Friday, January 25, 2013

Guest Post by Free0352


"We cannot mistake absolutism for principle."
~Barack Obama

Obama wants to turn the idea of "absolutism" into a dirty word, a code word for "extremism." He wants you to accept the idea of "principles" as he sees fit to define them, as a code word for his will –his boot heel- that he wishes you live under. It's a way of redefining words, and the liberals are picking up on it. I reject it. So should every American.

We as gun owners and citizens face an ultimatum. We're told that to stop insane killers, we must accept less freedom. We're told that limits on magazine capacity or bans on 100-year-old firearms technology - bans that only affect lawful people - will somehow make us safer. We're told that wanting the same technology that the criminals and our leaders keep for themselves is a form of "absolutism" and that accepting less freedom and protection for ourselves is the moral choice. Think about what that means. Barack Obama is saying that the only way to make children safe is to make lawful citizens less safe and violent criminals more safe. Obama wants you to believe that putting the federal government in the middle of every firearm transaction - except those between criminals - will somehow make us safer. That means forcing law abiding people to pay excessive fees to exercise their rights. Forcing parents to fill out forms to leave a family heirloom to a loved one - standing in line and filling out bureaucratic paperwork, just so a grandfather can give a grandson a Christmas gift. He wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry.

There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners - to tax them or take them. And to anyone who says that's excessive, Barack Obama says you're an "absolutist." His code for what he really means to call you. A paranoid, bitter clinger.

When Barack Obama says, "we cannot mistake absolutism for principle," what he's saying is that exactness in language and law should be abandoned in favor of his personal will.

I've got news for Barack Obama and anti-gun liberals.

Absolutes do exist.

Words do have specific meaning, in language and in law. It's the basis of all civilization. It's why our laws are written down: So the "letter of the law" carries the force of the law. That's why our Bill of Rights was written into law, to ensure the fundamental freedoms of a minority could never be denied by a majority. Just because you wish words meant something other than what they mean liberals, you don't have the right to define them any way you want. Because when words can mean anything, they mean nothing. When "absolutes" are abandoned for a President’s whim, the U.S. Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone's graffiti and our rights and freedoms are void. In that moment, the United States of America is destroyed and replaced by a monster. Liberals might think that calling us "absolutists" is a clever way of name calling and bullying without using names. But if that is "absolutist," then we are as "absolutist" as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution ... and we're proud of it!

Remember; any liberal who gives you this label is an enemy of this Constitution and your mortal enemy. Anyone who does not recognize that freedom and the preservation of it is the primary function of government and would trade your inalienable rights for any price is un-American, wrong, and deeply amoral. It should be the greatest compliment to be known as an “absolutist” in the defense of liberty and human rights. And make no mistake, the right to keep and bear arms is a human right and anyone who opposes that right is as anti-human rights as the slave holders of old or the worst dictator.

Now our rights are under a vicious and illegal assault. I encourage all of you to join the National Rifle Association, which has long lead the vanguard in the preservation of our Constitutional Freedoms. Even if you are not a gun owner, I encourage you to join. Remember, words either have meaning or they don’t. If Barack Obama can take away or limit the 2nd Amendment, there is no limit to the rights he can trample. It is up to us to resist, and right now the best line of resistance is to join the NRA. For 25.00 you can fight back. Think about it.

64 comments:

CrabbyOldMan said...

Great post Free0352!!

My guns belonged to my father. One is a valuable antique. I keep them all in a bank box. There is one exception: The .22 rifle I bought when I was about 16 is in the basement.

I joined the NRA ten or 15 years ago after I became irritated by a CBS 60 minutes hatchet job. I normally give them $200.00 per year in addition to my membership. I gave them $300.00 this year.
I consider my NRA membership a very effective means of lobbying generally because politicians who support gun rights usually support other conservative issues.

The gun interests are in the process of tieing Al Franken's ass in a knot!

ALa said...

I joined Free...I am now a (virtual) card-carrying NRA member (and got a cool free duffle bag) :)

CrabbyOldMan said...

The Communists have always been very skilled at manipulating language.

Has anyone else picked up the news that the Department of Education is going to require that sports programs in all schools must include the disabled? Apparently no one has a handle on what the school budget consequences will be.

