patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,208,587 comments by 14,365 users - Dholliday126, ElYorsh, Patrick, RWSGFY online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 179 - 218 of 1,321 Next » Last » Search these comments
179
FortWayne
2018 Feb 22, 7:37am
FortWayne
2018 Feb 22, 7:37am
CajunSteve says
That's not the same thing Steve. What your neighbor thinks is his rights often conflicts with your rights. Which is where freedoms come in. Some people think someone else having 2nd amendment rights intrudes on their safety... well guess what, it's my right to own guns.
CBOEtrader saysHitler and Stalin would agree w you. The individual is on my there to serve the collective, amirite?
No, not correct. An individual's rights extend only as far as not to intrude on their neighbor's rights. Again--this is basic law. Think yelling Fire in a crowded theather.
That's not the same thing Steve. What your neighbor thinks is his rights often conflicts with your rights. Which is where freedoms come in. Some people think someone else having 2nd amendment rights intrudes on their safety... well guess what, it's my right to own guns.
180
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 7:59am
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 7:59am
CajunSteve says
Then you should read some more. Scalia and Thomas both answered the question you're asking quite clearly in Heller vs DC:
CajunSteve says
So like I said, do some reading and you'll find the answers to your question.
I've read quite a bit actually, and posted a good history of Supreme Court decisions earlier in the thread.
Then you should read some more. Scalia and Thomas both answered the question you're asking quite clearly in Heller vs DC:
CajunSteve says
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons.
So like I said, do some reading and you'll find the answers to your question.
181
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 8:13am
FortWayne says
It's the same principle, it's just that different people have a different idea of what is an individual right and what intrudes upon one's neighbor. And that's fair. I think it's eminently reasonable to ask whether a person has the right to own a weapon designed exclusively for the ability to kill as many humans as possible in the quickest manner possible.
That's the overriding point here--the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee one the right to own any weapon or "arm". It doesn't guarantee the right to own any gun.
That's not the same thing Steve. What your neighbor thinks is his rights often conflicts with your rights. Which is where freedoms come in. Some people think someone else having 2nd amendment rights intrudes on their safety... well guess what, it's my right to own guns.
It's the same principle, it's just that different people have a different idea of what is an individual right and what intrudes upon one's neighbor. And that's fair. I think it's eminently reasonable to ask whether a person has the right to own a weapon designed exclusively for the ability to kill as many humans as possible in the quickest manner possible.
That's the overriding point here--the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee one the right to own any weapon or "arm". It doesn't guarantee the right to own any gun.
182
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 8:13am
Goran_K says
It's extremely inaccurate to say that Heller (a case about trigger locks in DC) made any finding as to AR15s whatsoever. A maxim of the court is that they only answer the question asked and nowhere in the facts or opinion is a reference to a AR15.
In fact, if you read the Scalia concurrence you will see he (a textualist) likely would come down against things other then ordinary "handguns & long guns of the time". Alas, he is dead now and his findings are only dicta and not the holding.
anon_cf6c6 saysSo, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
Dude, this was already decided at the Supreme Court over 10 years ago, and the SCOTUS rarely sees 2A cases. This "may" change in your lifetime, but it's unlikely. The SCOTUS decided that AR15's were arms and that's why gun ban happy states have not been able to outright ban AR15's, only "feature bans" like pistol grips, mag releases, etc.
Anytime some Psycho kills, the same "arm chair" lawyers try to relive Heller vs DC, and the same guys reach the opposite decision of the court, every time. Probably because they aren't thinking about the constitution but are thinking with their emotions.
Do some reading, research Heller vs DC and read the courts findings. You'll find your answer. It's also a good read
It's extremely inaccurate to say that Heller (a case about trigger locks in DC) made any finding as to AR15s whatsoever. A maxim of the court is that they only answer the question asked and nowhere in the facts or opinion is a reference to a AR15.
In fact, if you read the Scalia concurrence you will see he (a textualist) likely would come down against things other then ordinary "handguns & long guns of the time". Alas, he is dead now and his findings are only dicta and not the holding.
183
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 8:17am
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 8:17am
anon_8ca4d says
It's inaccurate because you don't understand the actual courts opinion or the case itself? It was NOT just about "trigger locks". You simply need to read more.
I didn't say it made any findings to AR15s, it made an opinion on commonly used arms. The AR15 is the MOST popular long gun in the United States. So yes, his opinion and the judgement in Heller vs DC has been used to rebuff any attempts to ban the AR15. That's why California gun grabbers are only attempting feature bans, a direct "AR15" ban would never stand constitutional scrutiny. Seriously, you don't think gun grabbers have been trying to find ways to ban the AR15 over the past DECADE? This is one of the biggest reasons the 2016 election was so important, the SCOTUS was up for grabs and the integrity of 2A. Once Ginsberg dies (and she will die before 2024), and Kennedy retires, Trump is going to stack the court even more heavily in favor of constitutionalist and reduce the power of leftist/socialist.
