|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gutless US Senate
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
I'm amazed that no-one has started a thread (especially in Hell) about the US Senate rejecting any trace of gun control.
My feelings match those of this article: gutless Genate bows to lobby, not argument .
"So the US is cool with killing kids.
Like the 26 victims of December's massacre at a Connecticut primary school, all the reform clauses in the latest challenge to America's culture of guns and violence have gone down, shot down by a gutless Senate."
The author also generalised, though perhaps a little too far:
"Excuse me, next time the US struts the world stage, claiming American exceptionalism, setting itself out as leader of the so-called free world, it risks being dismissed as a nation of idiots. It's too easy to defer to strong polling support for gun control and to just vent about the Senate and the House – after all, who elects them?"
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Yeah. Well said. What else is there to say? Same old, same old.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
Gutless or simply corrupt?
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Oh the Senators have guts alright. It takes guts to stand up in public and say "Yeah, I'm voting the way I was told to by some guys with money, and I don't care what the people I actually represent think, so screw you."
It's just that "having guts" is almost always an excuse for "I'm going to do something stupid, and I don't care what you think"
IOW, "having guts" is on a par with being a 15-y.o. male, in far too many cases. "Frat boy" movies are all about "having the guts" to do something totally moronic.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Given all the arguments for the background checks as being common sense, the vote against it was senseless as well as gutless.
I hope the voters in November remember these senators and rid the Senate of them.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Unfortunately the same money that bought their votes will buy their reelection.
What is needed is a loud, sustained, rational, eloquent public outcry, not only from Americans but from the foreign press and dignitaries. I'm sorry to have to say it as a citizen of this country, but only when the United States is held up to the rest of the world, consistently and relentlessly, as the laughing-stock it has become, will true change have a chance of happening.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Alas, Miss Amanada, all that will happen if the foreign media, or indeed anyone at all from outside the US comments, we will be told that this is the US, nothing that ever happened anywhere else in the world could possibly apply to the US, so the position of global laughingstock is just a tribute to the fact that the US is different and the rules that apply to eveyone else and to everything else don't apply. Because "We are the US and we are different. And we can never be asked to change. Because we are the US and we are different."
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
And I guess, to a certain extent, the internal laws don't affect me too much as a foreigner. I care, but only because of the impact on friends who are in the States. Otherwise, the USA is a foreign country that has a significantly different culture to my own.
I am more likely to become distressed about oppressive regimes, starvation and allocation of wealth in other countries. but to my shame, my main concern is our negative finances and will we survive my completion of a three year training job without having to rejig our mortgage.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
I'd love to be worked up and offended, but I expect this. I'm all out of outrage.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
I hear you there, comet. If I could be arsed to even read why it was rejected (hopefully because due to Senate parliamentary rules, some idiot was able to tack on an unacceptable ammendment, but I doubt it), I might be able to work up some outrage. But as you said, I'm fresh out.
That having been said, I lots a couple of pretty nice guns that should have been mine in my son's latest divorce. I'll have to get hold of my ex-father-in-law (awkward) before the rules tighten up... He had no objection giving them back, but like I said, awkward... my son hurt his daughter pretty bad.
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
I hear you there, comet. If I could be arsed to even read why it was rejected (hopefully because due to Senate parliamentary rules, some idiot was able to tack on an unacceptable ammendment, but I doubt it), I might be able to work up some outrage. But as you said, I'm fresh out.
"Stupid rules" in the sense that everything needs 60 votes to get anywhere in the Senate, yes. "Stupid rules" in some bizarre arcane sense, no - it only got about 55 votes (not quite a straight party-line vote: about 5 Dems voted against and 5 Repubs voted for.)
So, like comet said, this isn't new stupidity - it's the same old stupidity.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
I know where to move to if I want a gun. But I think I'll stay here in England for now, thanks. If I ever visit the US I hope I won't get shot.
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I'm glad it failed.