Free0352's post and the above item are both good examples of why the left is utterly unfit to govern and why they should always be fiercely resisted at EVERY step.

Bram said...

I am a long time member, although Larry Pratt of the Gun Owners of America has done a far better job articulating gun rights.

I am considering carrying 2 cards.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Child molesting and puppy torturing - absolutely for them, absolutely against them, or kind of in the middle? Of course, everyone would say absolutely against. So, once we establish that there are absolutes, their idiot’s argument dissipates.

Nate said...

Absolutes exist absolutely. Now why can't I own my nuclear weapon?!? It is my right to bear arms, which only the narrowest interpretation of arms is firearms.

The better question is what principles do we want to respect absolutely? Think about sovereignty over ones body. If we state that one should be absolutely sovereign over ones body, we cannot also argue that abortion should be restricted in any way. Pregnancy requires someone to bear the sometimes extreme physical burden. Ok, so the conservative says that the baby should have sovereignty over its body. That violates the mother's rights. Think about the unstable and insane that require medication, and must be medicated against their will.

Puppy torture? What if some loony has a gun to your head, and demands the torture of puppies to sate their demented god? One choice is death, and the other is puppy torture. Is puppy torture justified?

Sure their are absolutes, I've just had trouble finding many.

Jpck20 said...

Now why can't I own my nuclear weapon?!? It is my right to bear arms, which only the narrowest interpretation of arms is firearms.

That sentence right there just proves why you are a complete and utter useless moronic fucking tool Nate.

I honestly wished your daddy had pulled out and squirted you all over your mommas face.

But don't fear Nate. Your pitiful attempt at message is going to do some good. You know why? Because of you Nate and your fucking simpleton of a mind, I am signing up for the NRA as we speak. Yes Nate, you personally.

See, even though I am a vet of the USMC Infnatry, I am probably in the minority amongst my bretheren.
I own zero guns and am not a member of the NRA. While completely supporting the 2nd amendment, I've always been on the fence about personally having a gun in the house. For protection, I keep my trusty double-edged Gerber fighting knife in the nightstand next to my bed and a nice Easton Aluminum Bat under it. I have no problems getting up and personal.

Until now Nate. Because of you. Because of you I will be looking at purchasing my own personal fucking gun as well as finishing signing up with the NRA. Just to spite you, Barry and all your stupid dipshit lib friends who dont know their head from their ass when it comes to the Constitution.

So fuck you Nate, and thanks for tipping me off the fence. I am obviously not the only one.

And please, when I do get my weapon, please come for it. Please. Because even though I've never personally owned a gun, thanks to your Daddy's tax dollars and the good ol USMC, I goddman sure as fuck know how to use it.

So come for my guns Nate, come for them Jim. Come for them Libs.

Double Tap right between your fucking eyes bitch.

Jpck20 said...

Update: NRA Membership confirmed.

GO FUCK YOURSELVES LIBS!!!

T. Paine said...

Been an NRA member for twenty years.

Free, I sure as hell look forward to the day when you write your own blog again.

Nate, your "world is gray and there are very few absolutes" is exactly the problem. You take principles of freedom and then contort them with asinine illogic, sir.

It is people like you, sir, that are willing to give up such liberties, even if never personally exercised, so that they can vote in idiots that will give them free stuff that is why this country is on the verge of collapse economically, morally, and certainly constitutionally.

Nate said...

Funny how quick you are to call my logic "asinine", but how slow you are to refute it. I simply took the absolutist argument and articulated it in a way that you disagree with. Now you recognize are the relativist.

Jpck, the fact that a special person like yourself is allowed to own a firearm is a big percentage of the problem.

Nate said...

^Now you recognize that you too are a relativist, and that arms really means a certain very small subset of all weapons.

Sometimes I love arguing with you guys.

Jpck20 said...

Nate the real problem is the fact your mom gave birth to you. A travesty really. I'm sure your daddy wasn't happy with the fact she wouldn't swallow and he merely forgot to pull out. Lucky for you they didn't prescribe to your belief in abortion.

I certainly wish they would have in this case.

Nate said...

LOL, you are such an internet tough guy.

Jpck20 said...

Ah Nate, and you are such a real life pussy fuck. I just enjoy shitting all over your head because you make it so easy. Thanks for the entertainment value Nate. You arent worth much more than that.

freemom said...

