The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The press and the Gifford shooting (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15..21..26..31..36..40~41~42 [Next]
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2011-01-19 16:52, Woland wrote:
Heller was decided 5-4, but I think that 8 of the 9 Justices did recognize that the Constitution does protect the individual's right to keep & bear arms. I think the dissenters were willing to allow State and Local governments more power to restrict that right.
Woland


There were 2 dissents; Breyer essentially took the position for the sake of argument that even within the context of the 2nd Amendment representing an individual right, the DC law was a permissible restriction.

Stevens, however, took the position that the 2nd Amendment was NOT an individual right; it's a "collective" (i.e. better be in that well-regulated state militia) right, and he was joined by the rest of the 4 justices who did not ascribe to the majority opinion. The majority opinion and each of the dissents were all on the same 5-4 split; everyone who didn't sign on to the majority opinion signed on to BOTH Stevens's and Breyer's dissents.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Well, it is true then that our freedom and our future is hanging by a thread . . . .
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
In case anyone is still interested in Press coverage of the Tucson shooting, I found a transcript of Sharron Angle's actual "Second Amendment remedies" remarks. This is what she actually said:

Quote:
“Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, ‘My goodness what can we do to turn this country around?’ And I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”


Let's look at each of those statements:

1) Did the Founders put the Second Amendment in so that the people could protect themselves against a tyrannical government?

Yes.

That should be pretty non-controversial. From the quote by James Madison (Federalist No 46, I think) that I posted, above, if from nothing else, it should be pretty clear that the Founders thought an armed population would be a bulwark against tyranny.

2)Did Thomas Jefferson say that it would be good for a country to undergo a revolution every 20 years or so? Yes, unlike the statement that "dissent is patriotic," this is an authentic Jefferson quote from his letter to William Smith (1787):

Quote:
God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.


3) Angle said: "I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, ‘My goodness what can we do to turn this country around?’"

Nota bene, she started out by saying that she hopes that's not where we're going. But are there people talking about a rebellion. I think that's an accurate statement. I think those kinds of suggestions have been made. I think that flying the Gadsden Flag and using other symbols of the American Revolution can be looked on as both a nostalgic appeal to the greatness of the national character evident in those hard years, but also as an implied warning.

4) "And I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

I think it can be argued that Angle was saying that removing Harry Reid from office would dampen the fire of those who were talking about a rebellion. I don't think she was necessarily threatening Harry Reid with anything worse than electoral defeat. The choice of words was poor, and she later clarified her point, saying "I changed my rhetoric to ‘defeat Harry Reid.’"

In any event, there is not a shred of evidence that the Tucson shooter was aware of this statement, aware of Sharron Angle, or any of the conservative agitation at all.

The shooter is a polysubstance abuser, a "truther" who was fascinated by the online video, "Zeitgeist," that claims that Christianity is a hoax, that the September Eleventh atrocities were staged by the U.S. Government, and that the currency is invalid. If he was influenced by any sort of hate-filled speech, it would have to have been the frenzied atmosphere evoked by the raving rants of Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garofalo, ALan Grayson, Ed Schultz, and others of that ilk.

I think this is another example of the fact that the journalists and commentators in this country comprise the President's 1500 assistant press secretaries.

Woland
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Ol' Sharon Angle....she is amazing. She proved that you can run against a fellow who only has a 9% favorable rating from the voters yet still lose because everything thinks you are nuts.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-01-19 18:53, MagicSanta wrote:
Ol' Sharon Angle....she is amazing. She proved that you can run against a fellow who only has a 9% favorable rating from the voters yet still lose because everything thinks you are nuts.

Apparently she still has her fans.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
It's always fun to look at low approval ratings in conjunction with high incumbent reelection rates.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20614 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2011-01-19 16:26, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Danny, I was referring to the comma after Militia. But on re-reading, you're right. It's not necessary. You're probably not going to like my argument, but there are still multiple ways of reading that.

Without pre-supposing my position, could you tell me what's your take on the meaning of the first half- "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"?
What's your take on "A well-regulated Militia"?


I don't get into reading things into the Constitution sorry. Not going to fall down that hole. Well regulated could easily mean an officer corps.