I've been in favor of gun control all my life but the idea of allowing any yahoo working at the flea market to know my medical status is not something I can ever be in favor of. Lots of psychiatrists have come out against this bill. They say that mentally ill people are going to be less likely to seek help if they know it means their problems are going to be made available to the government as well as some of the general population through background checks. Less people receiving the medication they need would be more problems.
Why couldn't we simply have made the manufacture and sale of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and high volume clips illegal without having to infringe on the privacy rights of citizens?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Mentally ill people are going to be less likely to seek help if they know it means their problems are going to be made available to the government as well as some of the general population through background checks.
Well, mentally ill people who want to buy guns, anyway. Which brings us to the question . . . .
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
What question?
Might they want to go hunting?
If they're buying guns to do harm could it be that they will avoid going to the doctor -- and remain in their delusion-- if they think it will prevent them from being able to buy a gun?
Are you sure the gun seller will only look up people who are actually there to buy guns?
Don't you think he might look up the neighbor he is suspicious of, even if he isn't actually there trying to buy guns?
If it's someone he doesn't like, don't you think he might spread his finding s all over town?
I think the members of the NRA are behind the whole idea of background checks as a distraction from their own objective -- which is to keep their guns. For years they have succeeded in doing this by saying that they are the good guys, and as the good guys the more guns they have the safer we all are. They tell us that the reason for all the gun deaths are that bad guys have guns and the way to keep bad guys from getting guns is to have point-of -sale background checks. Then no bad guys will have guns and we will all be safe in our beds. Most importantly, their gun collection will remain intact.
Never mind that most bad guys steal their guns from the good guys. Never mind that the young mentally ill people who commit gun crimes have usually never been diagnosed by a psychiatrist.
Right now, a large percentage of Americans are in favor of this bill because of Newtown. Never mind that Newtown would still have happened if background checks had been in place.
The NRA thinks guns don't kill people, that people kill people. That's why they want laws that control which people buy guns. I don't agree with them. I think guns kill people and gun control should be about controlling guns, not people.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think guns kill people and gun control should be about controlling guns, not people.
I'll bite. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
So - explain this to me, please. I own several guns, and not one of them has killed anyone while I've owned them.* While I realize that mine is but a small sample, I find it odd that they've never made so much as an attempt to kill anyone. Of course, that could be because they're locked up securely when not on my person, I suppose.
Or - and I know this may be shocking - maybe it's because I haven't picked them up, loaded them, pointed them at someone, and pulled the trigger. My having not taken those four separate, distinct actions may have something to do with it as well, I think.
I also own more than one pocketknife, and I don't generally go anywhere without one. Not one of them has killed anyone, either, to my knowledge. Nor has my old baseball bat, or the hammers, crowbars, etc. in the garage. Nor has my automobile. Why? The common factor is lack of (wait for it) human actions that would cause that to happen.
A tool is just that - a tool. It doesn't kill, because it cannot act without human interaction. Unless someone's selling new, AI-equipped firearms I haven't seen yet, the root cause of the problem isn't the tool, it's the human behind it. Humans were killing each other long before gunpowder was invented, and I'm sad to say they'll likely be doing it long after they've moved on to laser cannons or something yet to be conceived of.
------------------------------------------------------
* A couple are "Curio & Relic" firearms, as defined by U.S. law - one from WWII, and another that may have seen action in the Balkans. I make no warranty as to what they may have been used for before I got them.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think the members of the NRA are behind the whole idea of background checks as a distraction from their own objective -- which is to keep their guns.
Their objective is to protect the financial interests of the gun manufacturers and distributors.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
So - explain this to me, please. I own several guns, and not one of them has killed anyone while I've owned them.* While I realize that mine is but a small sample, I find it odd that they've never made so much as an attempt to kill anyone. Of course, that could be because they're locked up securely when not on my person, I suppose.
Or - and I know this may be shocking - maybe it's because I haven't picked them up, loaded them, pointed them at someone, and pulled the trigger. My having not taken those four separate, distinct actions may have something to do with it as well, I think. ...
A tool is just that - a tool. It doesn't kill, because it cannot act without human interaction.