Mom joined the NRA and MCRGO (Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners) too! Great article. Makes mom proud!

CrabbyOldMan said...

"Jpck, the fact that a special person like yourself is allowed to own a firearm is a big percentage of the problem. should read "Nit, the fact that a special person like you is allowed to vote is a big percentage of the problem."

Rickvid in Seattle said...

The 2nd amendment is to being a hunter as the 1st is to being in the clergy or conducting religious activities; being a professional speechmaker; being a member of the media; being a community organizer; or being a paid petition signature gatherer. That is to say, nothing.

Nate, et all, seem to think that government grants rights, and that those rights are removable at whim. The preamble to the Bill of Rights is quite clear, that the Bill contains "declaratory and restrictive clauses," which clauses declare the pre-existing rights of the people and the states, and restrict the intrusion of government into those rights. Via the Constitution, the government grants us nothing, rather we grant to, and restrict fro, the powers of the government. That Nate and those like him so eagerly twist and decline their rights, and would do to the rest of us, shows the self-immolative nature of the statists. They are willing to destroy, both randomly and with purpose, what they choose to misconstrue and that we hold so dear.

Anonymous said...

mmpgx [url=http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] fbdra http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk bctwe [url=http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] vtxtz http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk hseuu [url=http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk]cheap beats[/url] rasqc http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk qdftn [url=http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] mfkbo http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk navsg [url=http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk]beats headphones[/url] jdkzv http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk ukrlt [url=http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk]cheap beats by dre[/url] lrszc http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk eqlf

Anonymous said...

zwdua [url=http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] uzhyq http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk ohffs [url=http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] gzpsz http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk nsmxn [url=http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk]cheap beats[/url] znicl http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk krqsg [url=http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] atgjf http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk wokon [url=http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] jibns http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk nrvlg [url=http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk]cheap beats by dre[/url] ghoys http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk hxbz

Anonymous said...

kjdqb [url=http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk]dre beats[/url] ntqkr http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk oumjz [url=http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk]cheap beats[/url] kppnn http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk rtzau [url=http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] vfuwk http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk zedow [url=http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] jrjty http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk biric [url=http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] qvpbg http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk jelbm [url=http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk]cheap beats by dre[/url] djhtp http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk rtrv

Anonymous said...

kryqk [url=http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] nsgpp http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk amzix [url=http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] oypjf http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk zqjlb [url=http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] yocgm http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk ihxce [url=http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk]beats outlet[/url] pnoqv http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk ypwqq [url=http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] uxeri http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk nqsgn [url=http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] uujya http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk arvt

Anonymous said...

whcap [url=http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk]dre beats[/url] mulpa http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk mgrdf [url=http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk]cheap beats[/url] trzzt http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk zxqff [url=http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk]cheap beats[/url] effpp http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk egxpg [url=http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk]beats outlet[/url] jyzjm http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk wbjas [url=http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] fyvkj http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk ngghe [url=http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] btcgg http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk cdbx

Anonymous said...

wdbrh [url=http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk]dre beats[/url] oipbt http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk ozrkz [url=http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] popra http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk lzokm [url=http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] shove http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk ruxhr [url=http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk]beats outlet[/url] rqzkr http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk lrjtw [url=http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] kcxhc http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk benmd [url=http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] hlooy http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk pxne

Anonymous said...

ejsya [url=http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] gnfht http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk uwozd [url=http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk]cheap beats[/url] ktdvk http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk xchvb [url=http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] qyoio http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk bnkvb [url=http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] lvwll http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk ruhwa [url=http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] lhmeq http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk nrlko [url=http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] crsnn http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk sush

Anonymous said...

runjw [url=http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] lflsu http://www.drdrebeatsbuycheap.co.uk jymsy [url=http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk]cheap beats[/url] osmto http://www.drdrebeatscheapest.co.uk gkhkz [url=http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] pjrmp http://www.drdrecheapbeats.co.uk lyecg [url=http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] kzvhq http://www.drdreoutletstores.co.uk fzyxu [url=http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk]beats by dre[/url] lyylf http://www.drdreheadphonessales.co.uk uxigv [url=http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk]dr dre beats[/url] axuht http://www.cheapbeatsdrdrestores.co.uk ozly

Paul Jq said...

