Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Assault rifles: not envisioned by the Founding Fathers

Posted 2 years ago on July 20, 2012, 11:15 p.m. EST by delayedgrat (-157)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I belong to the NRA. I have several high powered rifles that are incredibly accurate at 100s of yards. However they only hold 1-3 shells. These ARs that hold 30 rounds have no business in civilian hands. When the FFs drew up the 2nd Amendment, they likely did not realize the dangers the future held for unarmed citizens against an agent if death armed with this insane level of firepower.

ARs should be outlawed. The NRA is wrong.

137 Comments

137 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I own quite a few firearms, and don't consider myself a threat to other people. I know what a bullet will do to a living body.

Many of us on the left have a knee-jerk reaction to firearms possession and a justified abhorrence of the NRA. Still, and I am not citing the Constitution as some sacred, immutable document, the Second Amendment--I believe--was written exactly as it is, because the writers of the Constitution, who were mostly revolutionaries, might have envisioned a day when the citizens of America would want to rise up against their government in armed rebellion.

An unarmed populace is much less of a threat to the sitting rulers than an armed one.

[-] 5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Fortunately the founders set up a system where we do not need an armed rebellion. All we need to do is go to the ballot box to get rid of representatives that are not performing to our wants and needs.

Any rebellion today would be easier to accomplish at the ballot box than it would by us all going out and getting assault rifles and grenade launchers.

For some reason we have told ourselves that we have a two party system. In actuality there are dozens of parties. We have told ourselves that a vote for a third party candidate is "throwing your vote away"

If we are not satisfied with the two parties in power do the research and look somewhere else.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well I can certainly agree with your suggestion that we must vote!

Increase the voter turnout to 90% that'll learn 'em. It's what the 1% plutocrats fear the most.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

We will be lucky if we get 50% this year. I am guessing about 46%

Last year we had on average 23% turnout.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah. I thought we were at 60% but I honestly can't be sure. I'll check at some point.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

We were close to 60% 4 years ago when there was an anomaly of having a black candidate for president. What you need to remember is that is 60% of registered voters which is about 70%.of those eligible.

Last year was not a presidential year and we get around 23-25% in those years. And that is just counting the percent of registered.

I predict we fall back to the usual 50% during a presidential year.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The 1% like the low turnout. They live in fear of all the apathetic poor people voting pro 1% plutocrat conservative tools out of office.

Just look at the massive efforts to suppress dem leaning voters with ALEC inspired legislation at the state level in something like 38 states.

We are fortunate that Pres Obama Atty General Holder is making an extra effort to stop it wherever possible.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

What specific legislation are you talking about that will suppress voting?

Every citizen has a right to vote if they register. Are you saying that registration suppresses voting?

Are you saying you should not have to be a citizen to vote?

Are you saying making sure you don't vote twice suppresses voting. I am not sure what you are talking about.

That is in the constitution. You must be a citizen and you get one vote.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No I'm not sayin that. Sounds like you got the repub talkin points down pretty well.

I'm sayin that repub state legislatures are making efforts to throw dem leaning citizens off the voting roles 3 months before an election in a desperate, dishonest attempt to minimize the dem voter turnout.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

All I did was ask some questions. I will accept that is not what you are saying.

That said, what legislation is "Throwing citizens off the voting rolls"? I don't think that is legal. If you are registered to vote they cannot revoke your registration. If you are a citizen you can register.

Most states require that you do so 15 or 30 days before the election so that you can be added to the rolls. When you walk into your polling place your name is in the book. You show your registration card or other identification and sign the book. It has been that way for the nearly 30 years that I have been voting.

Please explain or perhaps you can point me to this legislation you are talking about that will take people off the rolls.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please. You know full well. If you don't then your discussing something without knowing what your taklin about.

Any state (38 now? all repub controlled?) that adds new requirements (photo id,) will automatically make any registered voter without the new requirement ineligible to vote.

Your gonna play stupid?

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I believe voting is more important than driving. I need a photo ID to drive. I think it is a good idea to make sure that a person voting is who they say they are.

In all of those states you are not required to provide identification when you vote absentee by mail. So you can vote without a photo ID and without leaving your house.

If you prefer to go to your polling location, any state that requires a photo ID offers a free voter photo ID program. You walk into your county office or motor vehicle office and can get one in less than an hour.

As I said I have been showing ID for 30 years. It really is not that hard to do.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

repub controlled states are doing this 3 months before the election because they know they can't win fairly. They add new requirements (photo id,) to automatically make any registered voter without the new requirement ineligible to vote. These changes target dem leaning voters disproportionately.

They are desperate, they have alienated immigrants, minorities, women, LGBT, and so many others. they can't win without cheating.

It's dishonest. It's bad form. Bad Karma.

And they will pay.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

yes

the repubs are the dems greatest cheerleader

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

"nope. Thats you using "stupid" not me."

OK it that is not what your are saying, why than are "repub leaning voters" not equally suppressed?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please, i gotta explain everything to?

Gimme a break. Read a fuckin book!

I'm not here to ejumacate you. You know full well what your cheating republicans are trying to do.

lol

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

"dishonest attempt at dem leaning vote suppression"

Again you imply the "dems leaning voters" are to stupid.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

stupid is the word used to justify fleecing rubes

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

nope. Thats you using "stupid" not me.

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Thanks for giving me a state to look into. I looked at what is happening in PA. It does appear to be short notice. It seems that in the other states the courts issued injunctions preventing implementation of these laws.

