine. But until then, you are in FAR greater danger from a government gun than a civilian gun. History proves it. I've already quoted the numbers. Accept it.
I call the insane amount of nanny-state oversight and micro-management of every aspect of their lives pretty oppressive.
Ah, I see we've adjusted our argument from "We need guns to prevent government genocide!" to "We need guns to prevent government!" for I am wholly unconvinced you could identify what this "nanny-state" "oversight" and "micromanagement" is.
A very subtle and important difference. And one that says everything that needs to be said about your argument.
Your ignorance of what is going on in these countries is not my fault. Educate yourself... oh wait... that's too much trouble, as we've seen. There is a huge difference between "No Government" and "Limited Government"... but I would prefer no government to a tyrannical government.
Please quote where I said "always". And regardless, you miss the point. Government is more dangerous than civilians, so you are far more harmed by enacting gun control than without it.
Wow. Just wow. That is exactly why the American Revolution began. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Heard of the Boston Tea Party?
Excellent misunderstanding of American history. Go ahead and look up "taxation without representation."
No wonder we're deteriorating so much as a nation... Like I said, read the fucking Declaration of Independence or STFU. Taxation without representation was ONE... ONE... point in the whole list of grievances the colonists had with Great Britain.
I mean, it's just staggering that you would even attempt to boil the entire revolution down to the tax issue. Do some fucking reading then get back to me. Shut up. Stop typing. Go read.
Yes, because the Declaration of Independence is, in fact, the collective history of the cause of the American Revolution.
How, exactly, do you think Britain was "oppressing" Americans?
You really don't like reading, do you? You can't even be bothered to read the article YOU POSTED... to quote the article:
A central motivating force behind the revolution was the American embrace of a political ideology called "republicanism", which was dominant in the colonies by 1775, but of minor importance back in Britain. The republicanism was inspired by the "country party" in Britain, whose critique of British government emphasized that corruption was a terrible reality in Britain. Americans feared the corruption was crossing the Atlantic; the commitment of most Americans to republican values and to their rights, energized the revolution, as Britain was increasingly seen as hopelessly corrupt and hostile to American interests. Britain seemed to threaten the established liberties that Americans enjoyed. The greatest threat to liberty was depicted as corruption—not just in London but at home as well. The colonists associated it with luxury and, especially, inherited aristocracy, which they condemned.
Furthermore, READ THE FUCKING DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE! It is NO MYSTERY why they were revolting against Britain. They wrote it down!
The whole reason they went to WAR was because of how they were treated in general. Taxes were PART of it, but to boil all of their concerns down to just taxes is a GROSS oversimplification of the motivations for going to WAR, risking their lives, and their fortunes.
You focused on the wrong part of the statement. Yes, taxes rabble rabble rabble. No, the problem was the "without representation." Which is really all that little quote says too. The American intelligentsia were pissed because shit was going down they didn't get a say in and the general populace was pissed because they were the American general populace.
The Declaration of Independence still isn't in any way a historical account of the cause of secession from Britain.
So, Rick Santorum gets elected and decides that all gays need to go to re-education camps to "un-gay"... you've been disarmed and now you can't do anything about it. Say goodbye to protection of minorities.
I've had enough experienced to know the "guns for everyon!" crowd and "re-education camps for gays!" crowd overlap at least 75%. No thanks, not trusting you people.
Boy, I wish we could live in your fantasy land where no guns exist anywhere. If the government will agree to destroy all of their guns, I'll agree to destroy mine. But until then, you are in FAR greater danger from a government gun than a civilian gun. History proves it. I've already quoted the numbers. Accept it.
So how much does it cost to maintain a fighter jet and working tank?
Your ignorance of what is going on in these countries is not my fault. Educate yourself... oh wait... that's too much trouble, as we've seen. There is a huge difference between "No Government" and "Limited Government"... but I would prefer no government to a tyrannical government.
Gasp, you refuse to provide examples of your claims? My surprise is palpable.
0
Options
Saint JusticeMercenaryMah-vel Baybee!!!Registered Userregular
Cartigan, I really don't see how some jabs @ the media in a press conference are going to lead to any changes being done by NGE's, your fears seem very unfounded. It's not like Mr. Lapierre is leading some big crusade against media that he disagrees with, he's just making a point about the hypocrisy of the media in blaming a lack of "gun control" whenever these shootings occur.