Good.job! polls it out perfectly.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Me thinks a little moderator intervention is called for here...

free0352 said...

Yeah I know you don't censor, but that damn... I hate that shit.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas, STOP using that vibrating nozzle for your own good! I’m sure the titillation makes it hard to quit, but you're going to eventually electrocute yourself!

Nate said...

Rickvid,

We don't complain that our government legislates that buildings must have enough exits. We don't complain that the government enforces a maximum number of people in a facility. We accept that building owners are responsible for the safety of their buildings. We accept that the freedom of a builder to build designs that would result in huge casualties in the case of disaster is less important than the safety of the occupants. Why can't we make a similar compromise with guns?

Zelda said...

Why can't we make a similar compromise with guns?

Because unlike safety codes, there is no guarantee that you will be safer with a gun ban in effect. The government can't promise that bad people will never acquire a superior weapon to the ones you are allowed to have and that puts you at a serious disadvantage. Add to that the fact that you are compromising on a constitutionally guaranteed freedom and, absolutes or not, you are asking for trouble.

I find it so weird that lefties like Nate can't compromise fast enough when it comes to the 2nd amendment, but throw hissy fits over warantless wiretapping of, you know, terrorists. Trying to stop terrorists is somehow unreasonable search and seizure even though 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11 (hint, that's a lot more people than Sandy Hook), but taking away American's personal weapons is just fine.

Nate said...

Zelda,

I don't necessarily buy the Constitutional protection of the right for individuals to bear arms. I think the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is the key phrase. I disagree with the Supreme court in this case.

Because unlike safety codes, there is no guarantee that you will be safer with a gun ban in effect

The other countries that have implemented outright gun bans or reasonable legislation of guns have provided sufficient evidence that they can work.

The government can't promise that bad people will never acquire a superior weapon to the ones you are allowed to have and that puts you at a serious disadvantage.

Sure the government can't guarantee anything. Just like the gun owners can't guarantee that having armed guards at schools will make our schools safer. See Columbine for example. I'm looking for effective and reasonable policy that makes it much harder for someone to massacre innocents.

I find it so weird that conservatives don't understand that allowing people to carry weapons that can implement mass casualties inevitably results in massacres. It isn't a question of "if", it is a question of when.

free0352 said...

Nate,

The Amendment reads -

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

Notice, it didn't say the right of the MILITIA shall not be infringed.

The SCOTUS got it right, and you are WRONG.

Why can't we make a similar compromise with guns?

Because its a human right to own a fire arm. Too many compromises have been made already. Such as banning automatic fire arms.

Just like the gun owners can't guarantee that having armed guards at schools will make our schools safer.

Actually I would guarantee that. Its common sense. Its hard to kill someone when someone else is shooting back.

free0352 said...

I see the debate on the 2nd Amendment as the defining American civil rights struggle of this era, as ending Jim Crow was a generation ago and ending slavery was during the 19th century.

Nate said...

We'll agree to disagree, since I don't think we can make our positions any clearer.

The civil rights issue is interesting. In my personal opinion, the right to own firearms seems less important to me than the ability earn a living, equal access to education, own property, or not be owned. I don't think these are even in the same ballpark as gun ownership. Would you choose gun ownership over any of these other rights?

Perhaps I've lived a fortunate life, but I've never personally been in a situation where having a gun would have been useful. I've been in many situations where someone with a gun might have resulted in a terrible outcome.

These laws that are legalizing gun possession in bars seem entirely absurd, and cause me to avoid such establishments altogether. The likelihood of one idiot getting drunk and shooting up the place seems altogether too high. Even gunfights between individuals may result in significant innocent casualties.

Nate said...

Because its a human right to own a fire arm. Too many compromises have been made already. Such as banning automatic fire arms.

In that case diagnosed paranoid shizophrenics and violent sociopaths should have every right to own automatic firearms? A human right simply can't be stripped because of mental disease.

free0352 said...

A human right simply can't be stripped because of mental disease

Sure it can, and it happens every day. People are committed all the time. Happens literally hundreds of times a day around our country. I'd say taking someone's freedom away (which lets face it, what being committed is) is depriving someone of their fundamental rights. And not just gun rights, we're talking their right to come and go at will.