That said, I do believe we need to get to a situation where identification is required to vote. The integrity of the system is important. I am not sure how we get there from here.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No comment on the dishonest attempt at dem leaning vote suppression.

"a little short notice"? Way to playdown attempts at cheating.

I guess you don't mind if the repubs cheat. Your a good republican.

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

So your assertion is that more democrat leaning voters cannot figure out how to send in an absentee ballot or get a free ID and white heterosexual males can figure that out.

Either way, can you be specific? I would like to research this. Which states are doing this 3 months before the election?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm saying the desperate dishonest repubs. will not inform the dem leaning voters in question in the hopes they will not meet the new requirements and not be able to vote.

Your suggestion that maybe dem leaning voters cant figure out, is offensive and betrays your partisanship.

Check out PA. The repub state legislator let slip that the new voter id requirement would allow Romney to win the state.

Why would he say that? Be honest?

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

In this reply you make sense. Democracy and Voting are the weapons our forefathers left us to fend off tyranny. They did not predict Voter apathy and propagandized neglect.

Third parties will only ever be viable with Instant Runoff Elections, something RepubliCons will fight to the death to block; because it will make it impossible for them to steal elections. Dems are all about more Votes, Voters and inclusion!

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Again you are pushing your party.

You expose your trollish ways once again.

You waste your time here. For the most part, there are really only a few dozen people posting here and they are not going to follow you and your party. You are wasting your time and energy.

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Let's hope no one follows your castration strategy, and we indeed fight back with the democracy our forefathers left for our defense, AND VOTE!!

[-] 1 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 2 years ago

i understand the meaning of the amendment the way our for fathers meant it to b. Article the fourth..... 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.. lets think for a minute. lets say some government power toppled our government, and trust me that could happen, we will need our arms unregistered and unlicensed. our nation can take over a country in a couple weeks. but a country couldn't take over an american city in three years thanks to our arms. if they became registered then all gun owners could be rounded up. not a good idea. i believe in occupy totally. but gun rights must be understood for what they are. protection of our nation.

[-] 1 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 2 years ago

votes can be rigged.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

So can guns.

[-] 1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 2 years ago

Shut it! there is no such thing as a zip gun! If we ban weapons, everyone will be nice to everyone else! My college professor told me so!

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I know you are being sarcastic.

If there were no guns the man would have throw molotov cocktails, poison gas. or acid on the crowd. Psychopathic PHD student killers will find a way to carry out their perverted plan. The trap in his home had 30 homemade grenades, gasoline...

On the other hand, if someone in the audience had a gun last week there would not be 70 people injured and 12 dead.

[-] 1 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 2 years ago

need to vote on issues and not on people.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Yes!!! Get Out The Vote!!!

If we turned out like Big Biz does, we would have it in the bag!!

We would have Public Health Care!

We would be out of Bush & Cheney's "War On Terror" (WOT) boondoggle scam for the MIC (military industrial complex)!

And we would have Instant Runoff Elections so that third parties were feasible!

But only perpetual regression and tyranny will happen if we don't get the god damn RepubliCons out of our government!!! Local and federal!!

Turn out the VOTE! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Get Repubs and Dems out.

End the two party treachery. Vote third party!

[-] -2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Not the same!!

Get with it, smarten up!!

Vote this November!!!

Or be shackled to RepubliCon shame!!!

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Not the same but not all that different.

The Democrats controlled congress for 44 of the past 60 years.

Time for real change.

Vote any third party... Time for real change.

[-] -3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Worlds different, any honest person could see it.

Dems did a lot of good when in charge, no thanks to regressive Cons.

Cons have done everything in their power and beyond to tear down Dem progress and anyone paying attention would know.

Which is it? dishonest or ignorant??

Get out the VOTE! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You are either on the Democrat party payroll or easily fooled. Cronyism was invented by Democrats and fine tuned by Republicans. They are both experts.

[-] 1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 2 years ago

Lies! All lies!

There are no lobbyists in the white house! Obama promised! And we're not raining bombs on any other countries!

[-] -3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

And they are people, too, so let's elect dogs!!!????

There is no perfection, it's a myth!!!

Cons and Dems are worlds different, any honest person sees it.

Ignorance or prejudice are no excuse for sabotage!

Big Biz turns out, We have to match them if We want reform! The squeaky wheel gets all the grease!

Instant Runoff Elections are the only way a Third party is viable, Cons will never allow that to happen.

Get out the Vote! Don't be Conned! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The fact that you think they are different where it counts shows you are ignorant and/or prejudice.

The fact that you call voting for someone else sabotage shows you are connected to the party.

We gave these two parties a chance for more than 70 years. We get trillions spent on military intervention. We get healthcare full of crony capitalism. We get more crony capitalism in the name of green energy (the flavor of the day) We get a public education system that has not changed in 60 years and is failing our youth. We get bi-partisan bail outs for the 1%

If is time to send a message. Time bring in another party.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

[-] -1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You have the logic of a Con zombie. Which makes you a TROLL!!

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Conservative mean you want to keep things the way they are.

Actually I am a liberal. Many but not all of the things I believe are in synch with some people in OWS.

I think we need to cut military spending by at least 50%. I think we should not have bailed out the banks. I think we should end all subsidies and crony capitalism. I think we need to stop telling people what they cannot eat, drink, smoke, say, think, do, unless it infringes on another person's rights.I think we need to end foreign aid to oppressive or any other regimes. In other words we need to stop taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in other countries. I think we need to end the blocking of same sex marriage and end don't ask don't tell.

Both Reps and Dems are pro big government. Their policies promote big government, crony capitalism and reduction of liberty. THey have been that way for 100 years.