Yes, but the whole and entire point is that not everybody is like you. And how do the authorities find out who is, or is not, like you? It is far easier to control guns than it is to control people, though you probably need a bit of both.)
It's true that gun crime is, in the end, down to what people do, but, there was a guy talking on the radio this morning about violent crime and death in the UK as compared to the US. Here's some of the key points, as best I can remember them: - There's actually more violent crime (per head of the population) in the UK than in the US and yet the death rate is much lower, specifically...
- Only 1 in 13 violent crimes in the UK end in death, whereas in the US, there is a much higher death rate (1 in 3?) per violent incident, specifically because so much violent crime in the US involves the use of a gun
- Statistics just released show that the number of homicides in the UK has fallen from (almost) 2% to around 1%. Remind me what the homicide rate is in the US.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Statistics just released show that the number of homicides in the UK has fallen from (almost) 2% to around 1%. Remind me what the homicide rate is in the US.
[/list]
Fortunately for UK residents it isn't 1%, it's 1 per 100 000.
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Yeah. Posting in haste. Was reflecting on it later that day and going - 'that's a bit high!'
Here's something from a different site: from April 2010-April 2011, there were 648 homicides recorded in England and Wales, (combined population c.56 million) of which 58 were caused by a gun.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Yes, but the whole and entire point is that not everybody is like you. And how do the authorities find out who is, or is not, like you? It is far easier to control guns than it is to control people, though you probably need a bit of both.)
The problem with this argument is that we already have the laws in place to do just that - what we don't have is equal application of them. For instance, my state consistently reports data on felony convictions, mental health commitments, etc. to the federal NICS database. Virginia (the state where the Virginia Tech shooting occurred) does not, however - and neither do a significant number of other states. Want to find out who's prohibited? Simples. Actually require the state governments to start following current law. No new legislation needed.
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
It's true that gun crime is, in the end, down to what people do...
I'm glad we can agree on something. For that matter, all crime is down to what people do.
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Remind me what the homicide rate is in the US.
Here's a bit from the Washington Post:
quote:
The national homicide rate for 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 citizens — less than half of what it was in the early years of the Great Depression, when it peaked before falling precipitously before World War II. The peak in modern times of 10.2 was in 1980, as recorded by national criminal statistics.
“We’re at as low a place as we’ve been in the past 100 years,” says Randolph Roth, professor of history at Ohio State University and author of this year’s “American Homicide,” a landmark study of the history of killing in the United States.
reference
It should be noted here that the national homicide rate is at a historic low - even as the "assault weapons" ban expired, even as states passed carry permit laws, even taking into account mass shootings (which really are a separate category with its own causes, but I digress).
My major beef with the proposed legislation is that it's a red herring set up by folks on one side of the gun issue. If the left wants gun control/registration/confiscation (depends on exactly which politician we're talking about), then they should have the guts to say so, and do it without the crocodile tears and histrionics. Don't tie it to the Newtown tragedy, which would not have been prevented by anything anyone in Congress proposed. If you want to prevent another Newtown, fund mental health care in this country. Treat the problem, not the external symptom.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
McChicken
Shipmate
# 2555
|
Posted
As an aside, can I just say to jbohn that, even though I'm a foreigner who finds the American gun culture weird and dangerous and, on the basis of "If you can't say anything good" I'm not even going to mention the NRA, your post was well-considered, articulate, slightly ironic yet polite with just a soupcon of humour.
Are you sure you're American?
(PS Apologies for being complimentary in Hell.)
--------------------
"We're not playing tiddly-winks here mate."
"While the opposite of a true statement is a false statement, the opposite of a profound truth can be another profound truth."
Posts: 634 | From: Ko Ngati Pakeha raua ko Ngai Tahu ahau | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
That's okay. You made up for it by being insulting to Americans as a whole.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by McChicken:
As an aside, can I just say to jbohn that, even though I'm a foreigner who finds the American gun culture weird and dangerous and, on the basis of "If you can't say anything good" I'm not even going to mention the NRA, your post was well-considered, articulate, slightly ironic yet polite with just a soupcon of humour.
Are you sure you're American?