I can make up all sorts of stories, but we only have the evidence that they said the right of THE PEOPLE. Dude it is what it is. I know your lib tendency is to make things fit your world view, but get past that. Why would they say THE PEOPLE when they did not mean THE PEOPLE? Why in this on case am I to think they meant something else?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
As I've said before, "well regulated" means "proficient." Nothing more than that.

Woland
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
What about the word 'militia'? Keeping in mind I don't care of people have guns (I do get concerned if people have 40 guns and 1000 rounds of ammo and view the local grocery store as their main base if an emergency) but I always considered militia to be an organized group that drills every so often.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Woland said--"In 38 states, the Sheriff is required by law to issue a concealed carry permit to any legal resident who is neither a felon, nor a fugitive, nor a person previously determined to have a major mental illness, or certain other defined and limited disqualifications ("shall issue"). "

Am I right then, that in your reading of the Constitution, that these restrictions are unconstitutional?
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
I'm going to cause hate and discontent...which is expected since I'm a mega liberal. I have no problem with people owning guns but I find the insistance that every restriction is an evil contradiction to the constitution and that people actually in some dillusional world think they have any chance at all at over throwing the US govt or the govt of most countries. Ain't happening, if you try it is what is known as suicide. The thing is the NRA and pals seem to want all or nothing and eventually they will end up with nothing because as we all know a tree that bends with the wind survives, the tree that doesn't bend will snap and die. Then that tree will get infested with beetles and enviromentalist will protect it and other trees will die but that is another story.

I believe that the following is acceptable and other than the 'if we give an inch we will lose our rights!' fanatics most will also find what I think acceptable.

1. A hand gun, because it can easily be concealed, and non hunting rifles/shotguns should require a real check on the individual making the purchase and once the check is complete, even if it takes a month, then they get their weapon.

2. I may be wrong about this one but it is due to my own ignorance of fire arms. I believe a data base of the markings made on a bullet should be kept so that if a weapon is used in a crime it is like a dna or finger print data base and the weapon can be identified. The data base can be collected by the manufacturer and associated with serial numbers.

3. An individual must report the sale or gifting or theft or loss of a weapon. If they are responsible enough to own a gun they should be responsible enough to keep track of the weapon.

That is about it. I can imagine the arguments against each of these and don't feel like typing them up but if we can not only keep weapons out of the hands of criminals but also give a means to identify the weapon back to the owner if used in a crime then perhaps the likelyhood of them being used will be reduced. You can still get your guns, you true nuts can have your 100 glocks, heck you can even have a machine gun as far as I care, just enough with the whole "it ain't no ones business what I does with my gun" because it certainly is the business of some poor shlub who gets shot.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16262 Posts

Profile of tommy
Anyone that thinks that they have government is delusional.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quotiing MagaicSanta here: "You can still get your guns, you true nuts can have your 100 glocks, heck you can even have a machine gun as far as I care, just enough with the whole "it ain't no ones business what I does with my gun" because it certainly is the business of some poor shlub who gets shot."

First off it would seem that your mind is made up as you refer to us as "nuts". Does not seem like you really mean what you say when you say you do not care if we have 100 glocks or not. It shows a definite bias on your part.

However addressing your quote "because it certainly is the business of some poor shlub who gets shot". However it is not any of his business until he gets shot any more than it is his business what kind of car or motorcycle I drive or boat I sail until I have an accident with him. He has no right to know or dictate how many cars I have or boats I have or bicycles I have because it is just none of his business. However if I cause harm to him with any of these vechiles that is a whole different matter. But until then I can only say, "Mind your own business".

Having 10 cars does not make it any more likely that I am going to run you over than if I have one. Having 10 guns does not increase the odds of me shooting you. But of course in your eyes if I have one, or God forbid more than one I am in your eyes a nut (you called us that). Kind of biased there aren't you?

