Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The 2nd Amendment Was Written to Endorse Tyranny

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 15, 2013, 12:13 p.m. EST by shoozTroll (17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Yes Virginia, it's true. It was written to pander to you.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

So will you guys at least shut up about how it was written to prevent tyranny?

201 Comments

201 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

try reading article I , section 8 clause 16, that deals with an army( govt militia). the 2nd amendment deals with an individual right, not a collective one.

[+] -6 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That's correct, it's about State run militias to chase down slaves and prevent their insurrection or rebellion.

You really should have read it.

[-] 3 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

its about a national armed forces. i read it , you read the lib revisionist version.

[+] -6 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Since the founders were dead set against a standing army, why don't you give us your libe(R)tarian/Disney version of revisionist history?

[-] 0 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

if you read article I, section 8, clause 16,..........they were NOT against a standing army

[+] -6 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Yep, you should read it again.

It says they didn't want to raise or support an army for more than 2 years.

Why do you think they try too keep us in a perpetual state of conflict?

[-] 1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

you are referring to clause 12, i am talking about clause 16.

[+] -6 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You're still reading something that isn't there.

There is NO call for a standing army.

And you still haven't addressed the history quoted in the OPs link.

[-] 3 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

the purpose of the 2nd amendment simply assures each citizen that theyhave the tools necessary to defend their life, family or property from agression whether from an individual or the govt.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

.I'm curious. Your AR15, how many drones does it have to destroy before the tyrannical gov't subsides its republican dictate?

Article iii, section iv just makes the current interpretation of Amendment II seem ill informed.

The only rational that i can glean is that you see your weapon as a MAD device. It is something you will never use until it's too late. It isn't like you can form a militia and kick the Federal Government out of your state. They would just label your actions insurrection and be done with you.

[+] -6 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You pro gun death people are starting to cheese me off, again.

That's not what it says. It's nowhere near that specific, and it does specifically say well regulated militia.

Which of course falls in with what's said in the original post.

They were worried about a slave uprising in Virginia.

[-] 4 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

people that are constitutionalists are not pro death,.........what a silly term. make that up all by yourself? what dont you ( or refuse to ) understand about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed " ?

[+] -6 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Pro gun death. Yep. That's exactly what they are.

Constitutional lawyers, are just that, lawyers.

Everybody else is an amateur. Even with a fancy name.

So what's your BIG plan to stop it then?

I haven't heard anything but crap about the 2nd amendment, and your refusal to understand the original intent anyway.

BTW: You are wrong on the Boston Tea Party too.

Who knows, if you google it often enough, you might find the truth.

Or maybe not. Google isn't always your friend.

[-] 3 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

no, the 2nd amendment is pro self defense. constitutional lawyers expertise is in that area. you wouldnt hire a tax lawyer if you needed a criminal defense lawyer. you wouldnt hire a product liability lawyer if you need a a divorce lawyer.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Pro gun death, that's what you are.

You have flipped and flopped between the various NRA "arguments" so many times, that's the only thing remaining.

It's the only logical deduction.

[-] 2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

what nra " arguements" have i used? please be specific.

[+] -4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You ARE pro gun death, so what don't we agree on?

What are you going to do, take away everybody's bullets?

[-] 1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

i am pro 2nd amendment which is pro self defense.

[+] -5 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree that you're pro gun death.

Too bad you won't accept history that's not acceptable to FLAKESnews, Disney, or the Texas School Book Suppository.

[-] 0 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

WE are not " agreeing" .you have an opinion which is not a fact.

[-] -1 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

"I ask Sir, what is a militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them" George Mason ( co-author of the 2nd amendment) spoken duing the Virginia convention to raify the Constitution, 1788

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL = Texas School Book Suppository - it seems that they ( the book suppository ) could use an enema - actually.

[-] 2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

So what's your point? Self defense is still a concern.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The "point", is exactly what it says.

I posted it to counter the overwrought "tyranny" argument put forth by the pro gun death crown.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

The point is we are still concerned about our safety and for very good cause. Americans will never give up their guns. And gun free zones like NY are simply slaughter waiting to happen; in fact, it is occurring as we speak.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So then.

You support the (R)epelican't/libe(R)tarians that increase social and economic inequality and thus increase the kinds of fear that make you think you need more better guns.

That's nothing more than a circle jerk.

A deadly circle jerk at that.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

What are you talking about? It's primarily black folks shooting innocents and many of those innocents are black themselves. But that is NOT our only concern - we are concerned about the wanton theft of tax payers dollars while this federal government continues to attempt to subjugate us.

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

You need guns to protect yourself from black people, yet you completely ignore the social and economic conditions they have been subjected to..........

You've also completely ignored to state of tyranny in certain States.

Preferring instead to pretend such a thing comes down from the feds.

It doesn't, it filters to the top.

Your circle jerk continues, unabated by reality.

[-] -2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

When someone is shooting at you, or molesting you, does it matter their motivation?

Social and economic conditions do not grant license to victimize... if one is hungry or needy certainly theft is understandable, but I am not talking about petty theft - I am talking about wanton victimization and the need, therefore, to defend one's self.

The tyranny of certain states? What states are you referring to? My ancestors in NY owned slaves - are you speaking of NY?

What this is, is an attempt to disarm those in legal possession of defense weapons, who, by coincidence, are primarily white, while ignoring those illegally possessed by a primarily black population. Caucasians are not going to voluntarily surrender their arms only to be victimized by the minority gang bangers and the dirtbag wannabes.

Nor will we surrender our arms to those of corrupt governance who seek to subjugate and further enslave us.

This is not a circle jerk - it is life in continuum - and we are determined to survive.

We are NOT surrendering any of our currently owned arms'; we will circumvent any new legislative attempt to regulate assault rifles AND we will circumvent any attempt at financial prohibition.

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

And just who IS shooting at you?

And what of those that have created the inequity?

Shall we assume they are innocent?

Wouldn't fighting that inequality be the more the more noble thing to do?

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

You shall assume they are innocent, yes. Because they are; in fact the only thing we are guilty of is far too much compassion.

I'm really tired of the "I'm the victim, therefore licensed to victimize" mentality. But that's exactly what's occurring in America at this time, to the expense of Caucasians.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You managed not to answer all four questions.

Another case of excessive lead exposure?

I fear it is so.

Get yourself checked.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

Your link doesn't give all of the truth, only part of it. At the time each state was jealously guarding its sovereignty. There were versions of that amendment written by northern states too. I don't doubt that the slave states had their own concerns, but it wasn't the only reason for the second amendment.