I didn't even care about Trump winning, I did care very much that Gorsuch got into the SCOTUS because of people who start threads like this.
As for Scalia being dead, and his findings "not holding", that's ridiculous and not worth the response I just typed to reference it.
It's extremely inaccurate to say that Heller (a case about trigger locks in DC) made any finding as to AR15s whatsoever. A maxim of the court is that they only answer the question asked and nowhere in the facts or opinion is a reference to a AR15.
In fact, if you read the Scalia concurrence you will see he (a textualist) likely would come down against things other then ordinary "handguns & long guns of the time". Alas, he is dead now and his findings are only dicta and not the holding.
It's inaccurate because you don't understand the actual courts opinion or the case itself? It was NOT just about "trigger locks". You simply need to read more.
I didn't say it made any findings to AR15s, it made an opinion on commonly used arms. The AR15 is the MOST popular long gun in the United States. So yes, his opinion and the judgement in Heller vs DC has been used to rebuff any attempts to ban the AR15. That's why California gun grabbers are only attempting feature bans, a direct "AR15" ban would never stand constitutional scrutiny. Seriously, you don't think gun grabbers have been trying to find ways to ban the AR15 over the past DECADE? This is one of the biggest reasons the 2016 election was so important, the SCOTUS was up for grabs and the integrity of 2A. Once Ginsberg dies (and she will die before 2024), and Kennedy retires, Trump is going to stack the court even more heavily in favor of constitutionalist and reduce the power of leftist/socialist.
I didn't even care about Trump winning, I did care very much that Gorsuch got into the SCOTUS because of people who start threads like this.
As for Scalia being dead, and his findings "not holding", that's ridiculous and not worth the response I just typed to reference it.
184
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 8:53am
Goran - for clarification I was wrong when I said Scalia's concurrence. I meant Scalia's dicta or obiter dicta if you prefer. Cheers.
185
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 8:54am
Goran - you said:
"The SCOTUS decided AR15s were arms and that's why the gun ban happy states..."
It's only this part of post 188 that I objected to. If I wasn't clear on that, I apologize.
That said, please don't question what I know or don't know about this case or the 2nd. My former law partner who clerked for Justice Thomas was influential in shaping the procedural posture in the Heller post mortem. Plus I had the distinct pleasure of speaking to Scalia's son about his concurrence (again not the holding) when I finally bit the bullet and got my license to practice in the Supreme Court last fall.
"The SCOTUS decided AR15s were arms and that's why the gun ban happy states..."
It's only this part of post 188 that I objected to. If I wasn't clear on that, I apologize.
That said, please don't question what I know or don't know about this case or the 2nd. My former law partner who clerked for Justice Thomas was influential in shaping the procedural posture in the Heller post mortem. Plus I had the distinct pleasure of speaking to Scalia's son about his concurrence (again not the holding) when I finally bit the bullet and got my license to practice in the Supreme Court last fall.
188
NuttBoxer
2018 Feb 22, 11:00am
NuttBoxer
2018 Feb 22, 11:00am
anon_3b28c says
That's because you don't know what the purpose of the 10th amendment is. The purpose is to keep the feds from regulating anything beyond what's listed for them in the Constitution.
anon_3b28c says
The Constitution was written and signed way before the end of the war. Everyone who signed it was providing proof of treason, basically putting the noose around their neck. But forget that, what the fuck changed after the 2nd Amendment was written? You think they went around and confiscated everyone's rifles!?
I guess some people will say anything to try and sound right...
That doesn't really apply here--the 10th Amendment doesn't help derive the intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the other Amendments
That's because you don't know what the purpose of the 10th amendment is. The purpose is to keep the feds from regulating anything beyond what's listed for them in the Constitution.
anon_3b28c says
Of course--we weren't even a nation yet and didn't have a Constitution. So, it's not really relevant to interpreting the 2nd Amendment.
The Constitution was written and signed way before the end of the war. Everyone who signed it was providing proof of treason, basically putting the noose around their neck. But forget that, what the fuck changed after the 2nd Amendment was written? You think they went around and confiscated everyone's rifles!?
I guess some people will say anything to try and sound right...
189
NuttBoxer
2018 Feb 22, 11:08am
NuttBoxer
2018 Feb 22, 11:08am
anon_3b28c says
Separate comment since I know it will get reported. People who write specious drivel like this should be outed so everyone will know who they are, and avoid infecting themselves with any of their future postings. I don't know who failed to teach you critical thinking, but someone needs to slap your parents, and every teacher you ever had for starters.