But that takes a hearing, and a judge. When I was a court bailiff in family court we presided over thousands of committals over a period of years. What we didn't do, was lock sane people up because some people are crazy... which is basically what gun control is.

Banning some guns because some people commit crimes is like banning black people because sometimes blacks commit crimes. Be that as it may, we lock blacks up on a daily basis. And we do it with a trail, not a law that targets people based on race or in the case of gun control targeting law abiding citizens for the crimes of others.

free0352 said...

Would you choose gun ownership over any of these other rights?

They are all equally important.

Perhaps I've lived a fortunate life, but I've never personally been in a situation where having a gun would have been useful.

Lucky you. I have not, and I'm not talking about my time in the military. You don't need a gun, until you need one. Be that as it may, need is irrelevant. We don't need the right to a jury trial and most of us never will, until we do need one.

These laws that are legalizing gun possession in bars seem entirely absurd

Why? If you're sober what does it matter where you are? Would you say that police officers shouldn't be able to carry their fire arms in a bar. If not, why not?

Even gunfights between individuals may result in significant innocent casualties

Again, that can and has happened with police officers. Do you suggest we disarm them as well because some cop might miss?






free0352 said...

This of course assumes the cops are sober ;)

Nate said...

They are all equally important.

Stop avoiding the question. You can choose 3 of the following:
1) Right to earn a living
2) Right to own property
3) Right to not be owned
4) Right to own a firearm

Which do you choose?

Banning some guns because some people commit crimes is like banning black people because sometimes blacks commit crimes.

An absurd comparison, and you are smart enough to know it.

Banning guns is like banning drunk driving. Accidents happen without alcohol, but accidents are more likely to happen when the driver is drunk, and the accidents are often an order of magnitude worse because of inebriation. Similarly, violent crime occurs without guns, but when they include guns the consequences are much worse, and are more likely to include innocent bystanders.



T. Paine said...

Nate, with all due respect, your question is foolish. It is akin to asking:

Which do you think is most necessary and you cannot live without? Choose one.
1) Food
2) Water
3) Shelter
4) Clothing

So which do you choose Nate?

Next, I don’t understand why you are so intent on banning an inanimate tool. A gun is incapable of harming anyone unless someone pulls the trigger. We have an obligation to try and ensure that weapons are not acquired by violent felons and the mentally unstable. By banning that tool, you are NOT keeping guns out of the hands of the ones that are going to hurt innocent people. You are making the innocent people more likely to be targets that are unable to defend themselves. Stop targeting the tool and start targeting those that would misuse that tool if you really give a damn about making a difference here, sir.

CrabbyOldMan said...

If ever there were a discussion that makes a rational person scream for more limited government generally, gun control beats the nearest competitor by miles.
Any “movement” starts with a perceived “need”. As an example, a drunk driver kills someone’s kid. The mother gets really pissed and starts Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. The movement gathers support since it is impossible to argue that drunk driving is a good thing. The movement pushes ever lower blood alcohol thresholds until the limits become absurd. Meanwhile, the founder thinks the movement has been captured by zealots and quits (reminds me of my dad and his union). The momentum keeps carrying the movement to ever more extremes.
If we are actually interested in preventing injury and death, we first have to accept that there is no such thing as zero risk. Second, we need to pick some activity that we understand has some level of risk, but still feel comfortable with, as a baseline.
How about going to the shopping center and buying a pair of socks? We have the risk of traveling to the center. We have the risk of getting mugged in the parking lot. We have the risk of stumbling on the escalator etc.
Before we get too excited, we need to establish whether or not firearms are more dangerous than going to the shopping center, and, if they are, how much more.
Airline crashes are very dramatic, have strong emotional impacts and therefore capture the public imagination, but it has been established that flying is far safer than driving. There are so many car crashes, involving many times the number of people in air crashes, that even a fatal car wreck gets no more than local attention.
In the case of MADD, it has been shown that junk cars, drivers too old to drive, and people yacking on cell phones are all more likely to cause adverse health effects than small amounts of alcohol.
In the case of firearms, it has been shown that they injure or kill far fewer than all sorts of other things, yet nobody seems to get their undies in a bunch to ban hockey, rock climbing, rioting (sorry leftards, I mean protests), baseball bats, kitchen knives…

Nate said...