Please do not tell us that you don't care whether we own guns or not. In other words, do not pee on my leg and tell me it is raining. Because by your posts it is obvious that it bothers you a lot. And as I said before it is none of your business how many firearms I own. It only becomes your concern if I do harm to you or possibly someone else. Then and only then is it any of your concern.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Having ten cars makes one a car nut, buying two guns a month and muttering about protection makes one a gun nut. I don't care if someone has a gun, I don't care if they have rifles and hunt and all that fun stuff, when someone makes guns the center of their universe and hoards them then yes I get concerned. Now if you are a gun nut tough for you perhaps you should look at why you need 40 guns.

You come to me you better use the gun because I'll take it off you and shove it up your arse then shot it. You see, I think most gun nuts are also wussies who couldn't use the things if they tried under pressure. And it IS my business. It gets a bit old to hear when ever there is a shooting that the gun was stolen....I thought you geniuses had guns to avoid getting robbed why is it they always seem to get stolen from you? Ever heard of a safe? I don't view guns any differently than drivers licenses, from your perspective people shouldn't have to get a license to drive until after they show they shouldn't have a license to drive.

Some, you it seems included, think that you should be able to own an armory full of guns and have zero responsibility to register them, have yourself checked to see if you are a nut other than when it comes to guns, or be required to safely put them away so they all don't get stolen. You don't have to be part of a militia, you don't have to show the ability to handle the weapon, you don't have to do anything just walk around and lie that your gun protected you when it didn't. It is like a meteor not hitting you and thinking it is because you have a .38 in your glove box.

So yes, I believe gun manufacturers need to fire each weapon and make a file of the marks and associate it with a serial number. That way when someone is shot they can find out who the gun was stolen from. How does that possible hurt you as a gun owner? They are not going to find your gun if the bullet isn't dug out of someones chest and it belongs to you and even if it did you'll say it was stolen and you forgot to report it and that will be that. Heck, Mr. Woland said the contitution says one needs to be proficient with a weapon, how about we make people purchasing them pass a shooting test? That seems to be in line with the constitution, then you can have your gun, put it under your pillow and when no one ever breaks in you can think it is because of that swell gun under your pillow.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16262 Posts

Profile of tommy
Thus the army are nuts.

Not to mention the police. Smile
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
No, they go through training and they keep track of who has what weapons. The Army is responsible.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Another quote from Magic Santa:

I believe that the following is acceptable and other than the 'if we give an inch we will lose our rights!' fanatics most will also find what I think acceptable.

1. A hand gun, because it can easily be concealed, and non hunting rifles/shotguns should require a real check on the individual making the purchase and once the check is complete, even if it takes a month, then they get their weapon.

2. I may be wrong about this one but it is due to my own ignorance of fire arms. I believe a data base of the markings made on a bullet should be kept so that if a weapon is used in a crime it is like a dna or finger print data base and the weapon can be identified. The data base can be collected by the manufacturer and associated with serial numbers.

3. An individual must report the sale or gifting or theft or loss of a weapon. If they are responsible enough to own a gun they should be responsible enough to keep track of the weapon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning number 1. I have no issues with your thinking on this. In fact I feel even hunting guns should be required to follow suit. However I do take exception to "even if it takes a month" There should be no reason for a check to take that long.

Concerning number 2. Not a bad idea. However one must be aware that rifling can be altered on a gun making it useless in identifying the said weapon. Also it does nothing to solve the problem of the guns out there now that are not on file. That task would be insurmountable.

Concerning number 3. Again not a bad idea but also difficult to enforce. The biggest problem is selling or giving a gun to another person and not going through a gun dealer who registers all sales and transfers. I do agree that if a gun is stolen it should be reported as soon as possible, which as far as I am concerned should be immidiately. The biggest problem I see here is a gun being stolen and one not knowing it is missing.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Rifling is the term! I specified manufacturers because it would be impossible to make a record of those already sold and to try to do so would be a waste of time. Guns seem to be stolen all the time and no one knows it until it is used.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-01-20 00:19, acesover wrote:

Concerning number 1. I have no issues with your thinking on this. In fact I feel even hunting guns should be required to follow suit. However I do take exception to "even if it takes a month" There should be no reason for a check to take that long.