I understand the need for civility, but not for the sake of allowing morons to fill up this site with their idiocy. Ridicule has a place in a forum. It keeps stupid/lazy people from wasting everyone's time with their stupid/lazy questions/comments.
NuttBoxer says
I like to go with the 10th amendment on that one.
That doesn't really apply here--the 10th Amendment doesn't help derive the intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the other Amendments
NuttBoxer saysNot everyone who fought in The Revolution was in a militia. See my reference to no standing army. And again, "Farmer Brown", had a rifle that rivaled, and more often surpassed, the ones used by the military of England. Compare that to what a citizen can own today.
Of course--we weren't even a nation yet and didn't have a Constitution. So, it's not really relevant to interpreting the 2nd Amendment.
Separate comment since I know it will get reported. People who write specious drivel like this should be outed so everyone will know who they are, and avoid infecting themselves with any of their future postings. I don't know who failed to teach you critical thinking, but someone needs to slap your parents, and every teacher you ever had for starters.
I understand the need for civility, but not for the sake of allowing morons to fill up this site with their idiocy. Ridicule has a place in a forum. It keeps stupid/lazy people from wasting everyone's time with their stupid/lazy questions/comments.
190
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 11:31am
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 11:31am
HappyGilmore says
The NRA is a private advocacy group that takes zero state or federal dollars and has over 5 million citizens as members. They do not allow or disallow law, they vote with their dollars and at the booth.
Yep, I agree. Unfortunately the NRA won't allow ANY laws to be passed that might affect the ability of someone to get a assault rifle--no matter if they are mentally ill, teenaged, whatever. I'm all for a rational discussion of facts, but that's very hard to find because one side desperately wants to avoid it.
The NRA is a private advocacy group that takes zero state or federal dollars and has over 5 million citizens as members. They do not allow or disallow law, they vote with their dollars and at the booth.
191
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 11:33am
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 11:33am
Here's the thing, the reason why the AR15 is not banned is because people do not want to ban it. Plain and simple. It's the most popular rifle in the country and 99.9% of people who own them do not commit murders.
More people die to knife attacks than to ANY long gun attacks. CNN/MSNBC/Pelosi/Schumer/Soros are using this tragic event to push a politically agenda most people do not want.
I would be more afraid of why people like Soros, leftist billionaire who worked with the Nazis (for survival according to him), and have pushed strong statist policies throughout his life. IMO, the guy is dangerous and should be investigated.
More people die to knife attacks than to ANY long gun attacks. CNN/MSNBC/Pelosi/Schumer/Soros are using this tragic event to push a politically agenda most people do not want.
I would be more afraid of why people like Soros, leftist billionaire who worked with the Nazis (for survival according to him), and have pushed strong statist policies throughout his life. IMO, the guy is dangerous and should be investigated.
192
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 11:56am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 11:56am
Didn't we already have an Assault Weapons ban, and Columbine happened?
Soros is a complete nasty piece of work. He gave a speech, contents unknown, about his collaboration with Nazis at a Jewish Thing and Elie Weisel was shocked. He's never shown the least remorse about his role as a murderous Turncoat.
The Netanyahu Government agrees with Orban about Soros being a threat:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-hungary-soros/israel-backs-hungary-says-financier-soros-is-a-threat-idUSKBN19V1J4
Soros is a complete nasty piece of work. He gave a speech, contents unknown, about his collaboration with Nazis at a Jewish Thing and Elie Weisel was shocked. He's never shown the least remorse about his role as a murderous Turncoat.
The Netanyahu Government agrees with Orban about Soros being a threat:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-hungary-soros/israel-backs-hungary-says-financier-soros-is-a-threat-idUSKBN19V1J4
193
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 11:58am
THERE WAS NO ARMED SECURITY IN PLACE TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN.
Think of this:
There is armed security at NBA games.
There is armed security at NFL games.
There is armed security at MLB games
There is armed security at Jewelry stores.
There is armed security at Banks.
There is armed security at Airports.
There is armed security at major concerts and arenas.
There is armed security protecting Hollywood stars.
There is armed security protecting Politicians.
There is armed security at NASCAR tracks.
There is armed security at major Train stations.
BUT, There is NO armed security at Schools. The Liberals want schools to be Soft Targets, without any protection.
Can any Democrat of gun hater here explain why the lives of all those people I just listed are MORE important than the lives of CHILDREN?
Anyone?
Think of this:
There is armed security at NBA games.
There is armed security at NFL games.
There is armed security at MLB games
There is armed security at Jewelry stores.
There is armed security at Banks.
There is armed security at Airports.
There is armed security at major concerts and arenas.
There is armed security protecting Hollywood stars.
There is armed security protecting Politicians.
There is armed security at NASCAR tracks.
There is armed security at major Train stations.
BUT, There is NO armed security at Schools. The Liberals want schools to be Soft Targets, without any protection.