Let's take a step back here. The original issue is that the comic implies that the NRA (or at least Wayne Lapierre) is trying to sabotage the 1st amendment somehow. The third panel says "It is a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second". There is nothing in the press release that will "destroy the first amendment". This is a bunch of fear-mongering and hyperbole.
Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul. ~ Tycho
Cartigan, I really don't see how some jabs @ the media in a press conference are going to lead to any changes being done by NGE's, your fears seem very unfounded. It's not like Mr. Lapierre is leading some big crusade against media that he disagrees with, he's just making a point about the hypocrisy of the media in blaming a lack of "gun control" whenever these shootings occur.
Let's take a step back here. The original issue is that the comic implies that the NRA (or at least Wayne Lapierre) is trying to sabotage the 1st amendment somehow. The third panel says "It is a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second". There is nothing in the press release that will "destroy the first amendment". This is a bunch of fear-mongering and hyperbole.
And the comic is making a point about the hypocrisy of attacking what is perceived as violent media while trying to defend perceived attacks on the Second Amendment.
Because any and all "gun control" debates destroy the Second Amendment.
Cartigan, I really don't see how some jabs @ the media in a press conference are going to lead to any changes being done by NGE's, your fears seem very unfounded. It's not like Mr. Lapierre is leading some big crusade against media that he disagrees with, he's just making a point about the hypocrisy of the media in blaming a lack of "gun control" whenever these shootings occur.
Let's take a step back here. The original issue is that the comic implies that the NRA (or at least Wayne Lapierre) is trying to sabotage the 1st amendment somehow. The third panel says "It is a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second". There is nothing in the press release that will "destroy the first amendment". This is a bunch of fear-mongering and hyperbole.
And the comic is making a point about the hypocrisy of attacking what is perceived as violent media while trying to defend perceived attacks on the Second Amendment.
Because any and all "gun control" debates destroy the Second Amendment.
Basically this. The Executive isn't moving to revoke the Second Amendment. Quite frankly, there are already a number of restrictions on it AND the First Amendment as well, and probably most of the various clauses of the Constitution. The irony is that these people who are perceiving that gun ownership regulations are violating their Second Amendment rights are instead pointing at acts allowed under the First Amendment and claiming that those are the TRUE cause. Whatever fear-mongering or hyperbole exists with regards to one exist with regard to the other, irrespective of how much you believe one exists or not. Personally, given the NRA's insanity... yeah.
Also, before I get labelled an anti-gun socialist coddler or whatever (oh wait, WookieMonster already did), I'm not for gun bans. Nor am I, actually, opposed to the idea of regulating violence in video games in some way, but I've yet to see a practical plan for doing so; the problem with selective censorship is that it's almost never actually intelligently selective and unbiased. I simply find WookieMonster insane and bereft of any understanding as to how power relations in a modern society actually play out and how guns factor into those dynamics.
The Declaration of Independence still isn't in any way a historical account of the cause of secession from Britain.
I think this says it all. No further conversation can take place, now that I know you are completely incapable of rational discussion. Thank you. I will no longer waste my time on you.
I simply find WookieMonster insane and bereft of any understanding as to how power relations in a modern society actually play out and how guns factor into those dynamics.
Human nature does not change. Modern society is not governed by different fundamental rules. People are still greedy for power and so long as we have government of any form, limitations must be placed on the extent and scope of that power. And the nature of that limitation must be placed on the foundational theory of government we choose to follow. If we accept the notions of collectivism, we will inevitably grant more and more power to those who crave it until we are left with nothing. The first limit on government is to establish unequivocally that we are an individualist nation, first and foremost. Until and unless we accept and abide by that principle, we are doomed to have an ever increasing and intrusive government.
You and Cartigan may think that my reasoning is "insane", but there is a HUGE portion of the US populace who believes as I do. We are not insane and to think otherwise is to drive a wedge of division in the country. You should at the very least try to understand what I am saying and what my point is and I have seen absolutely no effort to actually understand the argument AGAINST gun control.
