The ultimate 2nd amendment poll!

[Abatis]

The idea that someone as crazy as Cho or Loughner could get a gun is a "right" is what is crazy. if current background checks aren't catching these guys, the background check is inadequate.

You are missing the point. Cho and Loughner and the Joker were not crazy in the eyes of the law; none of them was ever involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective.

The background check as a process is adequate but it totally relies on the information entered into it from the states. A problem does exist where health privacy laws forbid the sharing of certain records. That problem is not a gun rights vs gun control issue.

"Hi, Dean Wormwood? This is Bob from the Department of Firearms Licensing. We are calling about one of your students, Cho Dong Crazy. He applied for a gun permit."

"Holy shit! Don't give him a gun. We had to put his ass in private tutoring because he was scaring the piss out of the other students, especially the girls."

Sounds pretty simple to me.

And as simple solutions usually go, your little screenplay there is nothing but a comedy of errors:

There is no license required to buy a firearm (except in localized limited leftist criminal hellholes).
Dean Wormwood's opinion is not a legally binding determination (nor should it ever be). The Dean should have notified the proper people through the proper channels to get the student proper help but . . .

Frankly, AFTER a shooting, it never seem to take that much research to find out how crazy these folks were.

And you are blind to what that evidence shows. The real problem is these kooks were coddled and ignored and devolved alone because Dean Wormwood and the rest of the Politically Correct leftist misfits in higher education didn't want to huwrt the widdle cwazy perwsons feelwings . . .

Yeah, you are right that in the plentiful subjective layman's discussions for the news cameras, everybody including the lunch lady knew they were nuts . . . which means absolutely nothing to the issue except to fertilize goofy anti-gunner's idiotic ideas.

Not gun phobic, guy. Spent 11 years in the US Army. Fired M16's, M60's, M2 (50 cal), M203 grenade launchers. What I have is a healthy respect for what these devices can do in the wrong hands.

Well, you should be happy to hear I agree that such military platforms should continue to be NFA Title II arms and not readily available to the general public.

And the guy who thinks he's the Joker from the Batman movies is definitely the wrong hands.

Again, after adjudicated mentally defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Before that, he is not restricted.

What all this should tell you is, if you really, really wanted to stop crazies getting guns, your side needs to stop with the leftist hand-holding and coddling and enabling of the nutjobs and get them into treatment when the signs of detachment are first noticed.

"but, but, the second Amendment says I can have a gun!"

No it doesn't.

I do not rely on any word from any document for the existence of any fundamental right.

I'm going to break this to you very gently.

There are no "rights". . . .

And I argue there are no powers to do what you want to do.

What we have are privilages. You can have what the rest of us say you can have or agree you should be able to have.

You are a sad excuse for an American and the perfect legally ignorant spokesperson for the anti-gun position.

But Sweet Evil Jesus, we should also practice a bit of common sense. You shouldn't be allowed to molest children because your religion says that's okay, you shouldn't let people who are batshit crazy get guns.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm not "letting" anyone do anything except letting you continue to embarrass yourself spouting your nonsense.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Let's take this in order, shall we?

GuyPinestra is as goofy as ObamaPhone Lady.

Grow up, Guy.

Hey Jake, please quote the part you think is 'goofy' and explain WHY you feel that way.

We might get somewhere if you'd get specific for a change...

Just plain goofy. You are a true believer, who has made up his own narrative, which will not change for the facts.

ObamaPhoneLady and you are the same type of person.

Please highlight this 'made up narrative' and compare it to these 'facts' you claim I'm trying to change.

Or continue your predilection of spouting baseless statements.

Up to you, of course, but option #2 makes you look pretty stupid, AGAIN...

Your goofiness is demonstrated by your cry for more evidence of it, which you will deny.

Anybody who has read your stuff and has half a brain knows that you are a goofy Obamaphonelady type.

Yup, that's you.

It would be a refreshing change Jake, for you to offer ANY evidence, but you prefer to look stupid, I guess.