You want everyone here to vote Democrat.

I think that makes you the troll

[-] -1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

"Con" is for RepubliCon, conservatives are gone with the dinosaurs.

Cons are owned by the Big $ Kings who detest our government and especially democracy, so they do everything in their power to foul it up, and then speciously/hypocritically wail about how awful government is. Ironically/hypocritically Cons inflate government and apply it more intrusively (dictatorially) on the public.

They also own MSM, have a dedicated propaganda network (Fox Lies), and broadcast RW Hate Speech 24/7/365/every city; consequently We Americans have to lowest Voter turnout while Big $ has the greatest. That's why they get their way ~ the squeaky wheel gets all the grease.

Unfortunately, in order to operate in this political aberration (created by our neglect) Dems have to scrounge for money. And you get dirty when you wrestle with pigs.

There is no perfection!!! No perfect politician, politic, Voter or non-Voter. There is, though, really fucking shitty (KingCons) and worlds better (Dems). Third parties would be great, and the way we get them is Instant Runoff Elections, but Cons will stop at nothing to keep this from happening. They are at their criminal limit stealing (suppressing) Two-Party elections, three and four IRE-viable parties would be their death nil.

The Democratic Party is a clearinghouse for politicians who still believe, more or less, in democracy, encompassing conservatives, liberals, progressives and generally work for the people (with insufficient support from us). Dems don't suppress the Vote.

RepubliCons have devolved into a cult and their Charlie Manson is Big $ (with all the support their Citizens United SCOTUS doesn't disclose). Cons are conducting a rampant Voter Suppression Campaign right now, at great expense, because they are afraid of what Dems and We People might do to foil their Shock Doctrine strategy in their 30+ year Class War against the 99%!!! Which, because we are mostly oblivious to, we are losing!! Wake up, People!!

Let go of the political "perfection and purity," it's fantasy. Democracy is messy and dirty, that's reality.

Get out the Vote! Don't be Conned! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

"which makes you the Fucking TROLL!!"

It seems you are getting a little heated there rp...

You come here pushing a political party and the rules clearly state not to. That makes you the troll.

I stand for ending crony capitalism which most in OWS stands for. I was against the bails outs which most in OWS stands for. I am against robo signing foreclosures which most in OWS stands for. I stand for freedom of speech and the right to protest shich most in OWS stands for. I do not like when political groups try to hijack the cause. That is something I hold in common with most within the OWS movement. I do not agree with everyone here but that would be impossible since not everyone agrees on everything.

You come here pushing a political party which OWS is not wanted on this board.

You are the by definition of the word, a TROLL!

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

I'm with you on the issues, so get a grip. What do you think progressive liberals want? Fascism?? NO!! That's the Cons.

But if you shun politics and elections, castration and sabotage is all you offer, that's TROLL in my book. But I've wasted enough time on you and your ridiculous and pointless recriminations.

You did make sense in one of your replies, so maybe you're subject to fits.

Just tell the board: How do you suggest we effect the changes and reforms espoused by OWS?? How do we fight the Class War strategy of Shock Doctrine??? Drum circles??

We're very happy OWS (nationally) called some attention to the Class War, but we hate that you let MSM portray you as Woodstock reenactments, and totally failed to convey a coherent message (Hint: Dump the cardboard and crayons). But we've been fighting against the few in the 1% and their RepubliCon foot soldiers for 3 decades and more. Quit being naive, petulant, little pricks! Democracy is messy, dirty, and full of exceptions, nuance, irony, imperfections and COMPROMISE!!!!

Wake Up! We're in a Class War, and losing!!!!

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The Democratic Party is a clearinghouse for politicians who practice crony capitalism under the guise of creating a greener planet, providing for us, and saving us from everything that appears evil.

The Republican Party is a clearinghouse for politicians who practice crony capitalism under the guise of saving us from terror, saving the economy, and spreading democracy throughout the world.

The each use different tactics to take our money and borrow even more and give it to their friends and relatives. It happens on both sides of the isle.

So in the end Republicans fool the conservatives and Democrats fool the progressives.

You are a TROLL if ever I smelled one.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You are definitely a CON! Here we have classic Con MO: Simplistic, illogical, recriminative, omissive, Con-apologetic, narrow-minded, prejudiced and anti-democratic! Considering the sabotage you espouse, you could even be a closet fascist!

I'm nothing if not totally for Progressive Reform and getting We the People to finally fight back in this Class War. You are here to sabotage any constructive, effectual, and winning ideas and actions. You want inaction, diffusion and political castration, which makes you the Fucking TROLL!!

[-] 1 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 2 years ago

vote on issues not people.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Vote to repeal Citizens United and the asshole RepubliCons who aided and abetted making it law.

Stay on top of RepubliCon Voter suppression! Get out the Vote! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

I agree however you never know in the future how things will progress. Big brother may become so invasive and so powerful that all the elections in the world can't overturn them which is something our founding fathers never realized either.

My concern is we'll trade in all our freedoms for security and find out we have no recourse to protect ourselves from the security that we traded our freedom in for to begin with. I for one stopped flying years ago because I personally don't like being treated like a stupid cow suspect with mad cow disease. So If I can't drive I won't go.

I don't own a gun probably never will but I feel more secure knowing there's millions of americans who do. So if the time ever comes for an armed conflict with the government I truly hope the citizens of this country still have the fire power to do it.

