Fiskable material from a terminal fascist writer.
The shootings Thursday at the Florida State University library. The shootings Saturday in a northwest Tallahassee neighborhood. The shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. The shooting of Arizona U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The shootings at Virginia Tech. The 10,000 senseless shooting deaths that happen every year in this country. Like all the ones in Chicago done by the gang-bangers and drug dealers who don't follow the current gun laws (and drug laws, and peaceful assembly laws, and assault law, and murder law)?
Take away guns and they don't happen. Death --and life -- goes on. Stealing personal property doesn't change the calculus.
How is it that the supposed greatest nation on earth refuses to stop the unholy availability of guns? Read the history of the United States. Our nation was founded by men who used guns and violence to achieve their ends. Back during WWI, the US was dubbed the Arsenal of Democracy. I see no need to do anything other than to enhance, or at least maintain that.
I'm not talking about gun control. I'm not talking about waiting periods and background checks.
I'm talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I'm talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Sure Sparky, go ahead and try it...
The Second Amendment has been misinterpreted. It says guns are permitted to a "well-regulated militia." That means trained citizen soldiers called into action for emergencies — because in colonial times every able-bodied man was required to be a member of the militia. It does not mean everyone with $50 and a driver's license is entitled to own a gun. Haven't seen gun prices recently, have you Gerald? Don't own a gun, do you? Sparky of course misses the definition of 'militia' in the U.S. Code. Of course he's also missing the more recent decisions of the Supreme Court (not Burger, quoted below) that says that the 2nd amendment does contain individual gun ownership.
But okay. Do away with the 2nd amendment's container for individual rights. What do you think we citizens will do next -- hmm, Sparky?
That's what former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said in 1990, when he called claims of Second Amendment protection of individual gun ownership, "a fraud on the American public." Earlier this year, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called the Second Amendment one of the six great flaws with the U.S. Constitution. He called for it to be amended to say gun possession was only for state militias, not individuals. Oh yes. Every time I wonder about my individual rights; speech, gun ownership; I listen to the lawyers and judges who seek to limit that right And as it is, even should the court approve of gun bans, there's the little problem of the "Second Vote", where gun owners get to decide who survives gun confiscation.
Every legal opinion for 200 years denied individual gun ownership was a right — until the steady lobbying of the National Rifle Association created a climate that allowed a conservative U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, and fuel the sense of entitlement of gun owners. As I said before, lawyers are the last profession I want defining what my rights actually are. And owning a gun cements my right to it. I am constantly reading about how gun owners should wait for what a court says about some case with reference to guns, but, to my mind, you are pledging tribute to the neofasists who want to confiscate guns. Politicians aren't the only ones whose ear are to the ground. If gun owners and Second Amendment advocates constantly tell others they will wait until they hear what a black berobed Mandarin has to say, they may as well turn in their guns right now. Actually, every legal opinion for 200 years didn't even raise the issue because it was just assumed it was there. And most of the state constitutions have even more stringent versions of an individual right to gun ownership. Argue away that...
Gun supporters say, "It's not guns that cause gun violence, it's mentally ill people with guns; fix the mentally ill." Even if those same people did not oppose government spending on the mentally ill — which they have for decades — there is no predicting when mental illness will express itself in violence. There were mentally ill before all the draconian gun laws we have now. Why are they an issue now? Because some of the dumber of our brethren think that misdirecting fascists into attacking another smaller group -- an amorphous group that cannot, and will not defend their rights -- will allow them to keep their guns a little longer. It's a nonsense. It playing to the fascists. If it's gun ownership that's the problem, why is it that the one place, the one place, you never hear of a mass shooting is at the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association?
All of those who knew FSU library shooter Myron May called him the "last person" from whom they would have expected violence. They all knew he was mentally troubled. But they said he didn't even like guns.
You can't prevent mental illness. You can prevent humans from having easy access to tools they can use to harm other people. And willfully violate individual rights in the process accelerating a breakdown in the social fabric of the nation. You'd best start thinking about the second order effects of your drive to take guns. The cops and government agents at the bottom called to seize guns may just be the first to experience what a societal breakdown is like. And when they quit because of resistance, there's only you remaining. And no guns.
Talk about mental illness: The United States is insane about guns. We lead the world in gun ownership, with almost one per capita. That's twice the percentage of the next closest country. Proud to be an American. Arsenal of Democracy.