Free,

A grenade is also an inanimate tool. Do you think they should be privately owned? If so, how about an RPG? Stinger missiles? Fully armed M1 Abrams? Apache attack helicopter? All are inanimate objects that have the ability to commit mass homicide. All would wreak havoc in the wrong hands, and some could easily result in billions of dollars in damage and thousands of lost lives. Where do you think we should draw the line?

From a practical perspective, our ability to identify loons is poor, and I don't see this changing any time soon. The only effective action I can see is to make them less dangerous, by limiting the amount of damage they do when they go ballistic. The same justification for keeping a M-1 Abrams out private hands justifies the same for semi-automatic weapons.

Understand my argument Free. We've always had crazies, and we always will. It is also extremely easy to get firearms, and not even terribly expensive. This combination makes atrocities not only probable, but inevitable. We also have a highly armed populace -- something like 7 guns for every adult male in this country. This hasn't discouraged these loons -- they've got no respect for their own life.

Now personally, I see some value in guns for self defense, and hunting. However I don't see this value being greater than the cost of Columbine, Newtown, Tucson, and the 3,000 other gun deaths we endure every year. Pure utilitarianism.

I choose water, assuming a warm climate, clothes if it is a cold one, because that is how I estimate I would live the longest. Now your turn to answer the question. Is your refusal to answer the question proving my point that guns are less fundamental to most people's existence than video game consoles?

Zelda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zelda said...

I don't necessarily buy the Constitutional protection of the right for individuals to bear arms. I think the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is the key phrase. I disagree with the Supreme court in this case.

You can't have a well regulated militia without weapons. So I don't even know what you are trying to argue.

The other countries that have implemented outright gun bans or reasonable legislation of guns have provided sufficient evidence that they can work.

No, they haven't. All they do is prove that people will murder with whatever is available to them. They also haven't proven that governments will not take advantage of a defenseless population. Do try to remember that history does not begin with your existence and that forced disarming of the population has led to some horrific governments.

Sure the government can't guarantee anything.

That's really all you need to say. If it can't protect us, then we are responsible for ourselves and it does not have the right to take away our ability to do that.

Just like the gun owners can't guarantee that having armed guards at schools will make our schools safer.

So if no one can promise anything, then why are we looking to disarm law-abiding citizens?

See Columbine for example. I'm looking for effective and reasonable policy that makes it much harder for someone to massacre innocents.

Stop giving the losers attention. Don't give the next lunatic the satisfaction of knowing that the reaction to his crime will be just what he wants. Turning on law-abiding citizens over their guns makes them laugh.

I find it so weird that conservatives don't understand that allowing people to carry weapons that can implement mass casualties inevitably results in massacres. It isn't a question of "if", it is a question of when.

I hate to break this to you, Boo Boo, but weapons causing mass casualty are within the grasp of anyone who wants them. If you had any clue how easy it is to make bombs, mustard gas, any number of ghastly weapons, you probably couldn't get out of bed. Banning guns is not going to stop narcissistic losers who want to kill a lot of people.

And that doesn't answer the original question. Terrorists have killed more people than all the school shootings put together, so why were you weeping over warantless wiretapping when you are so willing to hand over your 2nd amendment rights? It doesn't make any sense.

free0352 said...

Stop avoiding the question. You can choose 3 of the following:

It doesn't work like that Nate. BTW thats one of the reasons we have a 2nd Amendment, so government can't make us, make choices like that.

An absurd comparison, and you are smart enough to know it

People in the South 150 years ago didn't like those sort of comparisons either when they were trying to ban fire arm ownership to freed men. Funny who you are in league with. That should be your first clue. The KKK was the first gun control group in this country.

As for owning a tank or attack helo, law hasn't addressed it much as it isn't a problem. The items in question are prohibitively expensive, no one other than governments are trying to buy these things. But we were talking about small arms. We can address tank control some other time.

Truth is, people have a better chance of being struck my lightning than being killed in a mass shooting, yet they have a better chance of being assaulted by multiple assailants than they do being struck by lightning. And you're assuming very wrongly that any law you pass will keep rifles out of the hands of criminals. It sure doesn't in Mexico, where criminals indeed have grenades, RPGs and armored cars, and 55,000 people have been murdered in the cartel wars. All you would do, is take guns away from people who didn't do anything wrong. And mass punishment is un-American.









Nate said...