I'm sorry this crazy bastard went on a shooting rampage and killed innocent peopleBut I still believe guns don't kill people poeple kill people. Just like computers don't write forum posts people write forum posts.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

The ballot box is a ploy to quell rebellion; a faux choice, sponsored by the likes of Fox News and MSNBC. The way our current system operates, there is no choice, because the elections are purchased; political offices may as well be put on the auction block. That's why the campaigns have nothing to do with issues, only with attacks.

I have looked elsewhere and have joined a minor political group, but also realize we have no chance to "win" elections.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I am just saying that it would be more realistic to expect that we could get people to vote differently than to expect that they are going to go out and get assault weapons and overthrow the current government. If you cannot even get them to wise up and vote insurrection does not seem feasible.

People in general are naive and Fox News and MSNBC may have convinced them to vote for Obama. That may have some truth to it however based on the Television ratings system, less than 0.8% of the population watches those channels. I think it was more a pop culture thing.

Do you think that if we had another form of government people will suddenly become smart, interested, and uninfluenced by the media. I would think not. People are just not all that interested.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I agree that in general most people, as long as they have their basic needs met, will not want to rock the boat. After all, what comes after any uprising is nothing more than a toss of the coin.

No, generally people will not suddenly become interestered, alert, discerning, but maybe with a participatory government more people would become involved. Right now, most politicians are elected by a minority of the population. Barack Obama won by a landslide in 2008, but less than 25% of the total population voted for him. Even if we eliminate all people under voting age from the numbers that still would leave Obama being elected by only slightly more than a third of the population.

My opinion is that the majority of eligible Americans choose not to vote, because they know full well the system is rigged, and whoever "wins" will change very little, in spite of "change you can believe in."

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

My experiences leads me to believe the opposite of what you say is true. I have seen that people only turn out when there is a presidential race which is when rigging is at full tilt.

There are referendum or "direct democracy" questions on every ballot that I have voted on. Should we purchase the open space on River Road, should we add on to the middle school, should we share services with the neighboring town are just three things I voted on last year. Every election I vote near the closing of the polls because I work. I ask "what was the turnout today" and it is most often around 20-25% unless it is a presidential race and then it is about 50-60%.

I can only conclude that the majority of citizens choose not to vote because they are either not paying attention or do not care.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

The problems with most referendums and initiatives, unless they are highly publicized--like the gay marriage ones--are that most people don't really know much about them. It's like voting for school-board members or fire-district members, or even judges. On the ballot they're just names, and the average working person has no inclination to research these items.

The media should offer publicly paid, equal time for qualified candidates--those who gather sufficient signatures on a petition--and for proponents and opponents of issues on the ballot. These issue-oriented media spaces should be aired at prime time or printed on the front pages.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

"most people don't really know much about them. "

Referendums have been on every ballot I have voted on for the past 20+ years. The sample ballot comes in the mail about a week before every election. It is really hard to miss when it comes in the mail as it opens up to be pretty large.

People just do not seem to care. If they do not take the time to research the candidates or the ballot questions perhaps it is a good thing they do not vote.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Only the elite, the knowledeable, should vote?

I think part of the voting proposition should be educating voters. A lot of media space is wasted on attack advertising for candidates and propositions. Instead, let's use the time wisely to give unbiased, factual, issue-oriented presentations

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I never said anything about being elite. I said

"If they do not take the time to research the candidates or the ballot questions perhaps it is a good thing they do not vote"

You gain knowledge by reading the questions on the ballot. On the local level you can attend the town meetings that are held every week. You find out about the candidates by reading the newspaper or using that internet thing.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Your suggestions are worthwhile. I understand your point but object only to the part in which you write "...perhaps it is a good thing they do not vote."

I believe the responsibility for educating voters is incumbent on all of us. If we believe in participatory government, we should not be satisfied with the status quo and push for a system that spreads the word the media we have.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

It only sounds bad if you leave out:

"If they do not take the time to research the candidates or the ballot questions..."

I believe it is every citizens responsibility to male the effort to become knowledgeable on the issues and the candidates and participate in the process.

It is not my responsibility to influence my neighbor. We all have our biases and should not impart them on others.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I agree with you, but considering the enormous sums of money wasted in meaningless diatribe campaigning, wouldn't it be better to use the same amount of money to educate people via the various media?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Ironically that is what the people wasting money in meaningless diatribe believe they are doing.

When they spend tens of millions making and showing commercials about "Bain Capitol" or "Obamacare" they believe they are educating people.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Yeah, I don't think for a minute that's what "they" believe. They are purposely trying to obfuscate their own records: Obama's rather ineffective four years; and Romney's equally dismal record at Bain Capital, about which even conservapedia says, "Before entering politics Romney was a businessman in Boston, having served as CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm known for outsourcing American jobs."

I'm sure Romney would love to have that particular sentence expunged, as well as his record as governor. Conversely, Obama certainly has nothing to point at with pride during his tenure as President. He's been most effective at not being a leader.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

So their idea of educating is pointing out each others flaws.

It would be nice if either of them laid out a plan for cutting the deficit so we can slow down borrowing, and helping to make America more competitive in the global economy.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

It would be refreshing to actually hear some issues rather than "he did that" and "I didn't do that."

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

I don't know; personally I just roll the dice.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You get the same result.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

By not voting, the poor, the non white, and the male increase the voting power of those who do vote, the rich, the white, and the female.

Those who do not vote rig the election against themselves.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I disagree, because whether overwhelming numbers of the population vote or not, the candidates remain the same, and the two major candidates are bought and paid for. Meanwhile, splinter candidates cannot gather enough money to buy even a tiny bit of media space.

