arma virumque cano (et alia)
Neither presidential candidate has a stellar spoken or voting record on firearms rights.
I agree - they're both WAAAAY tooo lax and lenient about guns.
No, they're both far to much politicians to do anything that would lose that many votes.
Republicans do tend to be better on gun rights than Democrats. Democrats ought to join the freedom movement so as to have a chance to win the middle of the country again.
The 'freedom' movement is another example of putting a particularly unpleasant shade of lipstick on the vigilanteism, chaos and lawless euphemism, and massively failed gun culture.In other words, the antithesis of civilization.
What makes you think your idea of "civilization" is possible?
And pass all the gun control laws you want. How does that stop criminals from making their own simple, fully-functional guns out of $15 in parts at local hardware stores?And where does government get the power to tell me what objects I can own and possess?
Anonymous is using the simpleton's rationale. Criminals will get guns anyway so let's make it easier for them.
I demonstrated that gun control does not affect criminals or their ability to commit violent crimes in any significant way.So at best gun control is a waste of money and effort. At worst it prevents huge numbers of citizens from having firearms for personal protection.My argument isn't about making it easier for criminals to get guns. My argument is that government has no place telling a citizen what they can or cannot own.
To guarantee life, liberty, and property for all citizens of a nation, there must be to some degree a collectivization of resources in order to protect the fundamental liberties of the persons subject to the rule of the State from infringement by their fellow citizen. Without the government there would be no rights. The twenty-first century American is very much a creation of the state, as without police officers, firefighters, social workers, and soldiers, there would be no quality of life, no liberty and no property worth defending. We must at all times consider ourselves a creation of the State, which has (directly or indirectly) endowed the ordinary subject, with their very lives, property and the freedoms that we take for granted. The collectivization of some rights in inherent to the formation of a civilized society. Police are endowed with coercive power, while mere citizens are not. In order to create a civilized society, where the mighty are not free to exploit the weak, as well as maintain the rule of law, we have traded individual self-defense for the benefit of a professional police force. The mere subject of a State (in this case the U.S.) has no reasonable claim of a "right" to "keep and bear" certain arms, the form of arms which may be lawfully possessed or the manner or place in which such arms are may lawfully used, dependent on the current prevailing interpretation of the (falsely) perceived right. Such a right (as it is claimed) being endowed to the mere person, by the current U.S. constitution, would contradict a (rather fundamental) right to civilian disarmament, which may be derived from the provisions of the preamble which specifically establish the obligation of the State to "ensure domestic tranquility" (therefore requiring a disarmed citizenry) and to "provide for the common defense" which requires State actors to have a monopoly on the lawful use of coercive power (such as the lawful use of arms)If the "real prize" are the SCOTUS appointments, then such appointees could eventually interpret the Second Amendment's reference to a "Militia" (note that "Militia" is capitalized) to deem all arms (or any object manufactured with the intent for use as a weapon) within the borders of the U.S. to be State property, to be issued to a militia (and only a militia or other State actor or Authorized person) by an act of congress.
You love to talk about the militia, but note who is identified as having the right: the people. Not the state, not the militia, not the government. The people.
Anonymous you haven't demonstrated shit." My argument is that government has no place telling a citizen what they can or cannot own."Is that right? Do you live in a cave in upper Idaho? No? Then you're full of it. That tough guy libertarian bullshit is just that, bullshit. You just like guns and you don't want to be inconvenienced in the owning and using of them.
Greg Camp: "You love to talk about the militia, but note who is identified as having the right: the people. Not the state, not the militia, not the government. The people."You fail to realize that the phrase "the people" is a rather collective term. The framers, (of the current Constitution)as intelligent as they where made no reference to the individual. The people have a right to bear arms, and the practice of such is referred to with such terms as "Army" or "Navy" in the Constitution.Either you are illiterate (which is certainly plausible considering the ideologies which you appear to subscribe to) or you have such a grandiose self image that you consider yourself to be a representation of "the people" (which manifests in the fact that you feel the need to represent the community of "gun owners" as a whole) The use of yourself to personify the collective term of "the people" is the American equivalent of the "royal We". Stop self-aggrandizing, and join "reality".
E.N., it's strange that the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments all refer to the people as well. Can you explain how we have a collective right to be secure in our persons, households, papers, and effects, for example? It's also curious how you find the words "Army" and "Navy" in the Second Amendment. You must have a pair of those special glasses that Ben Gates wore in National Treasure.
Amendment Seventeen gives the power to elect senators to the people as well--the people, as distinct from the state in which they live.