New York offered this, "a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State". New Hampshire thought it should read this way, "Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion". Neither of these states were slave states, yet both offered constitutional protections for the right to bear arms.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

We're talking about why it was written, not all the other things they thought about writing it for, and even in one of those you've offed they wanted to take away the guns from rebels, once again proving that it WAS NOT written to protect from tyranny.

Besides they (gun nutters) still have NOT reacted to actual institutionalized tyranny in Michigan.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

I'm talking about the full truth of why it was written not just a partial truth. It wasn't a controversial amendment at the time. There were half a dozen different reasons States wanted that amendment, suppression of slave revolts being one of them, but not the only one. Placating the slave states was not the sole reason it was placed in the constitution.

From New Hampshire's point of view it was written to allow for people to peacefully own weapons. New York was more jealous of it's sovereignty and wanted to be in control of it's own militias, rather then give that power up to the federal government. Pennsylvania placed this in it's state constitution, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state". Clearly slavery wasn't a concern for these states.

It may have been that the final wording was originally proposed by a Virginian, that doesn't mean the other states didn't have their own reasons to agree to and accept the amendment. As written it also satisfied the concerns of the northern states.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Reported from CATO?

Even with what you've provided, it still doesn't negate the gist of what it means.

You prove it yourself, by ignoring the obvious tyranny currently in existent in Michigan.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

I don't attempt to deny that the slave states had an immoral reason for favoring the second amendment. I'm not even defending the existence of the amendment. Just that your characterization, while true is incomplete.

I'm simply stating that the Northern States had their own reasons to want the right to bear arms granted too. The second amendment reflects more then simply the South's desire to oppress their slaves. In today's world most of the North's reasons for the amendment are also outdated. An armed public is not going to be able to stop a determined federal force.

Michigan has little to do with this topic. You don't honestly think an armed citizenry could effectively wrestle control from the Republicans in Michigan? Citizen militia's can no longer stand against the training and firepower of today's police or military. The second amendment is essentially a dinosaur.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

"The second amendment is essentially a dinosaur."

Eggsakley.

All I expected to do with this thread is destroy any thoughts about it even having been written to "fight" tyranny.

It was always a bullshit defense.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

The fighting tyranny idea is childish. If the government managed to keep the support of the military, there isn't a group of gun owners that could defend against them. Life isn't some scripted action movie.

My only comment was that originally different states had different motivations. Slavery was only one part of it all. The north was just as eager to keep guns in the hands of the people, but for other reasons.

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

They can have my B 52 when they can figure out how to get it out of my pole barn.....................:)

No really, I want to trade for some loaded F 35s, the guy down the street just got F 22s and I just got to keep up. or he might try something.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

lol.

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

It's nothing more than the MAD doctrine gone local.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Your contributions on this forum are valuable and important shooz. When you get a chance, would like to get your thoughts on this: http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-nonviolent-direct-action-can-bring-back-the-po/

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Fly in the Ointment, a Dialectical Question about Chris Hedges Law Suite against Barak Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.

I get that we want Non-Violent Change, but Hedges is really saying that the Current Administration is Despotic. Not just a few guys. The whole administration that is waging violent military action overseas and taking away Individual Rights ... Is tyranical or despotic.

Non-violent change being the goal here, the US Government must be fought just as the British were fought (but Non-Violently and without threats of any guns). In this light doesn't it seem likely that gun rights would be partly designed for a possible domestic tyranical government that waged multi year "Opional Wars", did not protect the the freedom to make a living (liberty) and did not protect individual rights????

I'm just saying...

Chris Hedges' Columns, Why I’m Suing Barack Obama, Jan 16, 2012 http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_im_suing_barack_obama_20120116/

[+] -5 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

This has what to do with the OP?

Unless of course, you are trying to say today's actions are drawn from that original intent.

[-] 4 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Each of us wants to simplify and call an issue right or wrong, this or that, black or white... Life is deeper that those simple emotions or statements. We all try to open up on questions, but I think in this case there is more than one reason to own a gun, have a militia, or have a 2nd amendment right. Peronally I don't like the way the Amendment is written. I still feel like I am learning. I think the Thom Hartmann article about militias as patrols, as police against revolting slaves or runaway slaves ... is very helpful context and very elightening. I have never seen this before this week. (I need to hit the history books)

But there are probably at lest 4-5 different reasons for having armed citizens and gun rights in the USA. Now hope I didn't miss any part of the article and hope I don't look dumb.

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

Most of those 4 or 5 reasons have to do with economic inequality and a (R)epelican't produced failure of mental health facilities.

The only valid reason is protection from wild animals.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yeah, I'm not really much of a hunter and never was. I have to do a plug for the vulnerable in society though. Elderly, infirm, women, kids... but I really don't know anyone that ligitimately defended themselves. I know rape is a problem and have met strangers that have been raped... but I don't really know what has happened in those cases. I think women get left alone in most societies. I know men do make cat calls and pester women for dates. Women end up having to be pretty tough. I guess some women aren't so strong willed ... just as normal odds you know some women are quiet or aren't as confident. Kids can't really kill pedofiles and women can't really kill a rapist just because they are being assaulted. The gun doesn't really fit into the picture very clearly.

Three cases might be if you were at home and attacked you might have a gun handy. And If you carry payroll to deposit in the night slot at a bank or day time deposit. Also if you were confined to a wheel chair, then it might be handy and possible to defend yourself.

Well, and we are a very young country in terms of history. We don't really educate our people well. This country could fall or collaspe due to lack of history and traditional European culture. It is possible that guns could be needed in some kind of upheaval, civil war, or Junta.

You can hunt and shoot at a gun range or competition with bolt actions ... you don't really need pistols in the conservative view. So hunting and shooting are valid reasons to own a gun.

Brightonsage claims a horse can bolt or fall on you and you might need a gun on your hip in ranching or riding. And as you say there can be coyotes, bobcats, couger, bear, wolves....

What about natural emergency, or power grid failure, or water & food shortages... You don't want to appear to have anything valuable or be in a fancy house if law breaks down. But there is a small chance of self defense or neiborhood/community protection.

[-] 2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

This is why you don't defend the paper, you defend the right to defend yourself. Despite what the original intent was, in our current situation we face mass death in the form of a tyrant who smiles right through you.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Snyder's not that bad, he's just an ALEC employee.

A nasty employee, but still, not that bad.

Just a tyrant.

[-] 1 points by ThomasKent (131) 1 year ago

Tyranny had a stronger connotation during the English Civil War –

The English Civil War

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

The most recent event that comes closest to it is the 9-11 Terror Attacks and the collapse of the WTC buildings

911 Education

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fUT7XgLiTY&list=PLf5qT0tQoem00hpvMBFsr0-kRHYC9GMpG

Max Keiser Reports On Threshold of Tyranny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ha9lPU1c60

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

This is a 3 week old thread.