Frankly, to change the system, all candidates for public office, who meet minimum requirements for the level of office, should have equal, publicly paid media space with no private campaigning at all. Eliminate the nonsense. Attack campaigning is nothing more than validation that the major candidates have no individual stance on issues, nothing to point back to with pride, merely the platform of their sponsors.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

If we had public financing of elections, wouldn't outside money still be constitutional, like Super Pacs, and bypass the roadblock that public financing erects?

Won't the greedy bastards always find a way to buy influence because Congress will always provide a loophole?

Are there any countries that have a viable public financing system?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

We'd better find a better way, hadn't we? Elections now are almost auctioned off to the highest bidders. We don't have representative government, we have an oligarchy formed of the super wealthy, who finance the candidates and issues they want passed.

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Cons are owned by the Big $ Kings who detest our government and especially democracy, so they do everything in their power to foul it up, and then speciously/hypocritically wail about how awful government is. Ironically/hypocritically Cons inflate government and apply it more intrusively (dictatorially) on the public.

They also own MSM, have a dedicated propaganda network (Fox Lies), and broadcast RW Hate Speech 24/7/365/every city; consequently We Americans have to lowest Voter turnout while Big $ has the greatest. That's why they get their way ~ the squeaky wheel gets all the grease.

Unfortunately, in order to operate in this political aberration (created by our neglect) Dems have to scrounge for money. And you get dirty when you wrestle with pigs.

There is no perfection!!! No perfect politician, politic, Voter or non-Voter. There is, though, really fucking shitty (KingCons) and worlds better (Dems). Third parties would be great, and the way we get them is Instant Runoff Elections, but Cons will stop at nothing to keep this from happening. They are at their criminal limit stealing (suppressing) Two-Party elections, three and four IRE-viable parties would be their death nil.

The Democratic Party is a clearinghouse for politicians who still believe, more or less, in democracy, encompassing conservatives, liberals, progressives and generally work for the people (with insufficient support from us). Dems don't suppress the Vote.

RepubliCons have devolved into a cult and their Charlie Manson is Big $ (with all the support their Citizens United SCOTUS doesn't disclose). Cons are conducting a rampant Voter Suppression Campaign right now, at great expense, because they are afraid of what Dems and We People might do to foil their Shock Doctrine strategy in their 30+ year Class War against the 99%!!! Which, because we are mostly oblivious to, we are losing!! Wake up, People!!

Let go of the political "perfection and purity," it's fantasy. Democracy is messy and dirty, that's reality. Voting is how you exercise democracy!!

Get out the Vote! Don't be Conned! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I'm with you to a certain extent.

I know we won't reconsider the second amendment again until long after I'm dead.That said, I don't believe it was correctly decided.

My ancestor came to America in 1634 and as a member of the general Court of the Mass. Bay Co. signed the proclamation that established the first militias. He was also the officer in charge in one of the first thirteen towns that form them. From the beginning the towns were very reluctant to spend scarce money on arms and equipment and at the time of the revolution, some states had militias with nothing more than pikes and halberds. By the time the revolution was over, there was a mixed opinion about militias. They had been much less effective than legend portrays them. The Federal army was disbanded and most of the arms put in regional storage. The militias were still poorly armed.

The Constitution was being circulated for ratification and it was tough sledding. Shays' Rebellion was happening because the banks, like today, were foreclosing like crazy because loans were in pound sterling and the returning soldiers only had nearly worthless Continental dollars. ( My relatives lost their farms. So, some wanted "well regulated militias" with arms and ongoing training exercises for protection, fearing another round with the British (which soon happened 1812.)

After the unsuccessful attempt by Shays (we were there too) to capture the arms in storage at Springfield, G. Washington, T Jefferson and others got behind the idea of the Bill of Rights (which started with 12 and ended with 10, influenced by Mass. List of Rights). Since the Rebels nearly succeeded in capturing the arms, and might have staged a successful coup, the idea of "well regulated" had significant meaning. They really didn't want local armed uprisings toppling the central government too frequently.

It is funny that the militias quickly disappeared (no money from the states and the Federal government had plenty of debt, they couldn't regulate what they couldn't fund).

There were arguments that they might want to be able to stage a revolt from time to time, because everybody was nervous about something, but usually not the same things. However, the second amendment was lifted directly from the Articles of Confederation (then edited to incomprehension) so if you want to have a more clearly written version of that language read it there. I doubt that there was consensus on any single interpretation at the time and there are contemporaneous written argument about it from every part of the spectrum. This is one part of the Constitution that begs for interpretation appropriate for the times.

Sadly, it won't get it. We love hysteria more than solutions.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I do agree, but can't help but consider Jefferson's various warnings about the centralization of government and the constant need for re-evaluation of our system.

The framers of the Constitution, I'm sure, didn't want frequent rebellions. In fact the Whisky Rebellion, very shortly after the Constitutional government was formed, tested the limits of central authority. So, had the Constitution been written just after the Whisky Rebellion, the Second Amendment might have had completely different wording.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

It really was a turbulent time and with all of the personal losses people were left with, their thinking couldn't be objective. And there was so much distrust. In trying to survive, people had compromised their ethics. It was the worst possible circumstance to try to craft something that would be lasting.

I think brilliant arguments were made, but some were poorly considered by the many who must be forgiven for falling a little short in that situation.

I really doubt that we could even come close today, yet that is what we desperately need.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Funny how the banks and politicians always come out.

You're right. We need a new, fresh approach, but can only hope that people of our time can create something so durable.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

interesting

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Tell that to a Black Hawk chopper.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I'm not sure what I'd tell to a death machine, except that it is a tool of yankee imperialism.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Not bang bang with a gun.