And, BTW: so long as you inextricably tie the pro-gun argument with the anti-gay argument, you will never understand either. They are separate and throwing out one because of the arguments made by the other is stupid.
I gotta say, as a Canadian I'm pretty happy knowing that the angry people outside don't have guns with which to fire wildly into my windows.
You poor, ignorant fool.
Don't you know how oppressed you are?
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
So, Rick Santorum gets elected and decides that all gays need to go to re-education camps to "un-gay"... you've been disarmed and now you can't do anything about it. Say goodbye to protection of minorities.
Rick Santorum gets elected as what? As a congressman? Well, then he can make any crazy decision he wants, but in order to act on it he's going to have to draft a bill. Then he's going to have to convince a majority of congress, in both houses to vote for it. Considering how controversial a proposal it is, he's likely going to need a super-majority in order to avoid filibustering. Then he's going to need the president to sign it, which if it's still Obama, isn't going to happen. If it's vetoed, then Santorum would need to get a two-thirds majority in both houses to override it. After all that, the law is still going to be challenged in the courts, and likely overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
If, in your hypothetical, Rick Santorum is elected president, then he can't even introduce a law. He can only sign into law bills that congress sends him.
The government has a lot of checks and balances in it that prevent one lone nut from wrecking havok with it, no matter what position that person has been elected to. And note that even then, you're acknowledging that the nut got elected, meaning democratically chosen by a majority of its citizens.
So, Rick Santorum gets elected and decides that all gays need to go to re-education camps to "un-gay"... you've been disarmed and now you can't do anything about it. Say goodbye to protection of minorities.
this fucking post is wrong in an astounding number of ways
So, Rick Santorum gets elected and decides that all gays need to go to re-education camps to "un-gay"... you've been disarmed and now you can't do anything about it. Say goodbye to protection of minorities.
this fucking post is wrong in an astounding number of ways
Don't bother. You'll just give yourself a headache.
0
Options
Saint JusticeMercenaryMah-vel Baybee!!!Registered Userregular
Cartigan, I really don't see how some jabs @ the media in a press conference are going to lead to any changes being done by NGE's, your fears seem very unfounded. It's not like Mr. Lapierre is leading some big crusade against media that he disagrees with, he's just making a point about the hypocrisy of the media in blaming a lack of "gun control" whenever these shootings occur.
Let's take a step back here. The original issue is that the comic implies that the NRA (or at least Wayne Lapierre) is trying to sabotage the 1st amendment somehow. The third panel says "It is a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second". There is nothing in the press release that will "destroy the first amendment". This is a bunch of fear-mongering and hyperbole.
And the comic is making a point about the hypocrisy of attacking what is perceived as violent media while trying to defend perceived attacks on the Second Amendment.
Because any and all "gun control" debates destroy the Second Amendment.
Because any and all debate about how media and entertainment industries present their content destroys the First Amendment. Hey look, I can make silly statements, too!
Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul. ~ Tycho
Cartigan, I really don't see how some jabs @ the media in a press conference are going to lead to any changes being done by NGE's, your fears seem very unfounded. It's not like Mr. Lapierre is leading some big crusade against media that he disagrees with, he's just making a point about the hypocrisy of the media in blaming a lack of "gun control" whenever these shootings occur.
Let's take a step back here. The original issue is that the comic implies that the NRA (or at least Wayne Lapierre) is trying to sabotage the 1st amendment somehow. The third panel says "It is a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second". There is nothing in the press release that will "destroy the first amendment". This is a bunch of fear-mongering and hyperbole.
And the comic is making a point about the hypocrisy of attacking what is perceived as violent media while trying to defend perceived attacks on the Second Amendment.
Because any and all "gun control" debates destroy the Second Amendment.
Because any and all debate about how media and entertainment industries present their content destroys the First Amendment. Hey look, I can make silly statements, too!
What silly statement? You can't swing a stick without hitting someone who thinks preventing concealed carry is the first step to burning the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.
0
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
The Declaration of Independence still isn't in any way a historical account of the cause of secession from Britain.
I think this says it all. No further conversation can take place, now that I know you are completely incapable of rational discussion. Thank you. I will no longer waste my time on you.
