KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I'm on the ACLU's 2nd Amendment Policy Committee. True story LOL! You've told us multiple times. Nobody is impressed. I must have impressed you enough for you to remember, girlfriend! You are repetitive enough that even Kevbone would remember it. Quote
bradleym Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I don't think we need more control over our speech or our weapons. Certainly back in Ronald Regan's day in an effort to save a buck they started to let out mental patients who were semi-sufficient into society. Yet the conversation of "who is crazy" and "when should they forfeit their freedom" was and is still being carried out to this day and that's what we are looking at here. Mentally ill have rights too. What are they and when do those rights to live free impair our ability to operate with freedom? That is the root question we have here. In the old days many folks like this guy would have been swept up into the system and possibly even neutered so that he couldn't breed. Many people who bumped into this guy thought he should have been locked up. The police were having contact with him before although I can't say what it was. Now we are a kindlier and gentler society and don't do that....we wait for things like this to occur instead. That is the question here. As a society we have let many marginal and not so marginal nutcases loose to live free, free range, fend for themselves. I'm discussing severe mental illness and not talking about nuts like Pat, who basically thinks he's Napoleon and has dreams of grandeur and is harmless. In PDX the other day, the police were called out to deal with an angry, mentally ill homeless person. It led to him being shot and killed by the police when he advanced on them with a knife. What the police chief said in discussing that event is that the police are called and have contact every hour, on average, with a mentally ill person. We have deferred the $ we payed the mental profession to help or lock them up, and have put it onto the police. This is clearly a case of "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later". Yet we can pay for all kinds of mental health workers and you will still cannot get rid of every instance of this kind of thing in a free society. Restrictions on weapons and free speech won't do it. Take for example the case of Nidal Hasan, the Muslim soldier who killed thirteen people and wounded thirty others at Fort Hood just back in 2009. Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire. You going to disarm all of the soldiers? Eliminate all free speech or just all free speech for Muslims? Clearly the answer is no. Where do we go then and still maintain our freedoms? Ivan lays it out above, you get some of this with your freedoms. Probably time to re-read the Voltaire tract Larry posted. Live free my brothers. bill, here is a question to ponder: had this fellow (crazy, righty, lefty, who cares?) had 11 or 15 bullets to play with rather than 31 or 33 before reloading, how many of the injured and dead would not be injured or dead today? lots of complex issues here, but one conclusion seems pretty plausible to me: we _do_ need more control/restriction/banninating over our weapons. i'd certainly welcome a complete ban on handguns, but ffs, why not at least limit the number of rounds that can be popped off at once? bradley Quote
kevbone Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I'm on the ACLU's 2nd Amendment Policy Committee. True story LOL! You've told us multiple times. Nobody is impressed. I must have impressed you enough for you to remember, girlfriend! You are repetitive enough that even Kevbone would remember it. Remember what? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) I don't think we need more control over our speech or our weapons. Certainly back in Ronald Regan's day in an effort to save a buck they started to let out mental patients who were semi-sufficient into society. Yet the conversation of "who is crazy" and "when should they forfeit their freedom" was and is still being carried out to this day and that's what we are looking at here. Mentally ill have rights too. What are they and when do those rights to live free impair our ability to operate with freedom? That is the root question we have here. In the old days many folks like this guy would have been swept up into the system and possibly even neutered so that he couldn't breed. Many people who bumped into this guy thought he should have been locked up. The police were having contact with him before although I can't say what it was. Now we are a kindlier and gentler society and don't do that....we wait for things like this to occur instead. That is the question here. As a society we have let many marginal and not so marginal nutcases loose to live free, free range, fend for themselves. I'm discussing severe mental illness and not talking about nuts like Pat, who basically thinks he's Napoleon and has dreams of grandeur and is harmless. In PDX the other day, the police were called out to deal with an angry, mentally ill homeless person. It led to him being shot and killed by the police when he advanced on them with a knife. What the police chief said in discussing that event is that the police are called and have contact every hour, on average, with a mentally ill person. We have deferred the $ we payed the mental profession to help or lock them up, and have put it onto the police. This is clearly a case of "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later". Yet we can pay for all kinds of mental health workers and you will still cannot get rid of every instance of this kind of thing in a free society. Restrictions on weapons and free speech won't do it. Take for example the case of Nidal Hasan, the Muslim soldier who killed thirteen people and wounded thirty others at Fort Hood just back in 2009. Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire. You going to disarm all of the soldiers? Eliminate all free speech or just all free speech for Muslims? Clearly the answer is no. Where do we go then and still maintain our freedoms? Ivan lays it out above, you get some of this with your freedoms. Probably time to re-read the Voltaire tract Larry posted. Live free my brothers. bill, here is a question to ponder: had this fellow (crazy, righty, lefty, who cares?) had 11 or 15 bullets to play with rather than 31 or 33 before reloading, how many of the injured and dead would not be injured or dead today? lots of complex issues here, but one conclusion seems pretty plausible to me: we _do_ need more control/restriction/banninating over our weapons. i'd certainly welcome a complete ban on handguns, but ffs, why not at least limit the number of rounds that can be popped off at once? bradley I was just about to pose that very same question. Well put. Personally, I believe a shotgun is all one should ever need for home defense. I do not believe individuals need or should have the right to carry outside the home - there are many other paths to personal security that work better and threaten fewer people. I'd like to here from Billcoe and other zero restriction advocates why they believe private citizens need Glocks with 31 round clips to feel 'safe'. It's not a constitutional issue: restrictions of types of weapons: machine guns, cop killer bullets, etc, as well as time and place restrictions (bars, etc) have repeatedly passed constitutional muster. Edited January 11, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Fox Prez tells his anchors to 'shut up and tone it down'. Quote
ivan Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 an honest qeustion, as i don't know much about it, but how have the trials of prominent rwandas who incited their countryment to violence gone? i recall some were still in progress? how sucessful were persecutions of those guys, and to what degree where their statements similiar to anybody here in the usa? it would be nice if we could be a bit more friendly in our discourse here... the more relevant question is how effective anti-obscenity laws have been in squelching the 8 words you cannot say on radio and television versus the inattention paid to violent threats on very same media. Want a $250K fine every time Howard Stern says 'blowjob'? Go for it. Hey, but if Howard Stern suggests that his listeners take up arms against elected officials...no prob, man! Thanks to a the FCC's obscenity restrictions (ridiculous, but there you are) on speech, the mechanism are already in place to 'tone down' the threats the minute the government decides that this should be a priority. $250K per incident. The pundits may say FU, but their owners sure as hell won't. This is not 'politicizing' the issue, as such sanctions would apply to everyone, regardless of Leftie/Righty message. Of course, it would be levied almost exclusively against the Right...as they are the only public figures employing this kind of rhetoric. great points - i suppose "obscenity" is easy to crack down on b/c it boils down to the 8 fucking shit-black n' cock-sucking white words we can't use - there's not much grayness to them what will be the clearly enforcable rules for what the pundits can say w/o inciting others to violence? a concrete rule or two, w/ a snazzy fox clip to illustrate it, would be cool. Quote
Choada_Boy Posted January 11, 2011 Author Posted January 11, 2011 Dear Friends: The attack on conservatives and the tea party movement has continued over the past 24 hours. Media figures and liberal activists continue to falsely suggest that Rush Limbaugh, Gov. Sarah Palin and the tea party movement had anything to do with the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. They've launched this attack even though they know it is a total and complete lie. During the past few days friends of the shooter, Jared Loughner, have stepped forward to say that they knew him to be a political liberal. He admired the Communist Manifesto and burned the American flag.* But many in the news media and the political Left are nonetheless still trying to use this awful tragedy to make people think that somehow Limbaugh, Palin and the tea party were responsible for this attack. They are doing it for one reason: it is an attempt to silence us and make this patriotic, constitutionalist movement controversial - so they can try and stop the momentum this tea party movement has built. Last night on MSNBC and liberal websites, we here at the Tea Party Express were called despicable and shameless because we won't back down. Well guess what, friends - we're not going to back down. Not when we have nothing to apologize for, and certainly we won't just sit back while the media and liberals think they can slander us by calling us responsible for a mass murder. Instead, do you know what we're going to do? We're going to fight back with even more determination and pride. Since we have to "pay" to get our message heard (the liberal media bias is on display like never before with this tragedy), we're asking our supporters to help us fight back. We want to have our largest fundraising day in the history of our organization and we need your help to achieve this success. Please, make a contribution online right now to the Tea Party Express - CLICK HERE TO CONTRIBUTE. Quote