Our "militia" has morphed into our military and police, enabled by the taxes we pay. We have no more business taking those services into our private hands than deciding to build a courthouse or bridge on our own.

Our forefathers established this democracy and Voting to ward off tyranny. Unfortunately they did not foresee Voter apathy and propagandized disinformation and neglect.

Wish I could find the reply the Black Hawk reply was in reference to.

We must get out the Vote. A return of the Cons to the WH would give them license to pick up where Bush-Cheney left off, with a vengeance!

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Steve Martin ‏@SteveMartinToGo

I am sure the NRA is holding an emergency meeting to try and figure out just exactly what to do about assault rifles.

Ira Rather ‏@irarather

@SteveMartinToGo The NRA wants to sell MORE rifles. According to their logic, more weapons in a dark, chaotic theater means more safety.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

They also had no idea of the restictions our goverment would be able to place on our liberties.They certainly did not want a central bank.A survalence state.Huge data bases on all citezens.They would never allow the so called Patriot act.Would never accept the military industrial complex as it is.Nor a militarized police force.One by the way that has consistantly used these weapons as a deterant against non violent protest.Oh and I wonder what they would think of the repression of Occupy by federal agencies.The NRA is a tool of the gun manufactures.But that does not mean that they are wrong.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

The rest of the world thinks we are a bunch of idiotic, gun toting clowns!! All because of RepubliCons!!

Get out the Vote!!

[-] 1 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 2 years ago

if founding fathers knew the government had weapons of this sort. they would say the people should have these weapons to protect its freedom. saying assault weapons kill people is like saying the spoon made u fat. ATF should have been doing its homework. if i buy three assault weapons i should have to take a course b4 i can purchase all these. remember meeting someone in person gives a knowing effect of the person. gun club owner said he was disturbed by the answering machine. what if this guy had to show up in person to a training. problems would have been noticed. ATF should offer this class for free to the public. education is the key for understanding.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Specious argument.

Sorry.

Peace

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh so If we are for gun control we are trying to "keeping blacks and hispanics in their place"?

Thats ridiculous.

I think the police should go on strike nationally until the legislature does something to protect them.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I know the govt needs to be kept in check. I have such great confidence in the people with the guns that they will be the right people to keep the govt honest.

Wow. Imagine if the NRA gun nuts were protecting us.

I hope you aren't really afraid that the govt is going to go fascist and install a hitlet like dictator. I don't think we're that close to that. And I don't think that our guns can defeat the most powerful military in human history.

But whatever. Good luck

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I also prefer freedom. I think the country will improve. We always have. I am optimistic in the face of all out mistakes (and all the criticism I face) I think we will make progress.

[-] 1 points by JackHall (413) 2 years ago

When the FFs drew up the 2nd Amendment, they likely did not realize the dangers the future held for unarmed citizens against an agent of death armed with this insane level of firepower.

Unarmed citizens would not know who this masked gunman was. The solution may be to have security check for weapons at the door. The larger question is what does the “right to keep and bear arms mean”?

The English Bill of Rights, passed in 1689, provided freedom [for Protestants] to bear arms for their defence, as allowed by law. This law was passed during the reign of William and Mary. To end the Glorious Revolution, William and Mary signed the English Bill of Rights and began a new co-operation between the Parliament and the monarchs, leading to a greater measure of personal liberty and democracy in Britain. This action both signalled the end of several centuries of tension and conflict between the crown and parliament, and the end of the idea that England would be restored to Roman Catholicism, King William being a Protestant leader. The English Bill of Rights also inspired the English colonists in North America to revolt against the rule of James II and his proposed changes in colonial governance. These colonial revolts occurred in Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland.

William and Mary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_and_Mary [right click]

The 1689 Boston revolt was a popular uprising on April 18, 1689, against the rule of Sir Edmund Andros, the governor of the Dominion of New England. A well-organized "mob" of provincial militia and citizens formed in the city and arrested dominion officials. Members of the Church of England, believed by Puritans to sympathize with the administration of the dominion, were also taken into custody by the rebels. Neither faction sustained casualties during the revolt. Leaders of the former Massachusetts Bay Colony then reclaimed control of the government. In other colonies, members of governments displaced by the dominion were returned to power.

Boston Revolt 1689 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1689_Boston_revolt [right click]

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. To set limits on government actions in regard to personal liberties. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. And the historical context for the 2ndAmendment favors the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Does this mean they may own cannons, too? Well, why not?

We’ve been living under a reign of terror for over a decade. The FFs didn’t imagine atomic bombs, or ICBMs, or army tanks, etc. all of which is at the government’s disposal to use. They didn’t imagine jet planes flying into WTC towers followed by controlled demolitions. 9/11 truth movement has some important questions for our government, which seems to be evading the issue every time a demand for a new investigation is made. How shocked would the People be if predator drones started patrolling the skies of our towns one day? How much unregulated army surplus is lying around the country in private hands? Is the government big enough to take these arms back and should it arrest the people who had them in their possession?

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

The way i understand the second Amendment is that it ensures the people that no tyrannous government can ever over power their will. If this is the case, then because we cant have rocket launchers and tanks, the second Amendment's intent is long dead and gone. The political battles over the second amendment are pretty much pointless because there is no weapon parody between the people and the government. As is, we defend our rights with stones and slings, while the government controls us with boulders and trebuchets.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Practically every armed revolution that has ever happened started with the same disparity.

[-] 1 points by sailor (2) 2 years ago

What they did envision, and what most people forget, was a government trying to over power the people.