(PS Apologies for being complimentary in Hell.)
As Twilight has noted, you managed to be anti-complimentary at the same time...
I'm going to be even worse and be fully complimentary, but I'm a Host and can get away with it. Jbohn has, over time, struck me as the most articulate and thoughtful 'pro-gun' person I've ever encountered.
Most of that impression has been developed in Purgatory where it belongs.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
... My major beef with the proposed legislation is that it's a red herring set up by folks on one side of the gun issue. If the left wants gun control/registration/confiscation (depends on exactly which politician we're talking about), then they should have the guts to say so, and do it without the crocodile tears and histrionics. ...
The legislation mandates more background checks on gun sales (with plenty of exceptions); explicitly forbids creating any sort of registry; and says nothing about confiscation. So what exactly is this beef or herring you speak of?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
It should be noted here that the national homicide rate is at a historic low...
(somewhat of a tangent)
In fact the rate of all violent crime has dropped noticeably in the last several years. This has been observed in many countries with varying time frames. I read a fascinating article recently - possibly in The Economist, but I don't have it handy - that showed the strongest correlation to these shifts in violent crime (both up and down) across multiple countries was about 22 years after the introduction of, or reduction in, the use of tetra-ethyl lead in motor fuels.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
It should be noted here that the national homicide rate is at a historic low...
(somewhat of a tangent)
In fact the rate of all violent crime has dropped noticeably in the last several years. This has been observed in many countries with varying time frames. I read a fascinating article recently - possibly in The Economist, but I don't have it handy - that showed the strongest correlation to these shifts in violent crime (both up and down) across multiple countries was about 22 years after the introduction of, or reduction in, the use of tetra-ethyl lead in motor fuels.
22. Isn't that about the age of those committing (and often the victims too) of violent crimes? If there are also fewer people of the demographics that commit most of the crimes of this nature, the rates might fall too.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
McChicken: ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm going to be even worse and be fully complimentary, but I'm a Host and can get away with it. Jbohn has, over time, struck me as the most articulate and thoughtful 'pro-gun' person I've ever encountered.
Most of that impression has been developed in Purgatory where it belongs.
Coming from you, I take that as a high compliment. You're one of the most articulate and thoughtful anti-gun folks I've encountered. Thank you.
Point taken , by the by.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The legislation mandates more background checks on gun sales (with plenty of exceptions); explicitly forbids creating any sort of registry; and says nothing about confiscation. So what exactly is this beef or herring you speak of?
Response here.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
My major beef with the proposed legislation is that it's a red herring set up by folks on one side of the gun issue. If the left wants gun control/registration/confiscation..., then they should have the guts to say so, and do it without the crocodile tears and histrionics.
I was not aware that the USA had left-wing politicians. Compared to the spectrum in Europe, the USA has only right wing and ultra-right wing.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
I was not aware that the USA had left-wing politicians. Compared to the spectrum in Europe, the USA has only right wing and ultra-right wing.
I think Bernie Sanders would be quite comfortable among Germany's Social Democrats, say. But in US terms, Bernie's as left as it gets.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
StPtP, ya gotta up yr game. Witless posts like that just evidence premature senectitude, possibly brought on by viewing too much Fox News. You can do better.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Awww, look at all the liberals go BOOO HOOO that they failed to undermine the 2nd Amendment. How cute! ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
The 2nd amendment got undermined a long, long time ago when it was decided that the reference to an organised militia meant nothing.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Well regulated, not organized.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The Second Amendment, quite frankly, is an anachronism. When the constitution was written there was no professional army. But the gun nuts seem to think the constitution is divine.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Well regulated, not organized.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It strikes me that that is incredibly ambiguous, gramatically. Surely it could easily be read to say that members of the well regulated militia (and the government gets to regulate it) have a right to bear arms?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Second Amendment, quite frankly, is an anachronism. When the constitution was written there was no professional army. But the gun nuts seem to think the constitution is divine.
