Guns Because

[aspire1670]

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
-George Washington

LOL at the bogus quote.

[orpheus]

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
-George Washington

LOL at the bogus quote.

Moreover, I remember the question being asked of GS (and I think Seth): for you, are firearms really second in importance to the Constitution? In other words, were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, would you still uphold the Constitution?

I remember this being asked (perhaps it was on RatSkep, though), but I don't recall the answers. I'd be really interested to know.

[Jason]

It's what they're replicas of.. also wasn't someone shot dead by police because he removed the bright orange tip from his airsoft and they thought it was a real gun?

[JimC]

I don't give a shit whether you or anybody else calls them assault rifles or whatever. If they are efficient tools for the murder of large numbers of people at short to medium ranges (because of being semi-automatic, more than just .22 rim fires, and with magazines of more than 10 rounds), then they should not be on sale to civilians in any society that wants to be regarded as civilised.

[Ian]

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
-George Washington

LOL at the bogus quote.

Moreover, I remember the question being asked of GS (and I think Seth): for you, are firearms really second in importance to the Constitution? In other words, were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, would you still uphold the Constitution?

I remember this being asked (perhaps it was on RatSkep, though), but I don't recall the answers. I'd be really interested to know.

The 2nd Amendment was very important back when it was written. At the time, the US had no standing Army nor could it realistically afford one; the government had to be able to call upon the people (aka "a well-regulated militia") if needed for war ("being necessary to the security of a free state"). There were also no such things as police departments. Plus, there was an active frontier in the west, which didn't disappear for several more generations. And many people lived a life rural enough to mean that having a rifle meant having dinner for the day.

How important is the amendment today? Well, gun fetishists spout words like freedom and dubious quotes from the founders all the time, so they have no doubt that it is important, even if most others in the civilized free world have resoundly proven otherwise (or maybe any one of those countries is only one bad election from lapsing into a nightmarish autocracy; gotta throw in a good paranoid fantasy about patriotic armed citizens overthrowing their tyrannical masters, y'know).

But for some little-mentioned perspective, let's see what the founding fathers in their long-sighted wisdom chose for the 3rd Amendment back in the 1780s:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Critically important stuff in the 21st Century also, no doubt.
In other words, gun fetishists, don't throw the Constitution and your selfish interpretations of the founding fathers' intentions at reasonable people today. The founders lived in their own time with a very different set of concerns than us today, and they also compromised and played politics with each other. If you want to cite their work as unmodifiable or not subject to regulation, then blacks should only get 3/5 of a vote, women get none... well, there are many many other examples of backwards crap that has long since been made obsolete. And you're only embarassing yourselves by pretending that 18th Century revolutionaries would be reactionaries like you in the 21st.

[Gallstones]

I don't give a shit whether you or anybody else calls them assault rifles or whatever. If they are efficient tools for the murder of large numbers of people at short to medium ranges (because of being semi-automatic, more than just .22 rim fires, and with magazines of more than 10 rounds), then they should not be on sale to civilians in any society that wants to be regarded as civilised.

Whooooosh.

[Gallstones]

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
-George Washington

LOL at the bogus quote.

Moreover, I remember the question being asked of GS (and I think Seth): for you, are firearms really second in importance to the Constitution? In other words, were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, would you still uphold the Constitution?

I remember this being asked (perhaps it was on RatSkep, though), but I don't recall the answers. I'd be really interested to know.

A catch-22 question.
I'm not going there.

[Gallstones]

[Gallstones]

andyhall 03.19.13

I just had to write a 15 page research paper on mass murders. I now know more about them than I ever cared to. One thing that research has found to be the most consistent is that almost all mass murders were planned, and the shooter did not just "snap". Also, it said that usually they are almost impossible to prevent because during the planning, the shooters will only display symptoms of common mental issues such as depression, anxiety, or isolation. The most interesting thing I read that actually came from 3 of my sources is that the most effective means of prevention would be to go after the media. This article supports these sources in saying that the shooters often study past mass shootings and consider them to be "measuring sticks" for their own success. One of the most common trait between all mass murderers is narcissism, therefore the best way to combat these shootings is to give them very little media coverage, and when they do, make it entirely about the victims, never give an official body count, and never ever ever mention the shooters name, age, or anything about him. Now if you've ever heard the song "Dirty Laundry" by Don Henley then you know the media cannot control their insensitive reporting practices as their more concerned with things like ratings and fame. "She can tell you bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye. It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry!" But despite what may cause mass murders or the method they may use, the fact that the liberal party is using them for their anti-gun agendas is as absurd as their push to get rid of AR-15's to prevent crime. Like AR-15's, mass murders account for less than 1% of all murders. In fact, even after all that has happened in 2012, the rate of mass murders is still only around 0.1% of all murders, and even lower than that for violent crime in general. The fact of the matter is that mass murders are not becoming more common as the media has portrayed them to be. Rather, it is the media's sensationalization of mass murders that is making them SEEM more common. Fight the media, not the guns.