How about a comment on the modern day tyranny being practiced by Snyder in Michigan, at the behest of Alec?

I like Max, but he never mentions it either.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Excellent post and article by Hartmann.

This makes it clear that it was written to preserve tyranny, and I concur with it, not that that gives it any more credence, but to the real essence of the argument. There are those who claim to be responsible gun owners, who really aren't. And those are the ones who are making all of the noise. There are those who are responsible gun owners who aren't worried because this isn't about them and you don't hear from them because they can see that hunting and confirming the state of your hand eye coordination by launching projectiles at target is not threatened since every thing from video games, smart phones to actual specialized target shooting guns will be available. And these, just like target bows and arrows, incorporate the best technology to compensate for your lack of actual, you know, skill. They have laser sights and compensating weights etc. ad nauseum. And they don't shoot fast because that is the opposite of accurate. (if you want to practice quick draw, you can use blanks and balloons.)

So, as we can mostly agree, crazy people using guns are the problem. So the question is, how do we predict who is crazy enough to use guns irresponsibly? We can start with those who are making the most noise. If you say, "I don't feel secure in public without a concealed fire arm" or you say "I need a gun to fight the US military who will come to take my guns and enslave me." then you are mentally disturbed and should NOT have guns, sharp objects or consciousness modifying drugs.

If you want guns (and are not a hunter or a real target shooter) you are disqualified from owning a gun. The rest of you, voluntarily register your gun(s), never take it out except in a case. Keep it locked up at all times. Buy liability insurance for it. Take another gun safety course (not from the NRA) and get certified (it will save on your insurance). If you have any extra guns, ( or were mentally disqualified, see above) check for a buy back program (coming soon to a police station near you.) Get martial arts training for your family including how to recognize unsafe situations and how to get out of them.

And that's all I have to say about that,

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

And well said at that..........:)

Thanks.

I lost some karma for posting it, but so be it.

I prefer the truth be told.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I was shocked to learn that there are over 400,000 true machine guns, registered as they must be, in the US. That fact brings to mind a number of questions which I won't even ask because it would do little to get the current crisis addressed (solution is beyond us at this point in time, I'm afraid But it reminds me that the NRA and worked successfully keeping relevant data from even being collected that would help understand and address the problem. If there was ever a case where the tactics used exposes the character of the combatants, this is it.

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

Would you find a list of the board of directors relevant?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/nra-board-members-selleck-nugent

Would finding wealthy libe(R)tarians funding them be a surprise?

http://www.politicususa.com/nra-libertarians-firearms-industry.html

Remember, that funding is on top of what gun makers donate for the NRAs lobbying efforts.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I had seen the Board List and it was shocking in two respects. One was how many there are. And the other thing is how many of them I recognized, and not in a positive way.

The funders, I had not seen, thank you. I would expect that the revenue from gun manufacturers would be the largest revenue source, if you include the passed through campaign bribes.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Here's the latest in Koch ties.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13959-the-nra-and-koch-backed-alec-have-fought-gun-buyback-programs-across-country

It's amazing how nasty these people really are and all the ways they effect us every day.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Sad to say, I knew the guy who mentored their father and them, when they were young. He was a very gentle and kind middle aged man in the 1960's. We argued. I said something like this was embedded in his philosophy. He was adamant that there was not. He was wrong. And he would be appalled. He wrote, "This bread is mine."

he Koch's are scum.

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

I won't bother you with more links, but as I look further back I see just how big their influence really is.

They have been funding and encouraging the flood of guns for some time now. Considering Daddy's ties to the Birch society (founder), it's not surprising. Yet at the same time they have been using ALEC to create the kinds of policies that make more people feel like they need that kind of protection.

They are an unholy alliance unto themselves.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

You have a pretty complete picture now.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

There are far too many who refuse to see, let alone accept the reality of that "picture" when it is shown to them.

I have been attacked, called names and down voted many times for demonstrating that.

Here's the bottom line.

The Kochs are a kind of microcosm of WallStreet.

If they can do this with their billions, imagine what WallStreet is doing with their 100s of billions.

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

And Wall Street continues to get a subsidy from zero rates to invest at higher rate to consumers AND back to the Treasury.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Good comment - I wonder how many stupid silent down votes you will collect.

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

I have never paid the slightest attention to those votes, up or down, and I don't intend to now. The crowd has always been able to drown out truth for while. But the truth will out, as the man said.

From Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, 1596:

LAUNCELOT: Nay, indeed, if you had your eyes, you might fail of
the knowing me: it is a wise father that knows his
own child. Well, old man, I will tell you news of
your son: give me your blessing: truth will come
to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son
may, but at the length truth will out.
[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No votes don't count except if they take a good comment off of the best comment board - and then it is a minor thing except that others who have not been following along do not get to have ready access to a good comment. Funny thing such things show ( down voting good comments ) is that there are some screwed up individuals voting.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I wondered (a little) how that worked.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You have someone who agreed with that comment - wonder why they did not say why ( add their own comment ). Could be they just figured it was not necessary. Huh.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Popular comment will show up on the board - so some shills will even up vote BS comments as well as down vote good comments.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Has the NRA become the new voice of the American security state?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

in spite of all their rhetoric of freedom and liberty, they are certainly promoting exactly that,

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

I guess they have to follow there corporate demographic.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I just found this.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/15/nra-ad-obama-elitist-hypocrite-because-of-secret-service/

That's the PR gun manufacturer money can buy, with a side of Koch, I'd imagine.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Whatever sells more guns.

The NRA is nothing more than a lobby and PR firm for that industry.

A think tank of death for profit.

One among many to be sure, but one of the most heinous too.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Nothing sells a gun better than the liberal, not the NRA

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That's what Glenn Beck says too.

Unfortunately he's an utter jerk, incapable of telling the truth. How long have you been a FLAKESnews fan?

You know FLAKESnews can be as damaging to your thinking processes as lead exposure, so could be in for a double whammy.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Glenn Beck is a cry baby. That's not new news. Doesn't change the fact that Obama and Feinstein are the biggest sellers of gun in the history of the world. Tne gun companies should give them a commission..

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

OK then. I see you are truth challenged. At least in every thing you've said so far.

Let's put it this way and be more honest.

That's what the NRA says, and they ought to know, they've been using that line against every liberal in every State so far, and they've been doing it for decades.

Gun sales and gun sales alone are.

You're a puppet on a string.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Fact of the day. There have been 5.5 million background checks to buy guns in the past two months, and that’s not counting private gun sales that don’t require a background check. Private gun sales are estimated to be 40% of all gun sales. I also heard somewhere most of new sales are now semi-auto rifles.