The Declaration of Independence was written to convince undecided colonials and the leaders of other nations of the justice of the Revolutionaries' cause; it is, inherently, a self-serving document. There is every reason to view its account of the reasons for secession with a certain amount of skepticism.
So, Rick Santorum gets elected and decides that all gays need to go to re-education camps to "un-gay"... you've been disarmed and now you can't do anything about it. Say goodbye to protection of minorities.
Rick Santorum gets elected as what? As a congressman? Well, then he can make any crazy decision he wants, but in order to act on it he's going to have to draft a bill. Then he's going to have to convince a majority of congress, in both houses to vote for it. Considering how controversial a proposal it is, he's likely going to need a super-majority in order to avoid filibustering. Then he's going to need the president to sign it, which if it's still Obama, isn't going to happen. If it's vetoed, then Santorum would need to get a two-thirds majority in both houses to override it. After all that, the law is still going to be challenged in the courts, and likely overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
If, in your hypothetical, Rick Santorum is elected president, then he can't even introduce a law. He can only sign into law bills that congress sends him.
The government has a lot of checks and balances in it that prevent one lone nut from wrecking havok with it, no matter what position that person has been elected to. And note that even then, you're acknowledging that the nut got elected, meaning democratically chosen by a majority of its citizens.
In short, your proposed hypothetical shows a severe lack of understanding over how the US federal government works.
[And also all the other posts that nitpicked this example...]
A) If the president has so little power, why worry about anyone elected president? I'll expect all of you to stay absolutely silent during the next presidential election. Presidents overreach all the time, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, but each one has pushed the boundaries further and further.
Way to completely miss the point. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is that you cannot guarantee that those in power will always act appropriately and may act dangerously in opposition to your rights. I picked Rick Santorum because he said some pretty wacky things while running in the primaries. He was a readily recognizable example of someone "wacky" being given leadership of the free world. I picked the gay issue because that was an issue that Mr. Frothiness himself made several wacky statements about.
If you think it unlikely for one person in a democratically elected government with a separation of powers to turn a government tyranncial, well all you need to do is study history... Germany had a democratically elected government with separation of powers until one nut gained control of certain key positions and shifted things dramatically. The fact that we have separation of powers is not an absolute bar against tyrannical maneuvers.
C) The whole point is that those who demand gun control and say that we can trust government to always do what is right, put far too much faith in their elected officials. You may like Obama, but you'd be singing a different tune if G.W. Bush (or someone of his ilk) was the one stripping away Constitutional rights. (And no, the fact that many pro-gun people happened to support G.W. does not weaken this point... that is an ad hominem, guilt-by-association attack and is without merit. I think Bush was one of the worst presidents we've ever had, so please do not conflate the two matters. The point is still that you CANNOT trust government, no matter who happens to be in power and no matter how great you think they are.)
D) Maybe we'll be fine... for now... maybe we can trust the government AS IT STANDS NOW... that's a BIG maybe, but let's just say that it's OK, for argument's sake... What kind of government do you think we'll have in 10 year? 20? 50? We've seen some pretty serious infringements of Constitutional Rights under Bush and Obama has continued with many of those same policies. The NDAA is a prime example of that. What kind of protections are we leaving for posterity if we strip THEM of THEIR right to defend themselves from a tyrannical government? As the Federal government consolidates more and more power, if we strip these Constitutional rights from our children and grand children, what hope do they have of preventing a 21st century or 22nd century Hitler?
I look at people questioningly when they make statements like "The NRA is for gun rights." Sure, but only to those they throw the most dosh at them. The thing is the NRA just loves having American gunsmiths shower them with money, in 1994 things like Kalashnikovs and Armalites weren't very popular. As such the NRA threw them under the bus as a sacrificial lamb. In my personal opinion the GOA is a much better organization.
I also feel leery of people who call for the ban of semi-automatics. People that would put a .22 mossberg plinkster in the same category as an AR-10 or a VZ.58. People like the mayor of NYC, who don't even know the definition of semi-automatic “Pistols are different. You have to pull the trigger each time. An assault weapon you basically hold and it goes buh-buh-da-dup.” People like Feinstein scare the crap out of me when they start talking about compulsory buybacks, or outright confiscation. I know that such measures will most likely never pass, and probably only got proposed so they could obtain a more reasonable goal. Right now all that's happening is prices are skyrocketing from anywhere from 20% to over 50%, There simply aren't enough lowers, uppers, mags, and just plain old ARs to to around.