ivan Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 "He admired the Communist Manifesto and burned the American flag.*" the stars n' stripes gets an asterik these days? i like how political parties are like churches, always passing round the plate to get the good word out! Quote
Nitrox Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 It's not a constitutional issue: restrictions of types of weapons: machine guns, cop killer bullets, etc, as well as time and place restrictions (bars, etc) have repeatedly passed constitutional muster. What specifically is a "cop killer" bullet and where is such ammunition restricted? Also please cite the case where the restriction was challenged constitutionally and upheld. Heller was largely about banning handguns. Heller 2 was about banning certain types of guns. The supreme court ruled against DC in both instances. McDonald vs Chicago upheld the individual right and ruled in favor of incorporation. NFA hasn't been challenged since the SCOTUS held the state's rights view. Quote
Nitrox Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I'm on the ACLU's 2nd Amendment Policy Committee. True story LOL! Pretty telling about ACLU as an organization. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 an honest qeustion, as i don't know much about it, but how have the trials of prominent rwandas who incited their countryment to violence gone? i recall some were still in progress? how sucessful were persecutions of those guys, and to what degree where their statements similiar to anybody here in the usa? it would be nice if we could be a bit more friendly in our discourse here... on the more relevant question is how effective anti-obscenity laws have been in squelching the 8 words you cannot say on radio and television versus the inattention paid to violent threats on very same media. Want a $250K fine every time Howard Stern says 'blowjob'? Go for it. Hey, but if Howard Stern suggests that his listeners take up arms against elected officials...no prob, man! Thanks to a the FCC's obscenity restrictions (ridiculous, but there you are) on speech, the mechanism are already in place to 'tone down' the threats the minute the government decides that this should be a priority. $250K per incident. The pundits may say FU, but their owners sure as hell won't. This is not 'politicizing' the issue, as such sanctions would apply to everyone, regardless of Leftie/Righty message. Of course, it would be levied almost exclusively against the Right...as they are the only public figures employing this kind of rhetoric. great points - i suppose "obscenity" is easy to crack down on b/c it boils down to the 8 fucking shit-black n' cock-sucking white words we can't use - there's not much grayness to them what will be the clearly enforcable rules for what the pundits can say w/o inciting others to violence? a concrete rule or two, w/ a snazzy fox clip to illustrate it, would be cool. Not a simple question, but a good one. I'll get back to you. Quote
billcoe Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 gun control argument OK, here is what I think since you asked Bradley. Unfortunately, a typed out response is generally much shorter and full of holes than a back and forth discussion that might last an hour, so here’s the short version. Remember that it is what I think. Others can and do think differently. Political power is the reason I think guns should be in the hands of citizens. Not hunting. Not self-defense. Its about political control and the balance of power. There. When I was in college, one of the most liberal profs I had (a philosophy professor named Larry Bowlen) shocked me and his entire class with a statement that I am paraphrasing as this “I don’t believe in gun control, in fact I think every citizen should own guns”. In a room full of young liberals you could have heard a pin drop...until the inevitable eruption of arguments occurred with in a few moments. “Uh, but people cant be trusted”, “You mean you want people to have the means to kill you? “What about crazy people and criminals?”...etc etc” What followed was this statement by the prof. “Bottom line, I trust you and all the people I meet, that is, all my students, neighbors and relatives more than I trust any politician. Even random people on the street”. In the long conversation/argument that followed, Bowlen allowed and recognized that there were bad elements in society, and you obviously don’t allow the criminals and the crazy access to the same rights as average honest citizens. For myself, I didn’t agree, but coming from such a highly intelligent person whom I respected so much otherwise, I didn’t forget it and continued to reflect on it. Over time, I came to recognize that what he said contained a lot of truth. Certainly the human nature and some distrust of politicians is in there for me as well. Yet it is wrong for us to think that those who seek power are doing so for the same reasons which we might do so. It is often not altruistic and to make a better world, although it can be, but when it is not, those seeking power for the control alone will often find a way to overcome and eliminate those who are