[Gallstones]

Gun Control Suffers Two [more] Setbacks

The current background check proposal was offered by Senator Chuck Schumer over the objections of several members of a bipartisan committee. Schumer intended it as a “placeholder” until a compromise could be negotiated, but that hasn’t been forthcoming.

...
Progress has been stalled over background checks over the issue of whether people who sell guns directly to others should be required to keep records of the sale, in the same way that licensed dealers handle a transaction.

Senator Tom Coburn said that was a deal breaker for an expanded background check law. Senators Coburn, Schumer, Joe Manchin, and Mark Kirk have been working for the past two weeks to find a compromise on checks.

Manchin said on Monday he was trying to find a way to work with the NRA and other gun rights groups on a background check solution.

...
But Manchin also acknowledged that he hadn’t been able to get a Republican with NRA ties to sign on to his plan.

[Gallstones]

And in other news.....

DiFi dissed as Dems drop gun ban from agenda

According to the Associated Press andWashington Times, she [Diane Feinstein] may offer the [Assault] ban as an amendment to a broader package, but chances of its passage are slim to none. It was similar to the fate of gun ban legislation in Olympia earlier this year, sponsored by perennial gun prohibitionist Senators Adam Kline, Jeanne Kohl-Welles and Ed Murray, all Seattle liberal Democrats.


Word of this latest setback for one of the U.S. Senate’s most ardent anti-gunners comes perhaps not coincidentally with reports that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has also shifted his attention away from banning guns to broadening background checks.

...
What sank the Kline legislation was the revelation that it contained a long-standing tenet to allow warrantless searches of private residences by sheriffs’ deputies. More recently, the background check measure sponsored by Seattle Democrat Rep. Jamie Pedersen also was derailed when key tenets required by gun owners were put aside while an exemption for law enforcement was added.

[Gallstones]

Mont. Bill Protecting from Backdoor Medical Gun Confiscation Moves Forward
Mikael Thalen
Infowars.com
March 19, 2013

A bill that would prohibit medical providers in Montana from refusing to treat patients who choose not to answer questions about gun ownership passed its hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday, 62-38.

“This bill is drafted in response to President Obama’s Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions… He is going to use the healthcare system to collect the database of where the firearms are and who has them and once you surrender that information, at some point in the future, confiscation will be that much easier,” said Rep. Krayton Kern (R), primary sponsor of House Bill 459.

...
“This is a simple bill. It does one thing. When a medical facility or doctor, as part of their history taking asks you questions about your ownership of firearms, you do not have to answer, that is all this says,” said Kern.

Although Kern’s bill does not currently prohibit healthcare providers from asking the question, there is talk in the Montana Senate to amend the bill further to disallow gun ownership questions from being asked entirely.

[JimC]

Gun Control Suffers Two [more] Setbacks

The current background check proposal was offered by Senator Chuck Schumer over the objections of several members of a bipartisan committee. Schumer intended it as a “placeholder” until a compromise could be negotiated, but that hasn’t been forthcoming.

...
Progress has been stalled over background checks over the issue of whether people who sell guns directly to others should be required to keep records of the sale, in the same way that licensed dealers handle a transaction.

Senator Tom Coburn said that was a deal breaker for an expanded background check law. Senators Coburn, Schumer, Joe Manchin, and Mark Kirk have been working for the past two weeks to find a compromise on checks.

Manchin said on Monday he was trying to find a way to work with the NRA and other gun rights groups on a background check solution.

...
But Manchin also acknowledged that he hadn’t been able to get a Republican with NRA ties to sign on to his plan.

Just great.

That will inevitably mean more future grieving American families as more massacres are committed by psychotics with access to weapons designed to efficiently kill human beings as rapidly as possible.

Perhaps we should have a guessing game as to which US state will have the next school massacre.

Well done those senators...

[orpheus]

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
-George Washington

LOL at the bogus quote.

Moreover, I remember the question being asked of GS (and I think Seth): for you, are firearms really second in importance to the Constitution? In other words, were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, would you still uphold the Constitution?

I remember this being asked (perhaps it was on RatSkep, though), but I don't recall the answers. I'd be really interested to know.

A catch-22 question.
I'm not going there.

How is this a Catch-22 question?

[Svartalf]

Because it requires .22 answers?