The "Army" (notice the root word "arm" in "Army", as such are the legitimate users of the collective arms) and the "Navy" where established by the constitution. Unlike you, an intelligent person would read my comment before assuming that I had misspoke (or created some form of error). Notice how mention the word "Constitution" as opposed to "Second Amendment" when referring to the establishment of the "Army" and "Navy", you, Greg failed to make the distinction between the language (a seemingly new concept to you) which appears in my comment.Also, if you understand the context in which the Constitution was conceived, (as a means for the protection of State sovereignty) and you don't interpret nonsense into the Constitution, and manipulate the context as you see necessary to conform to your ideology, then we might actually make some progress here. The "Bill of Rights" was never intended to apply to the mere person. They are all collective rights, which protect the activities of non-individual entities, such as the States. Under the original context of the Constitution, the mere citizen cannot reasonably claim to be endowed with any rights provided under the Second Amendment, as well as the "First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments" which you claim to apply to the ordinary subject. You are correct in asserting that the right exists, however you fail to realize that the right doesn't belong to you.Before you spout, such ridiculous notions here, I have a few suggestions:1 Before posting, (or make any statement for that matter) ask yourself "What would a reasonable and intelligent person do if they where in my position?" 2 Read my comments and (please try) to understand them3 Do yourself a favor, and stop making fantastical claims of "individual liberties" existing (they are concepts which do not apply to individuals)4 Stop scaring people. Rather unfortunately (feebleminded) people listen to you. Stop taking advantage of their naivete, and poisoning their minds with your anarchist, Anti-American propaganda.5 Read (or learn how to). Do your homework. Do research on a topic before you make grandiose claims. You might learn something.
E.N., blithering isn't an answer. You failed to explain how the Fourth Amendment protects a collective right. How can the Fifth Amendment protect a collective right when it specifically names a person accused of a crime? You also consistently fail to notice who is identified in the Second Amendment as having the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Constitution establishes the military powers of the United States, but that in no way excludes individual liberties. You fail to address why the Constitution names the states and the people as distinct entities.Unlike you, I'll address your enumerated points:1. Your standards of reasonable and intelligent are in doubt. You keep telling us that a person is the subject of the government. Of what use is intelligence or reason in your system? Intelligent and reasonable people make choices on their own. You want mindless tools.2. I do read your comments, and I weed through them to find the point. Your point is the same in every one: People are the property of the state. It doesn't take much to figure out what you're saying.3. Do you mean the individual liberties that the Founders of this country spoke about? Do you mean the liberties that Americans since then have treasured and defended? Do you mean the right of each person to make individual choices? None of that is fantastical.4. Unlike the type of society that you want, here in America, I can express my opinions freely. There are several dictatorships and a few theocracies still around, if that's your taste, but in this country, you don't get to tell me to stop saying things that you disagree with.5. Read? I do. Do my homework? I do. Research a topic? I do. Make grandiose claims? I don't. Learn something? I do.
Greggy: Why do we Dems need to win the middle of the country? The answer, of course, is we don't need to. Nobody lives there.Do we really want to embrace the values of the middle of the ccountry? Do we need to teach our kids that Jesus rode a dinosaur and that science is all just trickery and hoaxes?
Baby Goblin, you truly are an idiot. There are fifty states in this country. To control Congress, you need more than just the coastal blue states.
Let's explain math to Greggy.A state like Kansas has 6 electoral votes. But a state like New York has 29. IOW, it takes 5 states the size of KS to overtake NY.CA has 55, Nebraska has 5. Again, it takes 11 states the size of NE to equal CA.Seems the REpugs would be wiser to support gun control and try to get some of those coastal states--the ones with higher literacy rates and better schools.
Why are you referring to electoral votes? Did you note that I said Congress? Each state gets two senators.
greggy: The number of EVs also corresponds to the number of Reps a state is allocated.But EVs count for the biggest prize: the WH.Sheesh...everything has to be explained for gunloons.
Jadegold, do you understand the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate? Greg said “Each state gets two senators”, and you are talking about Reps. The House isn’t all-or-none by state anyway, so your point is lost. There Republican Reps in districts in California and NY who vote with the Republicans on national issues.
TS: The Dems control the Senate--that's not going to change any time soon.The real prize is the WH--and those several SC justice openings that will occur in the next 4 years.So, to sagely recap the math for you: Dems control the Executive Branch. Dems will control the Judicial branch. And they'll control at least half the Legislative branch.
Jadegold hasn't comprehended the Second Amendment, so it's no shock that he can't follow the other parts of the document.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jade, that maybe true, but you are backpedalling. I'm glad I was able to educate you on how our legislative branch works.
TS: I remain correct.Greggy inartfully opined: "Democrats ought to join the freedom movement so as to have a chance to win the middle of the country again."Well, the fact that the Dems control the Senate and will again this cycle means they aren't losing. Further, as I sagely noted, the big prize is the WH which gets those SC nominations.
The prize this election is the SCOTUS appointments that go with the WH.The Dems will not lose the Senate, and may very well either gain the house, or it will be so close as to not be a cert for the right.With the lunacy of the likes of Akin, ALL the down ballot races are in play -- Congress, and the state legislatures and governor's seats as well.Jade called it absolutely correctly - despite his little bobble to the better, Romney and Ryan have been very poor candidates who have a track record almost as bad as Bachmann's for being factually inaccurate, and for lying through their teeth.I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems retake the house, increase their seats in the Senate, and hold the WH.That right wing war on women has pissed off a lot of the ladies, including the GOP ladies -- and rightly so.
Do you really believe that, Dog Gone? You really think that the House will go Democratic this time? Is Fairyland all it's made out to be?