I had a link on this, but can’t find it at the moment.

You’re losing the battle Shooz. You can rant and rage forever, but we will keep our guns. That’s just the way it is.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I know. You are pro gun death.

YOU won't back a thing to reduce economic inequality and that's what makes you that.

You won't back the systems necessary to deal with mental health issues.

You would rather see them shot, tazered or thrown in jail.

You are pro gun death.

Losing a "battle" doesn't mean losing the "war", since you have chosen terms of violence once again, showing your violent nature.

[-] 1 points by TheStarvingCrusader (25) from Killingly, CT 1 year ago

We do not need guns to prevent tyranny, non-violent activism will work more efficiently with less loss of life. I am not commenting on gun ownership, just stating a fact.

[-] 2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Tell that to all the murderers who are out there killing people on a daily basis. Where is the "non violent activism" there?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Twinkle

I know this to be true.

It is in fact the only way.

Thanks for your comment.

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

truth-out is not the most unbiased of sources. Their Karl Rove indicted story was a complete fabrication, so why should i believe this?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Karl Rove defender..........LOL

I mean ROFL!

BOWL even.

What did say he did correctly?

What did he do that was good for anything or anybody, but himself?

He's a greedy selfish neolibe(R)tarian.

[-] 0 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Ummm How did you interpret that as a defense of Karl Rove? I just pointed out how truth-out made up a story about him before getting busted. Did you go to school in Detroit? You're proof that the Teacher's Unions in Michigan are really screwing up.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

OK, since you didn't actually read it, here it is from the original source.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/second-amendment-was-passed-protect-slavery

Shall demonstrate for you the many times FLAKESnews has been "busted"?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It does cite evidence you can verify if you don't believe it.

Do you doubt the southern racist slave holders had slave patrols?. That's a big part of the article.

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

No, I've read a history book or two so I know that's true. I just like pulling the shooz tactic where you dismiss a news event because of the webpage. Wanted to see what that felt like. It's fun. Sure beats having to read and think.

[-] 0 points by BitterClinger (8) 1 year ago

LOL!!! You ever visit the info clearinghouse thing he constantly references? Makes Mother Jones look conservative!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ah so you're not being serious. I think conservatives would dismiss truth-out because it is leftist, & progressive.

Of course WE are leftist & progressive. The occupy people I know are NOT conservatives, support reasonable gun safety regulations and invariably lean left.

We support progressive solutions for the disasters that conservative policies have created.

We believe we must replace pro 1% conservative (of both parties) w/ pro 99% progressives.

This is why we are correct in dismissing conservative news sources and it is silly for you to dismiss progressive ones.

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

I do not particuarly care about why. I do care about the attempt to take it away. It sounds like an attempt to take away freedom from the people.
Why do people need 350 hp automobiles? What purpose is there to having a car that goes 160mph? Why is Tylenol and Motrin on the market? Thousands die of overdose and long term affects. Gun control has been the poster child of a group on the left since time immemorial, and Sandy Hook is the ready-made tragedy for them. And please, Shooz, don't bring up your platform again.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What platform?

It's YOU who is still ignoring the tyranny brought upon the people Michigan.

So what is your platform?

Distraction?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Well, if Truthout says so then it must be true haha.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

How noncommittal of you to say so, but it was written by Thom Hartmann.

[-] 0 points by Freedom2100 (25) 1 year ago

The second amendment was written for a whole different world, the one our nation existed in 225-odd years ago. This was when our country had virtually no standing peacetime army and a bare semblance of a police outfit in towns and cities. Frontier towns and villages had virtually nothing in this regard, and this is why the 2nd amendment was enacted at that time to provide a quasi police force/national guard to prevent complete anarchy and likely also to protect settlers from hostile Native American tribes. The NRA et al. have twisted history and the 2nd amendment needs to be brought in line with our world of the 21st Century (as does the rest of the US Constitution) which is why I support a Constitutional Convention to bring our most important governing document in line with the realities and challenges of our nation today.

[+] -4 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

Yes. But you are preaching to self centered, ignorant garbage. Save your breath.

[-] 1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

You are what you say of others so what are you doing here?

[+] -4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I support one too, but first we must purge the money from the system top to bottom, or the corporations are just going to get it rewritten for themselves.

I thought OWS should have attempted one on their own, or at least the rewrite.....:)

[-] 0 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

When slavery was abolished the Second Amendment was not. I interpret that as a dissociation from the origins you have presented here.

Your ascertainment may well be correct, as to the origins of the protection of and the description of property, but, with the removal of slavery and the non-removal of the Second Amendment, it is clear that the origins of the Second Amendment no longer represent the Second Amendment.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Indeed. The original document was never intended by the founders to be used like a "Bible".

If they did?

They would never have let lawyers anywhere near it..................:)

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

35 of the signers of the Constitution were lawyers or trained in law.

C'mon.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Exactly my point.

They did let lawyers near it.

It's not a "Bible".

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

I am ashamed, of my exquisite ability, to have missed one of the funniest things I have ever heard. I hereby 'supersize' with you. To paraphrase your intentions may I express this....

"If the Constitution was truly meant to be an important, long standing, foundation of freedom, it would never have been allowed near the lawyers that wrote it."

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That's not what I said, but if you want to look at it that way, more power to you.

I don't hate lawyers. You apparently do.

I believe what I pointed out, is that it's not a foundation for a political religion.

Smart lawyers interpret law and set precedent.

Dumb ones follow it.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

You said...."I believe what I pointed out, is that it's not a foundation for a political religion. Smart lawyers interpret law and set precedent. Dumb ones follow it."...I could not agree more.

I hate to see a good joke go to waste though.

On a serious note, my initial response to your post, referred to the lack of the removal of the Second Amendment when slavery was abolished. It has remained to this day and therefore cannot be representative of the origins it initially may have had. Thank you.

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

That's one way of looking at it, I agree.

In the end I'm just sick of the irrational arguments across the board.

I've tried to come up with solutions in times that were less volatile, but they tend to fight ANY change at all.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-monitary-gun-solution/

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that many of them really are suffering from lead exposure.

[-] 0 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Thanks.

The problems involving guns in America are not illusory. It is unfathomable how often Americans shoot each other. Concentrating on the similarities between people rather than the differences is, in my opinion, the solution to many problems, including those related to guns.

Insurance, as a prerequisite for gun ownership, may initially be a quantifiable solution to the negative effects that guns can have. I fear the inability to enforce such insurance, would lead to a highly profitable aspect of insurance ownership, e.g. the 'uninsured gun owner policy', similar to the uninsured motorist coverage available to drivers.