If you don't like the Constitution, then AMEND it. Thems the rules. (I would say if you don't like the rules of American politics, you're free to leave, but you're in Finland??)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Second Amendment, quite frankly, is an anachronism. When the constitution was written there was no professional army. But the gun nuts seem to think the constitution is divine.
If you don't like the Constitution, then AMEND it. Thems the rules. (I would say if you don't like the rules of American politics, you're free to leave, but you're in Finland??)
Which means I shouldn't have an opinion? That I shouldn't voice the opinion that Americans have an unhealthy obsession with guns and that many Americans view the constitution as if it was divine? Yeah, they should change it - if they're not all fat, stupid and trigger happy, that is.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
You are most entitled to your opinion Ad O. And I am most thankful you are not a U. S. citizen.
Given Finnish rates of taxation I expect you're pleased not to live in Finland too.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
You are most entitled to your opinion Ad O. And I am most thankful you are not a U. S. citizen.
Given Finnish rates of taxation I expect you're pleased not to live in Finland too.
That and the winters.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
You are most entitled to your opinion Ad O. And I am most thankful you are not a U. S. citizen.
So am I.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Well regulated, not organized.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It strikes me that that is incredibly ambiguous, gramatically. Surely it could easily be read to say that members of the well regulated militia (and the government gets to regulate it) have a right to bear arms?
It's true that the 18th century use of the comma leaves a little to be desired by modern standards. Compare, for example, the third amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Nobody argues about what the third amendment means - it's clear that it means that in peacetime, you can't quarter soldiers in someone's house without his permission, and in wartime you can only do so according to the law.
Look at the use of the comma there, and then read the second again, and it's clear how you must read it. It means "Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Well-regulated, in the late 18th century, meant well-maintained and properly functioning, rather than "subject to government oversight".
So basically, it means that if you summon a militia, you need the men to be able to shoot, which means that men in general should be practiced at shooting, which means that they must be permitted to own and use guns. Compare the mediaeval requirement for men to practice archery...
One could certainly make the case that the need for a militia is extinct, in which case there's a well-known mechanism to change the constitution.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
Well, Punk, I AM a citizen. I vote. I also support the second ammendment, in theory. I have HUGE FUCKING ISSUES with what some idiots in the country are doing in the interpretation, however.
I was raised by a hunting guide and outfitter. The first time I ate "domesticated" meat I was 12 years old. I still think beef tastes like cardboard, by the way.
I fired my first rifle when I was five. I was given my own .22, and joyfully killed a lot of coffee cans. I also fired my mom's 30.06 and the recoil knocked me back 4 feet- yet I still hit my target.
Won my first targetting competition at age 10. Beat out 12 boys. My prize was a .357.
Shot my first goose at 12. Took it home to my mama bursting with pride.
Guided my first hunter at 23. Got him on a B&C trophy elk his second day out.
Gave up firearms at 30 because I prefer the challenge of a bow. Recurve and tradional athabascan longbow, since you ask.
My daughter was so well trained she made her college rifle team first string as a freshman. Both my boys have more training than most of the gun nuts at the sportsmen shows- i know; I ask.
Essentially, my firearm cred is good.
So answer me this: why do we use the Second to justify selling firearms to people who have no idea how to use them? Anyone who knows what the fuck theyre doing with a gun knows that it's bloody stupid to allow someone to handle one without so much as a 1 day training. My teenage son is not allowed to drive a car without passing a written test, six months mimimum of supervised practice, and a driving test. But if I chose I could strap a .44 on my eleven year old and set him loose.
When I was in sixth grade, i was required to take a gun safety course. In my school. It was taught by the commander of our VFW, and nobody was allowed to opt out. He brought a bunch of .22s into my school. That would not even be allowed today. So where's the logic? Guns banned from school - good in theory - now no one gets trained. But god fucking forbid we require people have to know what they're doing with a deadly weapon. Sex offenders have to be registered for all to see, but diagnosed mentally ill with a history of violence can be packing so long as they dont have a felony conviction.
Hell, felons cant legally have guns, but in my state the gun dealers violate their rights if they even check if they're felons.