Not surprising, since your inability to cite ANYTHING even resembling a basis for your opinion would remove any doubt of how deep your ignorance runs.

It would be refreshing for GuyPinestra to accept clear and convincing evidence when it refutes his postion.

That is what a mature adult does.

When Guy demonstrates he can act like an adult, then we can conduct an adult conversation.

But "neener neener no you didn't" does not county as adult speech, Guy.

Now Jake, this is the sum total of our conversation in this thread.

You made a baseless assertion, I asked you to back it up.

You claimed I was making up a narrative, I asked you to back it up.

You said I was "crying for more evidence", I asked you to provide the first shred of this supposed 'evidence'.

You said I should accept your 'clear and convincing evidence', and I'm STILL asking you to provide ANY evidence of ANYTHING you've attributed to me.

Think you can do that, Jake? I have my doubts, but I'm willing to give you another chance.

Let's take the 1st question, ok?

Hey Jake, please quote the part you think is 'goofy' and explain WHY you feel that way.

 

[hazlnut]

How about vigorously enforce laws already on the books.

 

[JoeB131]

The idea that someone as crazy as Cho or Loughner could get a gun is a "right" is what is crazy. if current background checks aren't catching these guys, the background check is inadequate.

You are missing the point. Cho and Loughner and the Joker were not crazy in the eyes of the law; none of them was ever involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective.

.

And I can pretty much end the discussion right here.

if the "law" couldn't stop crazy people from buying guns, then no one should get a gun.

Because obviously, in your world, that's kind of the only solution.

Me, I don't give a fuck if you have a gun. You don't need one. Period. If you have one, it's a privilage the rest of us are letting you have.

But if you can't use it responsibly, I have no problem taking it away from you.

 

[JoeB131]

How about vigorously enforce laws already on the books.

And that's a good point.

again, two years ago, my next door neighbor blew his brains out. Before he did that, he did a test run where he shot out the patio door and shattered the glass. And when the cops came to investigate, he gave them some cock and bull story that someone had shot into his house.

SO illegally discharging his gun in a residential area, lying to the police. Either one of those should have gotten his gun confiscated.

But our boys in the local PD are great respectors of the Second Amendment, apparently.

 

[Abatis]

Hey Abitas you bad muttafukker you. How many people have you shot and killed? You know saving your life and possessions.

Seeing as how you don't want to defend yourself from tyranny. (That is what you said wasn't it, that gun nuts don't fear their govenment?) I guess you either live in fear of your neighbors or they live in fear of you. Gotta shoot someone. Hell the stats show you may end up shooting yourself. You know, with suicides making up a lot of the gun deaths.

But it must be a drag walking around scared all the time.

I apologize if my post #135 (critiquing your comments about me) gave you the impression that I desired to actually hear back from you.

I have no interest engaging in any dialogue with an unhinged person, I just enjoy pointing out your errors in facts and logic.

Your post above is epic ridiculousness and stands on its own needing no commentary from me.

 

[Abatis]

if the "law" couldn't stop crazy people from buying guns, then no one should get a gun.

Me, I don't give a fuck if you have a gun. You don't need one. Period. If you have one, it's a privilage the rest of us are letting you have.

But if you can't use it responsibly, I have no problem taking it away from you.

But our boys in the local PD are great respectors of the Second Amendment, apparently.

Well, one things for sure you have absolutely no respect for the rule of law. You are an authoritarian who desires to see government's power exercised in an arbitrary, capricious and abusive manner.

I doubt very much your neighbor's 2nd Amendment rights were of any concern to the cops. They were more focused on taking statements, probable cause and examining evidence . . . Again, you seem incapable of understanding that there are rules for government to abide by and criteria that must be proven before a citizens rights can be disabled.

It's easy for you to have such wonderful hindsight and say that Cho or Loughner or Holmes should have been disarmed . . . but, if we were to apply your subjective, untethered to any legal or medical determination criteria there would be many people's rights impacted who present no danger whatsoever.