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

Nothing is perfect, but doing nothing, will change nothing.

Writing that one simple law, also takes it out of the hands of government, and puts in markets and courts..

In the end, like in the auto industry, the insurance corporations will use their leverage to force safety changes onto the gun makers.

Over time they will become safer, rather than crazier.

Biometric triggers would be the first aim.

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Interesting and likely factual. Better than nothing.

Actually 'Biometric Operation' combined with a 'GPS Tracker'...........Shit, phones have both.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I'm a lot more reasonable about this than I appear sometimes.

I'm just tired of it going on for SO long and NOTHING effective being one about it.

Then there's irrationality of the pro gun death crowd.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

I avoid discussion on the gun issue for many reasons. It seems to detract from much more important issues that are far more pressing, although it can be a great lead in into conversation of other nature.

Thank you.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I agree, but the forum has been flooded with it for weeks now, and the majority of those threads were started by the pro gun death crowd, constantly repeating the NRA's mantras.......

This one takes apart their "original intent" arguments.

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Indeed.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

The current gun culture gets it's hero with a gun status from the American way.

In war, the man with a gun is a hero. Support the troops. They are heroes with guns defending freedom with guns.

Americans still largely view violence and war as the answer to violence and war. And they get this from the leaders that constantly push war and call those with the guns heroes.

stop the war culture, stop the police state, and I think the gun culture would go with it.

Of course gun regulation needs to be put in place in the mean time, as this reverse in culture will not be instant. I support a ban on assault rifles for sure. But I do not support a ban on all guns. I would support a ban on hand guns. They are the number one in gun crime because they are easy to conceal. I'm okay with bolt action hunting rifles and pump action shotguns though.

Where there is poverty we must plant opportunity. Legalizing and heavily regulating drugs would take away a gang's way to profit as well. Gang violence is the number one contributor to gun violence in my city. It's usually over territory, and often times just random. These gangs get their money and guns from the illegal drug trade. Providing opportunity in communities with gang activity would prevent this as well.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

If you want to restrict gun onwership - how about we restrict it in "big cities". Seems that's where all the crime is.

[-] 1 points by BitterClinger (8) 1 year ago

They pretty much have. Chicago, NYC, DC have some of the strictest unconstitutional gun laws in the country and you can see how that is working out!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

that's probably the most reasonable comment you've ever made on the forum.

I still disagree with it though.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

The following is from a CNN opinion story by CNN Contributor Dave Frum:

“(CNN) -- Massacres such as Newtown are horrifying and heart-rending. They are also nothing like the typical American gun murder.

The typical murder has one victim, not many. The typical murder is committed with a handgun, not a rifle. And in the typical murder, both the perpetrator and the victim are young black men. Blacks are six times as likely as whites to be the victim of a homicide. Blacks are seven times as likely to commit a homicide. The horrifying toll of gun violence on black America explains why black Americans are so much more likely than whites to favor gun control.

Conversely, fears of being victimized by violence explain why so many white Americans -- especially older and more conservative white Americans -- insist on the right to bear arms in self-protection. They see gun violence as something that impinges on them from the outside. They don't blame guns for gun violence. They blame a particular subset of the population. And they don't see why they should lose their right because some subset of the population abuses theirs.”

So, my question is simple. What does it accomplish to ban assault rifles? Or to restrict guns for honest, hard working, middle class gun owners who’ve never committed a crime?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

firstly, that CNN article is racist. It focuses on color instead of underlying factors of those who turn to gangs and gun crimes, factors like poverty, the lack of opportunity, ongoing racism, and the easy to access illegal drug trade that allows gang activity to thrive. A failure to address these issues is a failure in conversation on the gun crime issue. You really think these people would be joining gangs if they had access to better education and had the opportunity to get a good paying job?

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

This article is not racist. It states fact on gun violence. To ignore these type facts is to ignore the problem of gun crime.. I think it improper to play the race card on this story.

All the reasons you give for gangs and related gun violence are valid; and we do need to address them as you stated. However, recognizing the causes and wanting to fix it does not preclude people wanting to protect themselves from gangs with guns. It would be naïve to not want to protect yourself.

Two points. If the story is true, then banning assault rifles will have zero effect on crime since most gun crime involves a handgun. And, taking guns from law abiding, middle class citizens will have no effect.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I stand by my comment.

As well as my other comment on this post about the gun culture society.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Alas, then I suggest you ignore the real world and seek a utopia than will never be found.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Now you're making assumptions. I would prefer a buy-back program. I also do not support police raids that violently enter homes nor do I support adding people to the prison system or jails simply for having a gun and have not committed a violent crime with that gun.

Authoritarian government in the pursuit of a utopian society is a ridiculous idea. That's not what I'm talking about, and that's not what I said in either of the 2 comments on this forum post.

The article you linked basically says "black people are dangerous and white people should be able to have guns to defend themselves against dangerous black people." Which is quite ironic considering this post is about drafting the 2nd amendment in fear of slave uprisings. Read my first reply again to see how I point out that the article you linked is not accurate to truth because of the issues it leaves out.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

I stand corrected. I was off topic. However, my posting the CNN article was in response to your support of banning semi-auto rifles. The CNN article stated few gun crimes were committed with AR’s and AK’s. Almost all gun crime is dome with a handgun. So what’s the point of taking semi-auto rifles from law abiding citizens. It won’t make a difference in crime. Do you get it?

I sorry you think posting numbers that reflect black gun crime is much more common. It’s a simple fact, not racist. If someone is attacking me or robbing me I don’t care their race. I’ll probably shoot them.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You get robbed by WallStreet, each and every day.

I don't see you bitching about that.

So yeah, I tend to think it really IS a racial issue, or at least a xenophobic issue.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Check this guy out.

Paul K Chappell

The short version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISPRe27Y0sw

The long version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuKUJCPMly8

Gangs are a different issue.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Long videos. Care to share a few words from them?

How are gangs a different issue? They are the number one contributor to gun violence in my city. Solving the gang problem solves a lot of the gun problem.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The short one is only 14 mins.

He explains the hows, whys and possibilities of "waging peace".

But here, in the interest of peace, is his web site.

http://www.paulkchappell.com/

Gangs are many, varied and complicated, thus deserving of threads of their own.

This one is on the original intent of that most maligned and abused of our amendments.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

It sounds very similar to what I said about the war culture in society. Great video. Watched the 14 minute video.

Also achieving that family quality instills rage when those you know are lost in battle.

Another tactic they use aside from the brotherly love, is degradation of the enemy or even just the people being killed. Like what has been seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Often through prejudice terms to take away the idea of humanity in the people being killed.