DG said "Romney and Ryan have been very poor candidates who have a track record almost as bad as Bachmann's for being factually inaccurate, and for lying through their teeth."Guess the latest news this morning regarding the "lying through their teeth" about the Libya incident by the White House and the Administration is ok with you?
Let me get this straight, NitMitt has done more gun control legislation than Obama, but the liberal left loonies are voting for a guy who has done nothing to advance gun control. Okay, that makes sense. LOL!!!!orlin sellers
I'm hoping La Pierre turns out to be right about Obama in the second term.
So you disagree with Rachel’s take, and think the NRA is right to endorse Romney?
There's a lot wrong with the Republicans other than their gun rights support. So, no, I don't disagree with Rachel.
I await an equally scathing piece on the Brady Campaign when they endorse Obama (or don’t endorse Romney)...Of course when Maddow talks about Obama’s record on guns, she only looks at laws put into place during his presidency term (of which she cites two for gun rights and none against). She ignores his Senate record and local Chicago record. The thing is Obama doesn’t get to make laws- that is the job of Congress. He just signs/vetoes them. Congress put two pro-gun bills in front of him and no anti-gun bills (and one of them was a rider). If we look at things that he has more control over, his record is not so good. He picked a very anti-gun justice to the Supreme Court who will be voting on the side of gun control for probably the next 30 or so years. That hurts. I am not even counting Kagan because she might be more moderate on guns, but Sotomayor voted against McDonald after she said Heller was “good precedent going forward” at her confirmation hearings. Would any of you gun control lovers trade Sotomayor to get your Amtrak and National Parks ban back? I didn’t think so. I would make that trade in a heartbeat. That means Obama's term is a net win for you guys so far.We can also look at his record when he has full control. He has sole executive discretion to ban the importation of M1 carbines, and that is exactly what he did when the opportunity was presented to him. That is straight up anti-gun. But that was using his executive powers trough laws already in place, so Rachel doesn’t count that. The bright side to Obama is that even though he is fully on the side of gun control, it is rather low on his list of priorities. That is why he is not spending a lot of his political capitol on your cause. But we can expect him to sign any gun control bill that would somehow make it to his desk, and we can expect him to nominate more anti-gun judges to the Supreme Court- and the often over looked district level (having a pro-gun SC doesn’t matter if the cases never make it that far).Should the NRA endorse Romney? I’d prefer they stick to their guns better than that, but I understand the reality that their endorsement is powerful and they have to pick one of the two leading candidates. Romney sought the NRA’s endorsement. Obama did not. That is the difference right there. Rachel is delusional if she thinks they are going to endorse someone who doesn’t even want their endorsement. Romney changes with the wind, we know that about him. He is not trust worthy, but at least he is pro-gun right now because he sees that as necessary to being elected, and that national dynamic is not going to shift over the next 4 to 8 years. One more thing. Rachel was wrong when she said he signed a permanent Assault Weapons Ban. Sebastian did a great job of setting the record straight on that one. However, the reality makes him look even worse. He thought he was signing an AWB, and made a public statement to that effect, which tells us not only is he cool with banning guns, but he doesn’t read legislation that he signs. Ugh.
"..but I understand the reality that their endorsement is powerful "hahahahahhaha.Yeah, right.
So why does Rachel care?
I'm pretty certain she's about as concerned about the NRA as she is about the neo-nazi vote. That is, she isn't.
How many times do Democrats have to lose elections before they'll realize that gun owners have influence?
Greggy: Haven't lost one yet due to guns.Again, let's go back to 2008. The NRA spent $40M to defeat Obama. That didn't work out well.In 2008, Brady endorsed candidates won over 90% of their races. In U.S. Senate races between a Brady-backed candidate and an NRA endorsed or “A” rated candidate, voters chose the Brady candidate 100% of the time; in House races, 84% of the time.And 2008 is not an outlier. BTW, in Googling, it was interesting to see how many times the NRA called various years--"the most critical or important election in history."Seems gunloon rubes can be fleeced many times.
Jade - what are the stats for the 2010 mid term elections and NRA vs. Brady sponsored candidates?
And don't forget the 1994 election. Apparently, Jadegold only votes in presidential races. Not that I'm complaining.
Thanks TS, Romney is a big loser. You're right.
I like Maddow's take on this. He's a fine young journalist.
She is a very careful, energetic and clever woman; a former Rhodes scholar among her other accomplishments.She is indeed an excellent journalist. An accomplished author as well, and apparently quite gifted at the occasional tending of bar.
You betcha DG, I'm always impressed with Rhodes scholars, journalists and bar tenders with prejudiced and biased opinions.orlin sellers
From what I've seen here, she's a shrill, whining activist posing as a journalist.
You sound pretty shrill and whining yourself from time to time, Greg.
What annoys me is her smug tone--I know better than you, she's always implying. That's something that you and Dog Gone are familiar with.
Or, deep down you're really a misogynist who hates gays after all.
On the contrary, some of the best people I've known are a lesbian couple that live in Nashville. Maddow's sex and orientation are irrelevant to me.
Plus, she played Chandler on friends.
Out of curiosity, what wonderful legislation would the Democrats pass if they controlled Congress again? It's been so long 111th, and so much has been done