Your inevitable statement of, "so what, good!" will only confirm my diagnosis of your diminished mental state.

 

[Antares]

(sigh) Lets take it to a stupid, illogical conclusion.

Woooo...I think the 2nd amendment is very clear. Any weapon the government has, the people should have. We will need to be on equal footing if we ever want to overthrow the government like we overthrew the one in the late 18th century. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. I will let this picture explain it more easily:

So...I can have an ICBM with a MIRV nuclear warhead?

COOL! I'll aim at YOUR house! And, your family and inlaws too!

Is that OK with you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You made statements, GuyPinestra, that your evidence did not support.

I told you so, and you have been crybaybing

You said I was "crying for more evidence", when I told you have not made a case in the first place.

I am asking you to give good, supportive evidence that makes sense.

That you can make a case is not probable, but I am willing to allow you to do that, GuyPinestra.

Can you do that, GuyPinestra?

 

[GuyPinestra]

You made statements, GuyPinestra, that your evidence did not support.

I told you so, and you have been crybaybing

You said I was "crying for more evidence", when I told you have not made a case in the first place.

I am asking you to give good, supportive evidence that makes sense.

That you can make a case is not probable, but I am willing to allow you to do that, GuyPinestra.

Can you do that, GuyPinestra?

WHAT statements, Jake?? Please quote them! That's all I'm asking you for.

Are you so deranged that you are incapable of comprehending the English language?

 

[JakeStarkey]

GuyPinestra continues to whine and pine, cry and sigh, squall and bawl -- and can't make his case.

You guys are here for grins and chuckles, only, but you know your roles and you fulfill them well.

 

[GuyPinestra]

GuyPinestra continues to whine and pine, cry and sigh, squall and bawl -- and can't make his case.

You guys are here for grins and chuckles, only, but you know your roles and you fulfill them well.

Back on ignore with you, Jake.

Enjoy your neg rep, troll!

ETA: It takes a LOT to get on my ignore list, too. Not even TM or Shaman are there.

You're the ONLY one, Fakey...

 

[JakeStarkey]

GuyPinestra threatening to put me on "ignore".

Guy simply wants to spin his ignorant propaganda with other ignorant extremists, while expecting not to get his head metaphorically crammed up his ass.

Not going to happen.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Irony: stockpiling guns to protect yourself from the government that is Constitutionally obligated to let you have guns.

(DUMB questions on this non-poll)

 

[Crackerjack]

Irony: stockpiling guns to protect yourself from the government that is Constitutionally obligated to let you have guns.

Yeah, because our government has always met its Constitutional obligations.

Stupid fuck.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Crackerjack's moniker clearly reveals he has cracked thinking.

You are not one who thinks you should have a heavy weapons platform in working condition just like the government, because of the 2nd Amendment, are you?

 

[Crackerjack]

Crackerjack's moniker clearly reveals he has cracked thinking.

You are not one who thinks you should have a heavy weapons platform in working condition just like the government, because of the 2nd Amendment, are you?

You're not one who thinks some mere law against it prevents people who would want one from getting one, are you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, because the 2nd Amendment does not authorize you one, Crackerjack.

People like you can't be taken seriously, you know, so go ahead, keep prattling, and I can let it go.

If you start talking libertarian anti-American tripe, then you will hear from me.

 

[jgarden]

Arms are the only counterweight against tyranny - the more assalt weapons our citizens own; the more secure our freedom will be!

The rational that the 2nd Amendment was "the only counterweight against tyranny (government or otherwise)" was outdated, even before the ink dried.

Weapons technology hasn't exactly remained stagnant since the late 18thC where the difference between weaponry available to soldiers and civilians was relatively small. The American Civil War, WW1 and WW2 have since clearly demonstrated, however, the devastating results of sending men armed only with handguns and rifles against vastly superior firepower.

Now in an age where most "tyrants" have ready access to WMD, what "counterweight" do arms and the 2nd Amendment provide?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The weight of American freedom has always rested in (1) the citizen's civic virtue and (2) free speech.