Waging Peace is a great idea.

People are not naturally violent and that is well stated in the video. That is why leaders have to use propaganda to start and continue these corporate wars of imperialism.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I'll be looking for his book, next time I'm at B&N.

I like how he articulated his thoughts, and actually offered a way forward.........:)

It's easy to tear things down. Much more difficult to plan the rebuilding.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

R U insane? " . . . being necessary to the Security of a Free State . . . " -- or in other words, civilian ownership of arms was considered necessary for securing/insuring the freedom of a free state. The 2nd Amendment was, and continues to be, truly revolutionary. But you probably regret the American Revolution anyway, yes?

[-] 5 points by agkaiser (1307) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Who were and are the Tory traitors to the American Revolution and why do they own so much property and operate so many banks?

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Would you please provide the answers? Thanks.

[-] 5 points by agkaiser (1307) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Sure:

The Koch brothers and all billionaires are owner/traitors.

Bankers and their minions [but not dupes like cons] include:

  • Bank Executive Salary Total Compensation
  • Bank of America Kenneth D. Lewis Chairman and CEO $1.5 million $24.8 million
  • Bank of America Joe L. Price Chief Financial Officer $800,000 $6.5 million
  • Bank of America Amy Woods Brinkley Global Risk Executive $800,000 $9.3 million

  • Bank of America Barbara J. Desoer Global Technology and Operations Executive $800,000 $10.5 million

  • Bank of America Liam E. McGee President Global Consumer and Small Business Banking $800,000 $12.2 million
  • Bank of America Brian T. Moynihan President of Global Corporate and Investment Banking $718,859 $10.1 million
  • Bank of America R. Eugene Taylor Former Vice Chairman and Former President, Global Corporate and Investment Banking $800,000 $3.3 million
  • Citigroup Sir Winfried Bischoff Chairman $373,734 $6.1 million
  • Citigroup Vikram Pandit CEO $250,000 573,813
  • Citigroup Gary Crittenden Chief Financial Officer $403,410 $19.4 million
  • Citigroup Sallie Krawcheck Chair and CEO—GWM $500,000 $7.1 million
  • Citigroup Lewis Kaden Vice Chairman $500,000 $6.8 million
  • Citigroup Michael Klein CEO- Global Banking $212,500 $7.9 million
  • Citigroup Stephen Volk Vice Chairman $212,500 $7.6 million
  • Citigroup Charles Prince Former Chairman and CEO $1 million $15.1 million
  • Goldman Sachs Lloyd C. Blankfein Chairman and CEO $600,000 $70.3 million
  • Goldman Sachs Gary D. Cohn President and Chief Operating Officer $600,000 $72.5 million
  • Goldman Sachs Jon Winkelried President and Chief Operating Officer $600,000 $71.5 million
  • Goldman Sachs David A. Viniar Chief Financial Officer $600,000 $58.5 million
  • Goldman Sachs Edward C. Forst Chief Administrative Officer $600,000 $49.1 million
  • JP Morgan Chase James Dimon Chairman and CEO $1 million $27.8 million
  • JP Morgan Chase Michael J. Cavanagh Chief financial officer $500,000 $8.3 million
  • JP Morgan Chase Steven D. Black Co-CEO Investment Bank $400,000 $20.9 million
  • JP Morgan Chase James E. Staley CEO Asset Management $400,000 $16.7 million
  • JP Morgan Chase William T. Winters Co-CEO Investment Bank $564,379 $21.2 million
  • Merrill Lynch John A. Thain Chief Executive Officer $57,692 $17.3 million
  • Merrill Lynch Nelson Chai Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer $34,615 $1.7 million
  • Merrill Lynch Gregory J. Fleming President & Chief Operating Officer $350,000 $27.4 million
  • Merrill Lynch Robert J. McCann Executive Vice President $350,000 $5 million
  • Merrill Lynch Jeffrey N. Edwards Former Chief Financial Officer $275,000 $2.6 million
  • Merrill Lynch E. Stanley O’Neal Former Chief Executive Officer $584,231 $24.3 million
  • Merrill Lynch Ahmass L. Fakahany Former Co-President and Co-Chief Operating Officer $350,000 $4.6 million
  • Merrill Lynch Dow Kim Former Executive Vice President $309,615 $14.5 million
  • Morgan Stanley John J. Mack Chairman and CEO $800,000 $1.6 million
  • Morgan Stanley Colm Kelleher Chief Financial Officer $339,603 $21 million
  • Morgan Stanley David H. Sidwell Former Chief Financial Officer $275,000 $14.6 million
  • Morgan Stanley Robert W. Scully Co-President $500,000 $15.2 million
  • Morgan Stanley Gary G. Lynch Chief Legal Officer $300,000 $11.9 million
  • Morgan Stanley Thomas R. Nides Chief Administrative Officer $300,000 $6.3 million
  • New York Mellon Bank Robert P. Kelly Chief Executive Officer $975,000 $20.1 million
  • New York Mellon Bank Thomas A. Renyi Executive Chairman $1 million $22.2 million
  • New York Mellon Bank Gerald L. Hassell President $800,000 $11.8 million
  • New York Mellon Bank Bruce W. Van Saun Vice Chariman and Chief Financial Officer $650,000 $8.9 million
  • New York Mellon Bank Steven G. Elliott Senior Vice Chairman $675,000 $19.7 million
  • New York Mellon Bank Ronald P. O'Hanley Vice Chairman $675,000 $11.5 million
  • State Street Corp. Ronald E. Logue Chief Executive Officer $1 million $28.3 million
  • State Street Corp. Edward J. Resch Chief Financial Officer $650,000 $6.6 million
  • State Street Corp. Joseph L. Hooley Vice Chairman $725,000 $10.3 million
  • State Street Corp. Joseph C. Antonellis Vice Chairman $675,000 $9 million
  • State Street Corp. James S. Phalen Executive Vice President $480,000 $7 million
  • Wells Fargo Richard M. Kovacevich Chairman $995,000 $22.9 million
  • Wells Fargo John G. Stumpf President & Chief Executive Officer $749,615 $12.6 million
  • Wells Fargo Howard I. Atkins Senior Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer $600,000 $5.1 million
  • Wells Fargo David A. Hoyt Senior Executive Vice President, Wholesale Banking $600,000 $6.4 million
  • Wells Fargo Mark C. Oman Senior Executive Vice President, Home & Consumer Finance $600,000 $6.4 million
  • Wells Fargo Carrie L. Tolstedt Senior Executive Vice President, Community Banking $495,192 $4 million
[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

What a listing!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Still having issues with reading the info in a link,eh?