I owned guns since I was about 10, I never murdered anyone... unless you count racoons and bullfrogs as people. I know a lot of people, people that own several ARs each, handguns pouring out of every orifice like the reincarnated JWB, and one even has a fully functioning STG-44. None these people have ever committed an illegal action with a firearm, never shot any kids, puppies or kittens.
A few of them were the 60-80 thousand who had to use a firearm to defend themselves, none of them have added to 10k annual gun deaths. Personally I know which category I'd prefer to be in.
Every time you say the word "clip" and you aren't mentioning a fine piece of Teutonic engineering such as a c96 or a Gewehr 98, you make JWB cry .45 ACP tears
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)]
This thread isn't about bizarre paranoid anti-government conspiracy theories and at this point you should take this discussion to the debate forum if you wish to continue it. That goes for all of you. No last words.
This thread isn't about bizarre paranoid anti-government conspiracy theories and at this point you should take this discussion to the debate forum if you wish to continue it. That goes for all of you. No last words.
As an Admin, you have every right to shut down a thread for any reason. But to interject your comment about "bizarre paranoid anti-government conspiracy theories" was unnecessary and an abuse of your power. No one has said anything about any kind of conspiracy nor anything "anti-government"... on the contrary, my most recent post shows how the Founding Fathers essentially said everything that I've been saying... would you call them "anti-government"? Nor did I ever say there was a plan or plot. I merely pointed out the historical parallels.
If you disagree with my assessment, my politics, and/or my concerns about the direction that a gun ban would take this country, that is fine. But to use your position as Admin to assert that what I've said is a "conspiracy theory" is extremely inappropriate and insulting.
To claim that I am "anti-government" is a major accusation that I demand that you either provide support for or retract.
In addition, you have called me a "conspiracy theorist"... again, I demand you either provide support for that claim or retract it.
You come in claiming to shut down the "debate", wanting it moved elsewhere, but in the same breath you put in your own two cents. The fact that you waded into this debate was unprofessional and the fact that you used your position as Admin to shut down rebuttal makes it all the more egregious.
The next private message you receive from me will be a libel suit against you and Penny Arcade for these defamatory statements. Enjoy.
what
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Posts
I'm not saying I'm going to start a revolution. But I want the rights protected for when we DO need to start one. You want to give up those rights because you think our government is all so hunky-dory now. How short-sighted can you be?!?
So, Rick Santorum gets elected and decides that all gays need to go to re-education camps to "un-gay"... you've been disarmed and now you can't do anything about it. Say goodbye to protection of minorities.
Boy, I wish we could live in your fantasy land where no guns exist anywhere. If the government will agree to destroy all of their guns, I'll agree to destroy mine. But until then, you are in FAR greater danger from a government gun than a civilian gun. History proves it. I've already quoted the numbers. Accept it.
Your ignorance of what is going on in these countries is not my fault. Educate yourself... oh wait... that's too much trouble, as we've seen. There is a huge difference between "No Government" and "Limited Government"... but I would prefer no government to a tyrannical government.
Please quote where I said "always". And regardless, you miss the point. Government is more dangerous than civilians, so you are far more harmed by enacting gun control than without it.
You focused on the wrong part of the statement. Yes, taxes rabble rabble rabble. No, the problem was the "without representation." Which is really all that little quote says too. The American intelligentsia were pissed because shit was going down they didn't get a say in and the general populace was pissed because they were the American general populace.
The Declaration of Independence still isn't in any way a historical account of the cause of secession from Britain.
So how much does it cost to maintain a fighter jet and working tank?
Gasp, you refuse to provide examples of your claims? My surprise is palpable.
Let's take a step back here. The original issue is that the comic implies that the NRA (or at least Wayne Lapierre) is trying to sabotage the 1st amendment somehow. The third panel says "It is a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second". There is nothing in the press release that will "destroy the first amendment". This is a bunch of fear-mongering and hyperbole.