The United States doesn't lead the world in gun violence. Just the civilized world.
According to a United Nations survey, the United States annually averages 3 firearm homicides per 100,000 population. Fourteen countries topped that figure — but they were almost exclusively Third World countries.
Among the 24 most affluent nations of the world, the U.S. is the far and away leader in gun homicides. None of the other 23 affluent nations has a rate above 1 firearm death per 100,000 population.
Gun freaks insist we need to arm more people. They glibly say shooting sprees happen in "gun free zones," like schools and universities, where gunmen could be stopped if everyone had a gun. That theory is absurd. "Gun freaks" who insist the basis for gearing up is defense against crime miss the point, such as what this article does. Guns are about resistance to tyranny. Our armed forces can deal with the big fascists, but only an individual with a gun can deal with a little fascist, whom, I would argue, are far more dangerous than an individual who owns and can use a gun safely. He doesn't explain why the theory is 'absurd', he just asserts it. Turns out that in gun-not-free zones, those who carry are law-abiding, serious, sober and trained. That's why it's a good thing.
Police and military train for years to use a gun competently in stressful situations – and even they don't always respond correctly. Think Ferguson, Mo. Think Charlotte, N.C. Think New York City in 2012 where two cops shot nine bystanders as they wildly tried to shoot a man who had gunned down a co-worker. And the cops fail consistently,. Worst shots on the planet. All that training, and all that money down the drain. The average gun-owning, law-abiding citizen who spends time at the range is at least as good as the average cop in marksmanship.
The idea of 500 students in a college library or a dozen teachers in an elementary school pulling out guns to shoot a gunman is ludicrous. They would wind up shooting each other. If they were untrained, I agree.
Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That's a chance worth taking. Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns. Only if you go door-to-door, search every building and outhouse, and seize everything you find. But if you're willing to do away with the 2nd amendment I don't suppose the 4th and 5th will stop you... Outlaws already have guns, and that was the point of that statement.
The same gun freaks believe in banning drugs. They believe in banning abortions. They recognize society bans certain things for the good of society. We should ban guns for the good of society. All those contradictions, all in one convenient paragraph. Sometimes my own point doesn't even need to be made by me.
People have romanticized guns. The Founding Fathers. The Old West. Self-defense — and never mind the average American has only a one in 250 chance of being the victim of a violent crime. It's all a delusion. Guns kill. They kill people from a distance. They kill strangers and children who have no relationship with the gunman. With gun confiscation, that 1 in 250 chance exponentially rises to about 1 in 10. If you and politicians want to increase crime, keep talking about gun confiscation. And it won't be just gun owners dying.
Let the hunters keep their rifles and shotguns; those weapons are ineffective tools in a mass shooting. But we need to ban handguns and assault rifles for all but police and military. I am sure hunters will thank you that you have left them alone for now.
This is an uphill battle. Despite daily front-page stories of shooting sprees and killings, Americans don't want to give up their guns. Over the past 10 years, the percentage of Americans who support stricter guns laws has dropped from 60 percent to 47 percent. In a recent survey, 73 percent of Americans oppose banning handguns. Perhaps those citizens are on to something that you've missed. Perhaps they see the connection between gun ownership by responsible people and the maintenance of society, a society that is already frayed and already does a poor job of securing law, order and freedom. Perhaps they understand that there is no such thing as freedom unless people are willing to stand up for it and counter those who would take it from us, be the latter a punk on the street or an over-reaching government that would search each and every house...
But those of us who think widespread handgun ownership is insane need to keep speaking up. We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability -- and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns. I can think of 5.56 reasons why guns are not wrong. And your "long march" will be over a cliff into fascist oblivion
One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is "He's coming for our guns." Obama never said such a thing. But I will:
Obama doesn't have to say it. He just has to express his own views as president, and his sycophants come up with their own statements.
We're coming for your guns. And someday, we'll take them. Hope you can learn how to dodge bullets. Molon labe.
#3
Records indicate that there has been a total of 3,551,332 motor vehicle deaths in the United States from 1899 to 2012. On average in 2012, 92 people were killed on the roadways of the U.S. each day in 30,800 fatal crashes.
Three times as many victims, in a good year.
Maybe we should ban cars?
#7
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.
~ George Orwell, sergeant in Home Guard
Excellent bumper sticker material: "Clinton/Warren 2016: I'm Coming For Your Guns."