Then of course there's the question of why gun nutters have allowed a legalization of treason on the federal level in 1974 and tyranny in Michigan 2010 without saying so much as a word.

No the tyranny thing is bullshit. You know it, I know it.. so drop it.

It was written that way to pander to Virginia slavers.

So I guess it's you who is insane.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Virginia WAS the largest and wealthiest (thanks to slavery) state at that time.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Hush now. Too much reality shorts out their lead poisoned brains.

Why else do think there is SO much nonsense coming out of the pro gun death crowd.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Repubs wrong on gun issue

They know support is growing for reasonable gun safety regulations and they are squealing like stuck pigs.

LOL Let 'em squeal. They are wrong on this issue.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Something has to be done.

The pro gun death supporters are out numbered.

Actual Moms and Dads are tired of the carnage.

They're already squealing like stuck pigs and nothings even happened yet.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It is amazing to see. I hope we get strong regs.

I believe we will hear tomorrow. I suppose it won't be as much as I want but the gun nuts will go berserk.

LOL

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

They've been in a racist frenzy for 4 years now.

Foaming at the mouth.

KKK membership is way up.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Not just kkk, many racist groups. Early on Pres Obama tried to increase investigation of right wing domestic terror groups and the right wing repubs went berzerk.

I think they need to to revisit that increase. There is great risk to the President, and this gun issue is a major motivator for the right wing wackos.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

You are an extremely unpleasant communicator. I have to hold my nose to converse with you.

Truth-out is a left gatekeeper propaganda apparatus. Thom Hartmann is the "progressive" who believes all official government narratives -- what a fraud, what a gatekeeper.

None of that matters of course, you are just a cheap gunhate nutter who will reach for 'any stick in a fight.'

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But don't we support progressive (leftist) solutions for the mess that conservative policies created.?

You got a problem with progressive-ism?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You say that as though you've ever had something pleasant to say.

You're just afraid of the truth.

The defense tyranny thing is BULLSHIT!

If it wasn't, you guys would be marching on Lansing.

But you're not.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

kag is what he is,.........one of the programmed " useful idiots".

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Fear of the black man (race riots) still is at the center of much gun ownership. Unfounded fear.

The other unfounded, ridiculous, paranoid fear is that of the fed govt coming to take their guns. Pathetic and dangerous.

Excellent post. Illuminating. Doubtful the gun nuts (who're unaware that NRA/mfg are simply fighting for the continued profits they derive from weak gun regs) will respond.

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Found this a few minutes ago on wikipedia reading about Herbert Hoover

The treatment of African-Americans during the disaster endangered Hoover's reputation as a humanitarian. Local officials brutalized blacks and prevented them from leaving relief camps, aid meant for African-American sharecroppers was often given to the landowners instead, and many times black males were conscripted by locals into forced labor, sometimes at gun point.[77]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Mississippi_flood

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Not surprising, Hoover was a raging racist most likely. The whol country was disgustingly racist.

History is full of these tragic injustice. We've come far, but have far to go.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Well last year I was down on Hoover based on Hoovervilles. I'd heard that he didn't do enough to help people. But as I've looked deeper it gets more complicated. He was a Quaker child that lost both his parents. ANd then he ended up on the West Coast and Went to Standford and became an Engineer and seemed to start a business. He had had a rich rleative that took him in, so he ended up going from poor to privileged. Anyway interesting that he became a kind of humanitarian, and saved a lot of Russians from the Famine after their Revolution.

I guess if I grew up rich then maybe I'd have been better educated and cared for and have had a hand up in the world too.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think hoover was a horrible president & person. I do not see him as a humanitarian because of his lack of concern & action in helping the poor/vets/minorities in this country.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

You might be right. We never saw "nice guys in Washington" providing civil rights because they were nice guys. As far as I know the illusions of america being so nice arose in the 1950s. And I think tere were some good movie makers that really believed in equality and put out movies with these kind of good values of fairness & equality.

But based on the undeclared wars from Korea, Vietnam, and all the rest ... plus the lack of civil rights... hard to say we had real "nice guys" in Washington. And look at our crap history book, oy.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We gotta create progress and a better history for our children to look back on.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

barky is worse,....far worse.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ahhhh ha ha ha. Your comment was removed. Looks like you crossed the line again Klan girl.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

so it was removed,............oh !! the horror of it all. s/

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Repubs wrong on racial issues

Shows your racist colors. You lose. As always racists always lose in the end.

[-] -3 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

since the dems started the KKK,........they are the losers.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Aaaaaaaah ha ha ha. You're goin back a century and a half.? You think it's the same party? kl;an girl. How does your Klan brothers & sisters feel about the Dem party now?

LOL

[-] -3 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

the dems are still the racists.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Tiresome but you keep comin back!

There is no way I could know your race. But you did spew racist slurs, THAT I know.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

thats right, you have no idea regarding my skin color, you dont know whether im black of not. by the way,..did you ever find any jewish slurs that you say im guilty of posting? , didnt think so, since i didnt do it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

As a racist, do you embrace the dem agenda?

[-] 0 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

you are so tiresome. you've been played. you dont know what race i am.

[+] -4 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

though im not a racist, i want nothing to do with the far left dem/lib/progressive party

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But you did spew racial slurs. why would you do that if you weren't a racist?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"barky"? Is that another racial slur against Pres Obama.?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Even the NRA itself has admitted it's nothing more than a gun manufacturers lobby these days. Then it asked them for more money.....:)

Oooooops.......LOOK!

More libe(R)tarians, fuckin' up more American stuff.

http://www.alternet.org/suprising-unknown-history-nra

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Excellent. They ain't foolin anybody.

Their time, and their repub puppets time will come.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

And that's not all folks!!

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/overview-americas-gun-and-violence-crisis-and-how-2nd-amendment-got-hijacked-nra-and

I now believe they are involved in an active agenda to tear this country apart for profit.

In the art of deduction, it's all that is left.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Repubs wrong on issue of profits over people.

They have no honor! Profits over people. If we stay focused we will rid this nation of the scourge of the 99%.

Excellent link.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Fast forward to 2013. The 2nd amendment prevents the anti-gun tyrants from stealing our liberties. That is the reality of today.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They HAVE stolen our liberties.

  • Indef detention (repub created),

  • Infringing on right to protest (repub created),

  • Stop & frisk (repub created),

  • Patriot act (repub created),

  • Internet freedoms abridged/reading out emails (repub created)

  • phonetaps (repub created)

And others. So I guess you're absolutely WRONG. Your gun ownership did NOTHING to prevent that loss of freedom. In fact it was YOUR party that YOU put in office that stole our liberties.