Agreed. However, it is also the case that the NRA and some politicians have put roadblocks up, cut budgets, etc., thus making effective, accurate, and timely checks next to impossible in some jurisdictions.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-01-20 00:08, MagicSanta wrote:
Having ten cars makes one a car nut, buying two guns a month and muttering about protection makes one a gun nut. I don't care if someone has a gun, I don't care if they have rifles and hunt and all that fun stuff, when someone makes guns the center of their universe and hoards them then yes I get concerned. Now if you are a gun nut tough for you perhaps you should look at why you need 40 guns.

You come to me you better use the gun because I'll take it off you and shove it up your arse then shot it. You see, I think most gun nuts are also wussies who couldn't use the things if they tried under pressure. And it IS my business. It gets a bit old to hear when ever there is a shooting that the gun was stolen....I thought you geniuses had guns to avoid getting robbed why is it they always seem to get stolen from you? Ever heard of a safe? I don't view guns any differently than drivers licenses, from your perspective people shouldn't have to get a license to drive until after they show they shouldn't have a license to drive.

Some, you it seems included, think that you should be able to own an armory full of guns and have zero responsibility to register them, have yourself checked to see if you are a nut other than when it comes to guns, or be required to safely put them away so they all don't get stolen. You don't have to be part of a militia, you don't have to show the ability to handle the weapon, you don't have to do anything just walk around and lie that your gun protected you when it didn't. It is like a meteor not hitting you and thinking it is because you have a .38 in your glove box.

So yes, I believe gun manufacturers need to fire each weapon and make a file of the marks and associate it with a serial number. That way when someone is shot they can find out who the gun was stolen from. How does that possible hurt you as a gun owner? They are not going to find your gun if the bullet isn't dug out of someones chest and it belongs to you and even if it did you'll say it was stolen and you forgot to report it and that will be that. Heck, Mr. Woland said the contitution says one needs to be proficient with a weapon, how about we make people purchasing them pass a shooting test? That seems to be in line with the constitution, then you can have your gun, put it under your pillow and when no one ever breaks in you can think it is because of that swell gun under your pillow.



You really are an arse. So anyone who has 10 cars is a car nut? They are not a collector or a buff but rather a nut. WOW! I will have to let Jay Leno and hundreds and possibly thousands of people know that MagicSanta feels you are nuts. I am sure they will care what you think.

Why do I have several guns? Well it is really again none of your business but I will say that in the last 30 years their value has increased more than 5 times their original purchase price. But that is not why I purchased them in the first place. I use and enjoy shooting them. Hope that answers your question.

When someone makes just about anything the center of their universe they have problems..such as your compulsion aganist those who have several guns.

I have to laugh If I come to you I better use my gun. That statement just shows your mentality. Trust me you could never disarm me if I had a gun and came after you. However I cannot think of a reason why I would ever do such a thing in the first place. But you must consider yourself a real bad dude, ha, ha.

As far as shooting my gun after taking it off of me I doubt that also as you would not even know where the safety is as you demonstrated your total lack of knowledge of an automataic gun a few posts back. But now you are making a silly arguement and sound like a child on a playground showing everyone here just how childish you really are.

Why the heck would I have a gun in a safe if I have it for protection in my home? I want it ascessible you ninny. I do not want to have to go to a safe and work the combination in order to get to it. Again just showing your total lack of gun knowledge.

By the way your estimate of my owning 40 guns is off. You can figure in which direction. My home protection weapons are not locked in a safe. However I do have gun safes for my other ones.

So as long as you think and feel that gun owners are wusses I would like to ask how your tour in the military went? I toured Nam on Uncle Sam and used my weapon a few times. How about you? Again you sound like a child on the playground.

Why do you assume that I feel I have no responsibility of ownership of my guns. Now you are grasping at straws and makeing up senarios. You are really beginning to sound desparate. You are a real piece of work. Do you have any other fantasies? I mean those that you can mention here. Or is it just limited to thinking that you can disarm me barehanded and shove said weapon...well I guess you get my drift.

Go buy a comic book and read it and get some more ideas and come back and post again. Because this last one of yours was truly comical.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The press and the Gifford shooting (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15..21..26..31..36..40~41~42 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.3 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL