Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Huffington Post Comments, 12/17/2012

FredSays
When did the definition of "A well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment morph into "A chaotic, muddled group of everybody and his brother (sister)?" 
Me
"The people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments means "the people"

Why would "the people" in the 2nd be any different?
AlanPittsburgh
Answer your own question. 
Me
"the people" in the 2nd amendment means "the people" just like in the other amendments.  

***
FredSays
When did the definition of "A well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment morph into "A chaotic, muddled group of everybody and his brother (sister)?" 
Me
"The people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments means "the people"

Why would "the people" in the 2nd be any different?
DakkonA
"A well regulated militia being necessary"

In other words: people need guns because we need militias made up of those people.

What used to be militias are now police and national guard.  
Me
You are incorrect. What used to be militias was the military, as its primary focus.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson 

***

FredSays
When did the definition of "A well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment morph into "A chaotic, muddled group of everybody and his brother (sister)?" 
Me
"The people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments means "the people"

Why would "the people" in the 2nd be any different?
JShankel
Then why mention a well regulated militia at all?  Why not just say people have the right and that's it?  
Me
Militia was added, I suspect, to be one more argument in favor of arming "the people."

Why should "the people" mean different things in different amendments.

If I join a militia, should I be able to own any guns that I want? If "militia" is the part that distracts you, then I propose that every gun owner found his/ her own militia and then ignore all our anti-freedom gun laws. 

***
Me
He used a legal gun obtained illegally, and used it where it was illegal to have. He broke two gun laws already why would adding a third make any difference?
trweste144
Because it won't be the same law and the first two proved ineffective.  What would you propose to fix the situation, then?  
Me
If the first two were ineffective, then why would another be any different?

Note that the CO shooter went out of his way to shoot in the only theater in his area that advertized a gun free zone.

Note also, that with one exception, all shootings where 3 or more people were killed since 1950 occurred in "gun free zones."

We cannot prevent crazy people from doing crazy things. We can do a better job of identifying crazy people. And we can stop creating a shooter's preferred target places "gun free zones."

BTW, have you heard about the 22 children stabbed in China last Friday? How well did gun control prevent violence there?

http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story
***
cargofuzz
Why is it that whenever anyone says, "we need to look at this issue and have a meaningful conversation about how to stop gun violence," all the extreme right hears is "Obama wants to take away all your guns!" Has Obama Derangement Syndrome effected criticial thinking that much among the right? Sorry...just answered my own question...
Me
Because every time we hear "we need to look at this issue and have a meaningful conversation about how to stop gun violence," there is always an attempt to ban and/ or restrict our guns.
wetheplants
Funny how Republicans are supposed to be so concerned about "security"... It must be only our security from other countries then, god forbid we take efforts to protect people in our own country! 
Me
Funny how the Obama administration favors giving arms to Mexican drug lords, and "freedom fighters" in Libya and Egypt, but is opposed to American citizens owning guns. 
***
cargofuzz
Why is it that whenever anyone says, "we need to look at this issue and have a meaningful conversation about how to stop gun violence," all the extreme right hears is "Obama wants to take away all your guns!" Has Obama Derangement Syndrome effected criticial thinking that much among the right? Sorry...just answered my own question...
Me
Because every time we hear "we need to look at this issue and have a meaningful conversation about how to stop gun violence," there is always an attempt to ban and/ or restrict our guns.
Cheryl Fitzpatrick
Boo hoo, enough of this rhetoric!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
***

cargofuzz
Why is it that whenever anyone says, "we need to look at this issue and have a meaningful conversation about how to stop gun violence," all the extreme right hears is "Obama wants to take away all your guns!" Has Obama Derangement Syndrome effected criticial thinking that much among the right? Sorry...just answered my own question...
Me
Because every time we hear "we need to look at this issue and have a meaningful conversation about how to stop gun violence," there is always an attempt to ban and/ or restrict our guns.
IFany
And so does having a gun make you feel what safe, superior, in control, that you can go and kill the local wildlife. Does it appease some primitive instinct to kill with a gun, You have a gun for what reason that you can't live in this world without them, Tell me about how many times you heard that some one spoiled intruders with their heroic shootout, Or the how that in coming end times you or any one else will defend hearth and home from what zombies, or rampaging looters, This thing about having a gun is a real mental issue in this nation 
Me
 "And so does having a gun make you feel what safe, superior, in control, that you can go and kill the local wildlife."

Yes: http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/10/scooooore.html

Does not owning a gun make you feel safe in that if you are attacked you will need to wait until help arrives?

I have a suggestion: if someone attacks you, and after you ask you attacker to pause while you call the police, you should then call the nearest pizza place and order a delivery. Would you like to bet on who arrives first? The cop or the pizza?

How about a list of stories where gun owners saved lives: http://gunssavelives.net/
***
natgirrl
For those of you who want the right to have as many assault weapons as you want, then you should be required to carry insurance on said firearms as well as submit to a yearly mental health evaluation . With rights comes responsiblity. 
Me
An "assault weapon" is a political term that has no meaning in actual definition of guns.

The guns that you think would be banned by banning "assault weapons" (the guns that shoot multiple rounds with one trigger pull) have been illegal since 1934.
natgirrl
Oh please, don't you think that with 20 dead 1st graders, we are far beyond semantics?  
Me
If the death toll is your concern, then we should remove the leading cause of shooting in this country: gun free zones.

You can question my means of disagreeing with you, but you cannot question the fact that banning guns leads to more, and worse, shootings.

the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

and

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

1 comment:

  1. Nice. You're pretty sharp, dog.
    I like it.

    ReplyDelete