LOL, what a joke.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

You won’t get an argument from me that the government has stolen many liberties. I’m just trying to prevent them from taking my right to own a gun.

Here’s a link about how Texas may deal with any new federal gun laws.

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Repubs wrong on liberties issue!

So then owning guns has nothing to with preventing theft of our liberties?

Didn't you just suggest that was the reason you wanted the guns?.

Well, what happened?. We already got 300 million guns how come you let them take our liberties?

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Are you suggesting armed insurrection? No, I’m not ready to take up arms. I think the masses will eventually wake up see problems. My hope is both the left and right finally realize they need to work together to fix our government.

I think the division of our people will bring the nation down. Only when we figure out we must work together will we be able to address our problems. Surely you understand that?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

"the division of our people will bring the nation down."

Can you say FLAKESnews?

How about Heritage Foundation?

The Koch Foundation?

How about CATO?

The Mackinaw Center?

700Club?

C'mon. show me what you got.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Aaaaaaah ha ha ha! Then what do guns have to do with keeping the tyrants from stealing our liberties.?

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

You want to know how to solve most of the gun crime in America? I’ll tell you. Get rid of the gangs. It really is that simple. Get rid of the gangs and drugs and Chicago will a lot less shootings. Send in the cops to Compton and Oakland and take the gangs guns and a lot fewer people will get shot.

Then lock up violent felons forever. Don’t ever let them out to hurt anyone again.

I’m surprised this hasn’t come up during the gun ban talk. I think it’s because most street gangs are ethnic, and It’s not PC to discuss it. But in the end getting rid of gangs, regardless of race, is the real solution. How can anyone not see that.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

littlefarmertoe - you need to work on the cures you offer - like you should support the end of prohibition if you want to see a reduction in gang violence over drugs. ( personal choice/freedom issue )

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

I think all drugs that are now illegal should stay illegal, even marijuana, but I’m a realist and understand putting people in jail for smoking a joint is not the solution. If it were up to me probably most petty grass possession charges would be dismissed or maybe a fine, like a traffic ticket.

Our jails and prisons should be for true criminals, including repeat offenders, violent offenders and anyone who is threat to society. I bet if we did that we could release half the prison population and crime would not increase.

Even an old country boy like me knows the difference between marijuana and hard core destructive drugs. Mind you, I still think marijuana should be illegal, but not a prison offense.

So, my original idea still applies. Get rid of the gangs and violence and gun crime will drop like a rock. Do you disagree?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Prohibition on alcohol was real effective too. OH - Wait - it was not ...huh.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Boy, DK, You're a hard guy to talk to. No matter what someone says you find a way to disagree. Are you that cynical?

I like guns, but I'm not your enemy.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

BTW - your idea about obliterating gangs is about as funny as confiscating all guns as it was stupid to think that prohibition could work.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Well, then what is the solution to gun crime?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Heal the ills of society - thought that would be obvious.

Living wage + available employment

And such things as that.

You and I have been over this ground before - toe um joe - um farmer.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Gun crime?

You know as well as I, that YOU just gave the solution.

The ONLY solution to something that specific is obviously to remove all guns from circulation.

So how do you intend to do that?

Since you asked.

BTW How's the lead exposure treating you today?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Framerjoe - I have not said anything to you about guns - what I have said is that your thinking is faulty.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Every post I've made over the past few days was about the futulity of more gun restructions. You couldn't have missed it.

You save the world as you see fit. I just want the government to leave honest gun owners alone. That's my message in a nutshell.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Gangs suck. I've only had limited involvement at a very young age with gangs a bit less violent.

In any event I certainly agree gang violence MUST be addressed. In NYC city we have Mexican, Chinese, Russian, Latin, Black, Italian gangs and others but seems to me we should be targeting the gangs AND the southern low life bastards that are selling them the guns!

Put THEM away for life along with the gangsters.

That'll do it.

[-] -2 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

The message I’m trying to get across is taking guns from law abiding citizens will not make a dent in gun crime. Making gang eradication a priority will make a huge difference in gun crime. Just leave us honest, hard working, middle class gun owners alone. We are not your enemy.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Sure but we can go after the low lifes who are selling guns to gangs right?

And put 'em away for life along with the gangsters.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

On that we agree 100%. Anyone selling a gun to a known criminal should have a long prison sentance. That includes straw buyers.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Aiight 'den. That's what has to happen. We cannot do that because the people who sell to criminals do it without any background check.

What are we gonna do?

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

I have always supported background checks. Every gun owner I know (and I know a few) support background checks. No one wants to sell a gun to a criminal.

It would be a bit of a hassle for me personally since I buy/sell my guns from individuals that don’t do background checks. But I could live with it.

However, I won’t register my guns. I don’t trust the government any more than you. Paranoia or not, I see registration as a precursor to confiscation.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What about "liberties" recently stolen in Michigan?

You like to pretend these are only on the federal level and you couldn't be more wrong.

Oh, and BTW, did you get checked for lead exposure yet?

It should be done for the entire State of Texas

PS, since you obviously missed it.

t's time for the, and here's the truth of who they are, gun fetishists, to finally understand that the rest of us are sick and tired of gun carnage in all it's putrid forms.

They have yet to give a single inch that they have not clawed and scratched to get back. Often at great expense to life and limb among the innocent, the non gun fetishists. Oh, and a high level of tax payer expense too.

I have listened to their threats of violence for decades now. Before I ever heard of the NRA.

Here's the bottom line.

Since the fetishists won't offer any kind of significant compromise. A significant inch, if you will, something will still be done and I doubt that you will like it. But you have been offered many chances to help find a solution.

YOU have failed to do so.

You have given us threats.

YOU have given us Alex Jones.

YOU have given us that wild eyed guy in Tennessee, that just plain threatened to start shooting.

YOU have given us other even more militant militias, that threaten to do the same.

All based on lies.

NO!

It's you who needs to understand OUR position.

We're sick of it.

If you won't help fix it, you really are part of the problem.

If you won't fix it?

Somebody else will.

And even if I personally, don't care for their solution, I will still thank them for trying.

I can be no more candid with you.

Here's another bottom line about how OWS has shown your BS about protecting us from tyranny is also far off point.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/12/how-occupy-proved-we-dont-need-guns-against-the-government/

Grow up.

Too many innocents are dying.

[-] -2 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

You are a fucking liar. You know nothing. Fuck you and your Marxist filth. Lets hope a home invader rapes and kills you.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Excuse me?

What was Marxist about any of that?

Do you see boogie men under your bed too?

UFOs in your refrigerator?

FLAKESnews on your TV?

Thanks for the good wishes, I wish you the same.