And the comic is making a point about the hypocrisy of attacking what is perceived as violent media while trying to defend perceived attacks on the Second Amendment.
Because any and all "gun control" debates destroy the Second Amendment.
Basically this. The Executive isn't moving to revoke the Second Amendment. Quite frankly, there are already a number of restrictions on it AND the First Amendment as well, and probably most of the various clauses of the Constitution. The irony is that these people who are perceiving that gun ownership regulations are violating their Second Amendment rights are instead pointing at acts allowed under the First Amendment and claiming that those are the TRUE cause. Whatever fear-mongering or hyperbole exists with regards to one exist with regard to the other, irrespective of how much you believe one exists or not. Personally, given the NRA's insanity... yeah.
Also, before I get labelled an anti-gun socialist coddler or whatever (oh wait, WookieMonster already did), I'm not for gun bans. Nor am I, actually, opposed to the idea of regulating violence in video games in some way, but I've yet to see a practical plan for doing so; the problem with selective censorship is that it's almost never actually intelligently selective and unbiased. I simply find WookieMonster insane and bereft of any understanding as to how power relations in a modern society actually play out and how guns factor into those dynamics.
I think this says it all. No further conversation can take place, now that I know you are completely incapable of rational discussion. Thank you. I will no longer waste my time on you.
Human nature does not change. Modern society is not governed by different fundamental rules. People are still greedy for power and so long as we have government of any form, limitations must be placed on the extent and scope of that power. And the nature of that limitation must be placed on the foundational theory of government we choose to follow. If we accept the notions of collectivism, we will inevitably grant more and more power to those who crave it until we are left with nothing. The first limit on government is to establish unequivocally that we are an individualist nation, first and foremost. Until and unless we accept and abide by that principle, we are doomed to have an ever increasing and intrusive government.
You and Cartigan may think that my reasoning is "insane", but there is a HUGE portion of the US populace who believes as I do. We are not insane and to think otherwise is to drive a wedge of division in the country. You should at the very least try to understand what I am saying and what my point is and I have seen absolutely no effort to actually understand the argument AGAINST gun control.
And, BTW: so long as you inextricably tie the pro-gun argument with the anti-gay argument, you will never understand either. They are separate and throwing out one because of the arguments made by the other is stupid.
You poor, ignorant fool.
Don't you know how oppressed you are?
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
If, in your hypothetical, Rick Santorum is elected president, then he can't even introduce a law. He can only sign into law bills that congress sends him.
The government has a lot of checks and balances in it that prevent one lone nut from wrecking havok with it, no matter what position that person has been elected to. And note that even then, you're acknowledging that the nut got elected, meaning democratically chosen by a majority of its citizens.
As a real-world example, the Defense of Marriage Act was recently struck down in Federal appeals court. It was taken down by lawyers and advocacy groups, not maniacs wielding guns:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/justice/new-york-appeals-court-doma/index.html
In short, your proposed hypothetical shows a severe lack of understanding over how the US federal government works.
this fucking post is wrong in an astounding number of ways
Don't bother. You'll just give yourself a headache.
Because any and all debate about how media and entertainment industries present their content destroys the First Amendment. Hey look, I can make silly statements, too!
What silly statement? You can't swing a stick without hitting someone who thinks preventing concealed carry is the first step to burning the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence was written to convince undecided colonials and the leaders of other nations of the justice of the Revolutionaries' cause; it is, inherently, a self-serving document. There is every reason to view its account of the reasons for secession with a certain amount of skepticism.
[And also all the other posts that nitpicked this example...]
A) If the president has so little power, why worry about anyone elected president? I'll expect all of you to stay absolutely silent during the next presidential election. Presidents overreach all the time, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, but each one has pushed the boundaries further and further.
If you think it unlikely for one person in a democratically elected government with a separation of powers to turn a government tyranncial, well all you need to do is study history... Germany had a democratically elected government with separation of powers until one nut gained control of certain key positions and shifted things dramatically. The fact that we have separation of powers is not an absolute bar against tyrannical maneuvers.
C) The whole point is that those who demand gun control and say that we can trust government to always do what is right, put far too much faith in their elected officials. You may like Obama, but you'd be singing a different tune if G.W. Bush (or someone of his ilk) was the one stripping away Constitutional rights. (And no, the fact that many pro-gun people happened to support G.W. does not weaken this point... that is an ad hominem, guilt-by-association attack and is without merit. I think Bush was one of the worst presidents we've ever had, so please do not conflate the two matters. The point is still that you CANNOT trust government, no matter who happens to be in power and no matter how great you think they are.)
D) Maybe we'll be fine... for now... maybe we can trust the government AS IT STANDS NOW... that's a BIG maybe, but let's just say that it's OK, for argument's sake... What kind of government do you think we'll have in 10 year? 20? 50? We've seen some pretty serious infringements of Constitutional Rights under Bush and Obama has continued with many of those same policies. The NDAA is a prime example of that. What kind of protections are we leaving for posterity if we strip THEM of THEIR right to defend themselves from a tyrannical government? As the Federal government consolidates more and more power, if we strip these Constitutional rights from our children and grand children, what hope do they have of preventing a 21st century or 22nd century Hitler?
shut down the government
all politics inevitably leads to hitler anyway
let's hand out guns at random to the populace and fire all the police
a continent-wide battle royale the victors of which shall lead us into a new age
basic survival of the fittest, people
I also feel leery of people who call for the ban of semi-automatics. People that would put a .22 mossberg plinkster in the same category as an AR-10 or a VZ.58. People like the mayor of NYC, who don't even know the definition of semi-automatic “Pistols are different. You have to pull the trigger each time. An assault weapon you basically hold and it goes buh-buh-da-dup.” People like Feinstein scare the crap out of me when they start talking about compulsory buybacks, or outright confiscation. I know that such measures will most likely never pass, and probably only got proposed so they could obtain a more reasonable goal. Right now all that's happening is prices are skyrocketing from anywhere from 20% to over 50%, There simply aren't enough lowers, uppers, mags, and just plain old ARs to to around.
I owned guns since I was about 10, I never murdered anyone... unless you count racoons and bullfrogs as people. I know a lot of people, people that own several ARs each, handguns pouring out of every orifice like the reincarnated JWB, and one even has a fully functioning STG-44. None these people have ever committed an illegal action with a firearm, never shot any kids, puppies or kittens.
A few of them were the 60-80 thousand who had to use a firearm to defend themselves, none of them have added to 10k annual gun deaths. Personally I know which category I'd prefer to be in.
What the hell are you talking about? We've had guns for 200 years in this nation... what is going to cause this apocalyptic scenario?
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)]
As an Admin, you have every right to shut down a thread for any reason. But to interject your comment about "bizarre paranoid anti-government conspiracy theories" was unnecessary and an abuse of your power. No one has said anything about any kind of conspiracy nor anything "anti-government"... on the contrary, my most recent post shows how the Founding Fathers essentially said everything that I've been saying... would you call them "anti-government"? Nor did I ever say there was a plan or plot. I merely pointed out the historical parallels.
If you disagree with my assessment, my politics, and/or my concerns about the direction that a gun ban would take this country, that is fine. But to use your position as Admin to assert that what I've said is a "conspiracy theory" is extremely inappropriate and insulting.
Meaning you have no remorse for this abuse?
To claim that I am "anti-government" is a major accusation that I demand that you either provide support for or retract.
In addition, you have called me a "conspiracy theorist"... again, I demand you either provide support for that claim or retract it.
You come in claiming to shut down the "debate", wanting it moved elsewhere, but in the same breath you put in your own two cents. The fact that you waded into this debate was unprofessional and the fact that you used your position as Admin to shut down rebuttal makes it all the more egregious.
STEAM
what
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Well, that at least solves one conundrum. Or significantly narrows it down, at a minimum.
You can't take the sky from him, MAL.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/2/3828182/connecticut-town-holds-drive-to-collect-and-destroy-violent-video
http://www.polygon.com/2012/12/19/3784970/violent-video-games-study-bill-west-virginia-senator-rockefeller
Moral of the story is, don't single out the NRA. Pro-gun control democrats have no problems stomping on the first amendment either.