Free,

Maybe you should try answering one of my questions, though I guess I will take your refusal as a ceding that guns aren't as important of a right as the others.

Zelda,

That is my point. Guns should only be held in this country only for the purposes of a well regulated militias.

free0352 said...

I did answer your question. All constitutional rights are of equal importance. The 1st amendment is just as important as the 5th or any of the others. Im not willing to give up any of them for any price. If you told me Id get a billion dillars in trqde for my 2nd amendment rights or any of the others Id tell you hell no.

free0352 said...

Oh, and if someone tried to make me chose between say, clothing and my guns with threat of force? Id shoot that bastard and keep both. Thats why we have a second amendment.

free0352 said...

Lastly, I find it astonishing that you acknowledge there are dangerous people in the world and your response to this is to make the rest of us who hqve never harmed anyone less safe because you yourself have never been murdered.

Roboto said...

guns aren't as important of a right as the others

The RIGHT to own firearms is the right that puts the exclamation point on the statement "You cannot take my rights!" It's the one that protects the rest. The only one.

As far as your absurd assertion that the subordinate clause "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is the important part of the 2nd Amendment, you could look at the 1st the same way, with "Congress shall make no law" allowing courts and Executive Orders to limit your rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to petition, and right to assemble; since Congress is not "mak[ing] a law".

Such a convoluted misunderstanding of such an elegant, yet easily understood [to one of average or better intelligence] document.

Never wonder why people say that liberalism is a mental disorder. THIS is why.

free0352 said...

What I cant understand is how making law abiding citizes less safe while making violent criminals more safe can be seen as a good idea to anyone.

free0352 said...

What I cant understand is how making law abiding citizes less safe while making violent criminals more safe can be seen as a good idea to anyone.

free0352 said...

What I cant understand is how making law abiding citizes less safe while making violent criminals more safe can be seen as a good idea to anyone.

CrabbyOldMan said...

The problem is that the people who put the paper rolls into Nit's head subscribe to a religion that has certain tenants. Those faithful will always try to defend those tenants, no matter how silly they are.
Trying to use rational argument with gun control zealots is about as useless as standing up in a church and pointing out the absurdity of the immaculate conception or a corpse coming back to life.

Jpck20 said...

Nate is a typical Lib. Change the constitution to what he thinks it should read, fuck everyone else.

It's funny how he and every other pussy fuck like him where howling like stuck pigs about Homeland Security etc etc and how it was eroding our contitutional rights but when the mood suits them, they are so quick to want to change the constitution for their needs.

Suck it up Nate, guns ain't going anywhere. Now continue to cry like the little bitch you are.

RufussVa said...

A couple of random notes.
It is legal in some states to own and operate fully functional tanks. Privately owned, fully functional tanks do exist in America. The only restriction that I have seen that seems to be constant is that states where the weapon can function, the use or possession of HE rounds would be illegal.

The term Militia as referenced in the Constitution, updated by amendments added later would best be defined as all individuals capable of military service, it was not restricted only to the actively serving.

Zelda said...

That is my point. Guns should only be held in this country only for the purposes of a well regulated militias.

You can't ignore the second part. In order to have a well regulated militia, each PERSON has the right to KEEP and bear arms. You can't keep and bear arms for the purpose of a well regulated militia if you're banned from having them.

And you didn't answer my question. Why the eagerness to give up your second amendment rights when you were crying over the warrantless wiretapping of terrorists?

T. Paine said...

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer, Zelda.

Zelda said...

I assure you, I'm not. I just like making the point that he's more concerned with the rights of terrorists than Americans.

free0352 said...

Exactly, the flawed logic is that if we some how make ourselves less safe and criminals more safe we're all going to be safer. Really they just want to "do" something and gun control doesn't affect their lives so they go that route not having any other alternative they can think of.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Really they just want to "do" something and gun control doesn't affect their lives so they go that route not having any other alternative they can think of.

EXACTLY!

Anonymous said...

Brokersring.com - Learn how to turn $500 into $5,000 in a month!

[url=http://www.brokersring.com/]Make Money Online[/url] - The Secret Reveled with Binary Option

Binary Options is the way to [url=http://www.brokersring.com/]make money[/url] securely online

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas! You just HAVE to stop for a few days! Otherwise, you'll never get rid of that dripping!