Posted by: Matt ||
11/25/2014 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Actually Pro...Google will handle that for you. Soon it will be "allowable" to let the car drive itself...followed by "recommended"...followed by "mandatory"..won't need to ban cars...just us..
#12
I am European and I find that anyone with 50$ an ID being able to own a gun is a . Why self-defence should be treserved wto the rich?
What I see as wrong, bad and is people being able to vote without producing an ID and an as a morally (often financially too) corrupt as journalistas telling us what is good and what is bad and also acting as king makers in lections.
#15
Agitop in your face bullshit. I have not seen this level since the hole who said drinking (domestic light beer brand) is fascism.
This is that tack that wanting to defend yourself is a mental illness.
Bonus points for the erosion of the concept of personal property.
For the cheerleaders and traction makers, your cute little knight of clover here has made some mistakes junior high forensics would have corrected. First, little star is advocating that banning abortion and drugs is for the good of society - for former is banned and being repealed on account of inability to enforce and the latter I'd guess does not square with author's temperment. Next,
**break**
FTS. This is so terminaly flawed only a lunatic would write it. I'm off to make Gumbo.
#17
Doubtful. People like this are usually not man enough for a woman, and not woman enough for a man, and one minute its about guns, the next it is about the religious oppressions and dietary fallables of Eggs Benedict. They will let you pick up the tab as payment for talking over you all evening.
[SultanKnish] There are no Palestinians. There are no moderate Syrian rebels. There is only Islam.
The axe that fell on the head of a Rabbi in Jerusalem was held by the same hand that beheaded Yazidi men in the new Islamic State. It is the same hand that held the steering wheel of the car that ran over two Canadian soldiers in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec and the same hand that smashed a hatchet down on the skull of a rookie New York City cop in Queens all in a matter of months.
Their victims were of different races and spoke different languages. They had nothing in common except that they were non-Muslims. This is the terrible commonality that unites the victims of Islamic terror.
[Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist] On September 11, 2012, Islamist militants attacked U.S. complexes in Benghazi, Libya. Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed, the first U.S. Ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979. Three other men were killed and 10 were injured.
The media immediately turned it into a political story, focusing more anger on Mitt Romney’s comments about the administration’s blaming of a YouTube video critical of Islam than determining the facts of the attack itself. Many in the media thought it fine that President Obama jetted off to a high-dollar fundraiser before the bodies cooled. When various high-level government officials blamed either a YouTube video critical of Islam — or our laws protecting free speech, it didn’t generate much controversy among big media.
#1
for the media, it's always about protecting Democrats, facts be damned. Rogers' self-serving report has been ably disassembled by Ms. Hemingway
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/25/2014 9:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Lindsey 'Rhino" Graham was right, the report is total bullshi*. I suspect he an many others inside the beltway are well aware of the Rogers' - U.S. State Department connection. Hat tip to Ms. Hemingway, but she's got a bit further to go yet.
Any day now, I am expecting to turn on the tube and see an ad that says, “More Americans get their TV news from Fox than anywhere else.”
Whether that pleases or horrifies you, it’s time to think seriously about what that says about Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the state of network news today and the role TV plays or doesn’t play in providing us with reliable, trustworthy information.
Fox News has emerged as the leader for election news and more, according to Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik. The cable news channel is dominant, said Zurawik, who discussed this on Fox News Media Buzz.
Much of the media establishment seems bent on ignoring the incredible ratings success of Fox News. Or, maybe it’s just that Fox has pounded CNN and MSNBC in the ratings for so long that another victory doesn’t seem like “news” – especially with MSNBC imploding and CNN committing to any genre but news in an effort to find new audiences.
But there are three ratings stories the last two weeks that taken together show Fox News rising to a new and remarkable level of dominance - and they have been underreported in the mainstream media.
Perhaps if the remaining media covered more of the news they've have more viewers. Case in point: the videos of Prof. Gruber. Not a one has been seen on, let alone reported by, NBC or ABC. Word gets around, and people figure out where they can find out about the world.
#4
Powerline has an interesting interview with Brit Hume ATM. He talks about getting away from the Time-centric view of news, taking what the Times thinks is- or isn't- news and then converting it into television. "After you got the hang of it, it was like picking up money off the street."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Any day now, I am expecting to turn on the tube and see an ad that says, “More Americans get their TV news from Fox than anywhere else.”