When the FFs drew up the 2nd Amendment, a farmer could get the same firearm that a solder could. That is not the case today, automatics are strictly regulated, our police, and military have automatics. We the people can only get SEMI-automatic firearms.

The FFs did not look at the 2nd Amendment as just a hunting provision, it was a protection provision, for the people, from the government. You must remember were they came from and why they felt this way. It wasn't by accident or just to be cool, that they came to this as the SECOND Amendment following free speech. Look at what was going on in other countries at that time.

If you want to hunt, sport shoot, comp. shoot, great but don't forget why we have the 2nd Amendment.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Any rebellion today would be easier to accomplish at the ballot box than it would by us all going out and getting assault rifles and grenade launchers.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Every man in Switzerland owns a gun, in fact, they're required to maintain a M16 in their homes, yet the murder rate in Switzerland is so low, it's effectively zero. What about Swiss culture is so remarkable? Is it a greater sense of national solidarity, or much higher levels of civic participation, or more subtle aspects of their culture? Whatever it is, they seem to handle gun ownership just fine.

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 2 years ago

The 2nd Amendment protected rights in order to keep a "free state." I'd say being able to arm yourself is a right, you want to be able to protect yourself against people that wish to do you harm. Some sort of regulation is obviously needed. But the 2nd Amendment isn't to go hunting or even to protect yourself from assailants, but to keep a free state.

So then, what is a free state? To what purpose are guns needed for that? In Cuba Che and the Castro bothers freed their state (and people) by going around the country (from the opposite end as the capitol) and giving free health-care (Che was a doctor), teaching people how to read, and teaching them to shoot a gun. He created the "People's Army" if you will.

Do we feel we still need to have the capabilities as a people, if motivated and organized, to overthrow our government with force, or at least, with the show of force.

Are ARs in the hands of Americans the only thing keeping tanks off our streets?

You guys are Occupy protesters. You have to have an idea of what the government wishes it could do to you (and what they already can).

Regulate; yes. Ban no.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (161) 2 years ago

Founding Fathers didn't envsion the internet or phones with cameras. We still have a 1st amendment.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Yes we have 1st amendment, but since texting takes place on public road and presents a clear and present danger to other motorists, 1st amendment doesn't apply

They would be free to do so on their own private land, but notsomuch on public roads, it's like a yelling fire in a crowded theater kinda thing.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Thank you, simply thank you.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You are right, they are wrong.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

No gun in the theater, no people shot! Regulate and restrict the fucking guns, the hands down weapon of choice in violent crime.

Our Constitutional "militia" is our military and police, enabled by our taxes.

Give the NRA the finger! Vote! Don't be Conned! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

And don't listen to do nothing, political action saboteurs like "JoeTheFarmer."

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Militia has morphed into our military and police, we pay taxes to enable these societal services. We don't take these services into our private civilian hands any more than we individually build courthouses and bridges on our own. Get it? Good!

We are in a Class War, the strategy is Shock Doctrine, we are oblivious, we are mired in Crab Mentality, RW Propaganda, atrocious mental and physical healthcare, and we are losing! Wake Up!

Get Out the Vote! Don't be Conned! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Absolutely!!

[-] 0 points by tedscrat70 (-35) 2 years ago

the founding fathers' only concept of the 2nd amendment was muzzle loading muskets that couldn't hit a barn at 50 yards

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I don't think it was the type of weapon that the forefathers couldn't envision - but the type of people. The 2nd amendment talks about a "well-regulated militia," so I actually think they were talking about military weapons more than anything else. Those guys didn't foresee people taking those guns into movie theatres and high schools and shooting people.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

But wasn't the well-regulated militia clause a directive given to the states?

Wasn't it their job to pay for and regulate the militias?

Wasn't it the states who were the ones who were given the right to rise up and check the Federal Gov't?

Isn't the individual's right to own unregulated guns just a modern interpretation of a right originally given to the States?

[-] 3 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

The amendments, particularly the Bill of Rights (first 10), are the rights of the people. The 2nd amendment specifically mentions the right of the people to bear arms, not the right of the state.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

"In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It is not as cut and dry as you perceive it to be.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

The thread and my replies are talking about the founding fathers, you are talking about Supreme Court decision 200+ years later. Certainly the Constitution is updated through Supreme Court decisions as they have to figure out how to apply what the original writers drafted that many years ago.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You knew those guys? You must be really, really old.

Who's your health care provider?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I'm talking about the evolution of our nation. As long as the court has the right to interpret the Constitution, the document is fluid, not immovable. Therefore, to always harp about original intent, just seems silly.

When Marbury v Madison gave the right of judicial review to SCOTUS, original intent went out the door.

So because the Constitution is fluid, I find it informative to find out how the interpretation has evolved over the years.

That, and I don't believe some tobacco, hemp and moonshine tycoons of that bygone revolutionary era are informative enough about modern life to have an intelligent opinion about the course of action we must take. They were smart men, but they were living in a different era.

Unless you believe the Founders were smarter than us, They are not the final word on Constitutional matters. Although, Their words do make for some informative reading .

[-] 2 points by JackHall (413) 2 years ago

Was Mozart smarter than Michael Jackson? Was Handel smarter than Elvis Presley? Was Haydn smarter than Justin Bieber? The Founders were smarter than us.

Is a corporation a person? How did we allow the national debt to own us and future generations? All it takes is one superidiot like GW Bush to turn the wealthiest nation on earth into paupers for eternity.