Guns dont kill people. Neither do cars. Neither does booze. Neither do drugs. Or fucking bombs, for that matter. They're all inanimate objects. But we're perfectly happy to regulate the use of all the other objects to keep the ignorant (or dangerous) from hurting themselves or others. because they're fucking dangerous objects and not fucking toys.
the difference is all in the hysteria. And make no mistake, it is crazyass hysteria, here. the hysteria brought on by the fucking NRA that says if we give an inch, we might as well just hand it all over and then it's fucking 1984 and the Thought Police.
That, sunshine, is whacked out bullshit. Know what else is whacked out bullshit? All those fucking loonies who think they need firearms to protect themselves from our own government. our government isn't that organized. They have other fish to fry. And they couldn't organize a fucking hand job in a whorehouse without ten subcommitees, 5 years of testimony, 20 riders from greedyass senators, and at least one emasculating compromise. It aint going to happen.
But it feeds the hysteria to say so; and my god it makes some fine profits for the gun companies, doesn't it?
Fuck those guys.
So I'm all about keeping our hands off the Second, but does anyone really believe the powers that be are going to touch it? Come on. Quit drinking the fucking Rush flavored kool aid and grow up.
Meanwhile, let's use the same concept we do for automobiles or booze, and have some common sense structure in place. I say we require firearms safety training in all schools. I say you have to have a certificate of training to buy a firearm. I say you have to have all firearms and ammo stored securely or you cant have 'em. I say you have to not be a certified loony to have'em. I say you are legally responsible for what your firearm does even if it's out of your hands. I say all gun sellers- including private individuals- are responsible for making sure their firearms aren't going to the next batshit Idaho militia freak.
This is easy stuff. Common sense stuff. But common sense isn't allowed in the discussion anymore because of the ignorant fear-mongering enjoyed by the right wing propogandists. So we're fucked and nothing will change.
Thanks for that. Keep watching Fox and drinking that kool aid, you ignorant, hysterical fucks.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
And just for the record: after the Cnnecticut shootings, i hired my son's taikwondo teacher to give them a 3 hour private lesson on how to disarm an adult gunman. What the fuck did you whinyass freaks do?
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
My teenage son is not allowed to drive a car without passing a written test, six months mimimum of supervised practice, and a driving test. But if I chose I could strap a .44 on my eleven year old and set him loose.
There is a popular story in gun-rights land that talks about gun ownership being a right, but car drivership being a privilege, and so it's reasonable to place any restrictions you like on car operation, but you can't touch guns at all.
IMO, this is nonsense. Yes, "shall not be infringed" is right there in the second, whereas the founding fathers neglected to insert an explicit enumerated right to operate a wheeled conveyance. So what. Here's the ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If you had asked any of the founding fathers whether they had a right to be able to buy a wagon and drive around in it, they would say "of course", and give you a funny look for even suggesting that they might not have. The second is there explicitly in the bill of rights because there was recent history of British loyalists trying to disarm the militias, so it was an issue. Nobody was trying to constrain wagon ownership, so nobody bothered to add a wagon clause. That doesn't make it not a right.
So yes, car drivership is a right, but requiring you to pass a test first is OK. I don't see a constitutional issue with requiring a proficiency test for a firearms purchase, as long as it's reasonable. A driving test that required accurate handbrake turns before issuing a license would be unconstitutional. Firearms licensing and testing requirements that most people can't meet are unconstitutional. Show up at a local range, demonstrate safe operation of a weapon, and hit a (fairly easy) target? Would be OK.
My $0.02.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Following sarcasm with blank assertions is a special kind of frothing fail.
But, yeah, sure - I read the news, and know plenty about totalitarian regimes in the past century. In what way do those two bits of flailing in any way respond to the specific points Comet made? Without resorting to epic paranoia, I mean.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Yes, Comet, those "voices warning of tyranny" are so whacked out, absolutely. We don't need to be protected from our government.
(Hell if we don't. Read the news lately? Or the history of 20th century totalitarian regimes?)
How is a handgun going to protect you from a government that has drones? You'd need an anti-aircraft weapon.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