altruistic, kind and gentle. The framers looked for ways to cause natural checks and balances so as to restrict these kinds of imbalances. It seems clear from reading their writings at the time that they felt that an armed population was one of the ways to counterbalance a despots wish to take away things they considered natural freedoms. A quick look around the world and you’ll see some examples. Certainly Stalin and Hitler come to mind, but a study of the history of South America the last century or Southeast Asia will garner you a relatively long and sorid list of power hungry men like Pol Pot and Idi Amin: lesser men seeking control and power over those they rule. For them to be able to garner that control, the population looses it’s freedom. Looking at some of these spots, you see that one of the many things a dictator does to consolidate power and control is gun control. Of course, that isn’t the rational that gets everyone in a country behind the drive to ban weapons, it’s usually some other news story that starts the ball rolling. And make no mistake, in many other countries, those with the weapons have the power. Review the political structure all the countries in the middle east except Israel. That isn’t to say that you can’t have an England, with tight gun restrictions and still a solid democracy, but that’s not the norm throughout the world. For myself, I like this way of life and the freedoms which are so easy to take for granted until they are gone, and don’t want to see it change. Quote
kevbone Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 They are doing it for one reason: it is an attempt to silence us and make this patriotic, constitutionalist movement controversial - so they can try and stop the momentum this tea party movement has built. They should be silenced. They are a poison to America's way of life. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) One need only look at the many modern, liberal democracies where personal gun ownership is NOT legal to surmise that, in the real world (not the hypothetical one where Patrick Swayze stops Hitler with his .308) such a right is clearly neither a prerequisite nor requirement for a free society for any reason, personal defense or 'right to rebel'. Hypothetical historical reduxes are fine for Tarantino screenplays, but that's about it. It's just a moron's way to fudge the data to create phony causality to support an argument that lacks a better foundation. It's a desperate rhetorical tool that tugs at heartstrings...no neurons required, using cute little hero fantasies. A created universe of bullshit. Regarding the 'right to rebel' and other self esteem building fantasies, right wing policies have so muscled up our police and military that you'd be better off hoarding ammonium nitrate than Glocks - terrorism is gonna be your route, and the government is really, really not gonna appreciate it. You're gonna lose really quickly and the public at large will treat you like the kook apparently probably are. We have ways of influencing and changing our government and its policies...no guns or canned food stocks required. It's kind of amazing how so many 'right to rebel' folks won't 'soil their hands' by participating in the political process. Not all, however, the ACLU at least two on its board - but their opinions carry a bit more weight with me considering their vast service work in the political realm...and the fact that they're not fucking crazy. Edited January 12, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote
Peter_Puget Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 It's just a moron's way to fudge the data to create phony causality to support an argument that lacks a better foundation. It's a desperate rhetorical tool that tugs at heartstrings...no neurons required, using cute little hero fantasies. A created universe of bullshit. Which reminds me: "why historians swallowed Arming America’s preposterous claims so readily is that it fit into their political worldview so well.... Arming America said things, and created a system of thought so comfortable for the vast majority of historians, that they didn’t even pause to consider the possibility that something wasn’t right." Liberal Reality Quote
Fairweather Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 You apparently have zero experience with the criminal justice system. While I suspect yours is probably quite extensive. Quote
prole Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Too pathetically mean-spirited even for you, eh? Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Too pathetically mean-spirited even for you, eh? He deserves (has earned in full) whatever fw wants to dish out. Quote
Fairweather Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Does TTK, per chance, have a new lapdog? Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Does TTK, per chance, have a new lapdog? Apparently. And the new lap dog has been bitch-slapped more than once by bitch-tittie-boy. He must like it that way. Quote
prole Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I'm certainly not here to defend any poor wretch that spends time in this cesspool. Quote
prole Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 But it is good that Eff-Dubya's here to take over some of the Right's duty to make an ass of itself. Quote
Fairweather Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Ivan says you really gotta purse yer lips. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.