Every American should know that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—” is a founding principle of our country. Also in the Declaration it is said,” all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Declaration of Independence http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

To ask, "Why the government of the people should be the only body allowed to own assault weapons?", is a fair question.

The New Deal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRw-OQYDe2M&feature=related [right click]

FDR's New Deal would never have happened without an armed citizenry that was able to check police power. Notice how the New Deal has withered under recent administrations until we are on the steps of another Great Depression despite most noble efforts of American workers.

FDR 1936 I welcome their hatred

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9yoZHs6PsU [right click]

Fraud, and corruption have no limit.

Lobbying Congress http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv1nFnpdowo [right click]

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I don't disagree with any of that - it is just irrelevant to this thread.

[-] 0 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

they were not talking about military weapons. they were speaking of self defense and being armed against the tyranny of govt.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

what else would you use when fighting against the tyranny of government?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Correct. The constitution is about arming against tyranny from government, not crime from your neighbor. That is taking the law into your own hands.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22354) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

How about this for a sensible gun regulation?

Rubber bullets only.

Unless you have a hunting license - then a small number of lethal rounds will be permitted to be sold to the license holder. OH and no lead outlaw lead.

Yes rubber bullets can kill - but survival after taking a round is so very much higher.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Sorry but I disagree with you. Are you indicating that the millions of Americans who own AR's are at some time in the future going to go out and kill people?

Appaently you don't use your gun for "shooting sport". You probably use your "high powered rifles" for hunting which is fine.

So tell me, why is it wrong to own an AR 15 with a 30 round mag?

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

If there was a way to absolutely guarantee that it could never, ever get out of your basement, I might consider living in your neighborhood. You can own 50 gallons of gasoline in jerry cans and if there was a way to absolutely guarantee that the cans could never, ever get out of your basement.... three blocks away.

If you owned a King Cobra, if there was a way to absolutely guarantee that it could never, ever get out of your basement.....

In all of these cases, would I feel more safe living in your neighborhood?

As you can see, I am not paranoid because I would consider living near an idiot. But feel more safe? You have got to be kidding. Tell your neighbors and watch for the "For Sale" signs replace grass. Can do vs should do.

[-] -2 points by delayedgrat (-157) 2 years ago

No, millions of responsible AR 15 owners are not going to flp out and wage war against innocent civilians. However YOU cant garauntee that 2-5 wont, and the magnification of their anger and/or psychosis thru assault rifles is unacceptable.

I am a life member of the NRA and I love sport shooting, but unless the NRA AND the gun makers are willing to put $100 bilion in a victims fund, then I will NOT be in accord with protecting 100 round clips or drum magazines in semi automatic weapons.

You and I will simply choose to disagree.

[-] 2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

One bullet will do the same job from a 9mm, 38 Special, 357 mag, 40 S&W, 45 ACP or a 44 mag.

The only reason there is so much hype is because 12 people were murdered in one incident - how about the hundredths of other people who were murdered over the entire year? Where is the news reporting on that".

New Orleans, Chicago, Atlanta and a host of other big cities have murders every day but you don't hear any hype about that.

So, all of a sudden we have a "mass murder" and everyone is calling for "gun control".

Well, that's not going to stop people from commiting crimes - they are going to do it regardless.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

It takes a special kind of mind to be able to indiscriminately shoot more than 70 people caught in a trap of his own making. This is what scares people.

Until psych tests are mandatory to screen out sociopaths from legally buying firearms (the military gives psych tests before they give anyone a firearm) then the continued fear of random nut job mass murderers will continue.

The majority of violent crimes are committed by people who know their attacker. It's the random socio/psychopath that terrorizes people.

[-] 1 points by sailor (2) 2 years ago

No psych tests for military before giving someone a gun - Sorry, nice try. I was in USN for 5 years from 91 to 96. I was on a special boarding team (NOT a Seal or EDT) and I carried a Mosburg 500 12 gauge and / or a 1911 colt 45. I never underwent any psych eval. I also cared a 1911 on Quarterdeck watch and when acting as ship security in over seas ports, walked the top decks with an M14 in my hands. I was just an ordinary sailor, QM2.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

You never went through psych evals during basic? Think about this again.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

People texting while driving are worse than the nut jobs and kill more people. Supposedly sane minds, committing an insane act.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 2 years ago

USA Today: Out of wedlock births now 41%.

No way to spin this one. USA Today reported this week out of wedlock births were 41%- 73% for blacks, 53% for hispanics, 29% for whites. The article is very sobering and gives a clue where we are headed if something is not done about this problem.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Where?

[-] -3 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

because this fits with the left wing agenda of gun control. and by gun control, i ( they)mean a totally unarmed populace. much easier for the govt to control people that cant fight back.

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

why should the nra put any money in a victims fund? do car makers put any money in a fund for the victims of car accidents?

[-] 0 points by delayedgrat (-157) 2 years ago

The drivers of the car do.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

thats what personal insurance is for, but car manufacturers have no fund, nor should they.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

Well, first of all you're not being honest with us. Anyone familiar with modern firepower knows that the AR is just a pop gun. It's one advantage is that it fires a relatively light round.

[-] 0 points by delayedgrat (-157) 2 years ago

That isnt its advantage. Its advantage is that it carries large volume magazines and can fire with little recoil semi automatically. A.223 round IS light, but it allows rapid fire. A .308 or 7.62mm loaded in bolt action would not be nearly as effective.

[-] 0 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

Well as you recall the M16 was a 7.62 and it did allow rapid firepower; the point is many rifles, shotguns, pistols, and hybrids do today.

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I will fight for your right to own an assault rifle.