Can any Democrat of gun hater here explain why the lives of all those people I just listed are MORE important than the lives of CHILDREN?
Anyone?
194
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 11:58am
NuttBoxer says
Just because one disagrees with you, does not mean they don't understand.
NuttBoxer says
That's funny. I would advise looking in a mirror. You have yet to make any sort of coherent argument. Next time try to present your opinion, the reasoning behind it, and maybe even sprinkle in a few links to source material to back it up.
Then we can talk about who is posting drivel.
That's because you don't know what the purpose of the 10th amendment is. The purpose is to keep the feds from regulating anything beyond what's listed for them in the Constitution.
Just because one disagrees with you, does not mean they don't understand.
NuttBoxer says
Separate comment since I know it will get reported. People who write specious drivel like this should be outed so everyone will know who they are, and avoid infecting themselves with any of their future postings. I don't know who failed to teach you critical thinking, but someone needs to slap your parents, and every teacher you ever had for starters.
I understand the need for civility, but not for the sake of allowing morons to fill up this site with their idiocy. Ridicule has a place in a forum. It keeps stupid/lazy people from wasting everyone's time with their stupid/lazy questions/comments.
That's funny. I would advise looking in a mirror. You have yet to make any sort of coherent argument. Next time try to present your opinion, the reasoning behind it, and maybe even sprinkle in a few links to source material to back it up.
Then we can talk about who is posting drivel.
195
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 11:59am
Goran_K says
That's correct. And their dollars have bought them a good chunk of the Congressmen and women. That's not how democracy should work.
The NRA is a private advocacy group that takes zero state or federal dollars and has over 5 million citizens as members. They do not allow or disallow law, they vote with their dollars and at the booth.
That's correct. And their dollars have bought them a good chunk of the Congressmen and women. That's not how democracy should work.
196
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 11:59am
Goran_K says
Pretty sure that poll is not representative of the general public's feelings on the matter.
Here's the thing, the reason why the AR15 is not banned is because people do not want to ban it. Plain and simple. It's the most popular rifle in the country and 99.9% of people who own them do not commit murders.
Pretty sure that poll is not representative of the general public's feelings on the matter.
197
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:02pm
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:02pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Soros has stockholm syndrome bad. I have no doubt he has nazi-like policy and law changes in mind for America. The sooner he dies the better.
Didn't we already have an Assault Weapons ban, and Columbine happened?
Soros is a complete nasty piece of work. He gave a speech, contents unknown, about his collaboration with Nazis at a Jewish Thing and Elie Weisel was shocked. He's never shown the least remorse about his role as a murderous Turncoat.
The Netanyahu Government agrees with Orban about Soros being a threat:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-hungary-soros/israel-backs-hungary-says-financier-soros-is-a-threat-idUSKBN19V1J4
Soros has stockholm syndrome bad. I have no doubt he has nazi-like policy and law changes in mind for America. The sooner he dies the better.
198
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:04pm
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:04pm
anon_8f378 says
Um, that's exactly how Democracy works. Private citizens pooling their money and resources fighting for their rights against coastal leftist billionaires pushing an agenda? Thats the epitome of Democracy.
That's correct. And their dollars have bought them a good chunk of the Congressmen and women. That's not how democracy should work.
Um, that's exactly how Democracy works. Private citizens pooling their money and resources fighting for their rights against coastal leftist billionaires pushing an agenda? Thats the epitome of Democracy.
199
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:05pm
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:05pm
anon_8f378 says
Why are you pretty sure? The poll has over 300,000 respondents, and was placed on a leftist leaning website where you would expect the opposite result.
Pretty sure that poll is not representative of the general public's feelings on the matter.
Why are you pretty sure? The poll has over 300,000 respondents, and was placed on a leftist leaning website where you would expect the opposite result.
200
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 12:07pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 12:07pm
Goran_K says
By the way, Snopes.com has Soros being a Nazi collaborator as false, even though he was the assistant of the guy who was inventorying Estates of Fled or Captured Jews during WW2.
Snopes is almost as much of a joke as Polifact.
Soros has stockholm syndrome bad. I have no doubt he has nazi-like policy and law changes in mind for America. The sooner he dies the better.
By the way, Snopes.com has Soros being a Nazi collaborator as false, even though he was the assistant of the guy who was inventorying Estates of Fled or Captured Jews during WW2.
Snopes is almost as much of a joke as Polifact.
201
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 12:09pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 12:09pm
Goran_K says
A handful of DC based anti-gun groups, staffed by professional lobbyists and activists, underwritten largely by a literal tiny handful of wealthy individuals or foundations, is attempting to smear a multi-million person Membership Organization, the NRA, as undemocratic.
You have to stand in awe.
It's like some Pharma PAC financed by a few huge corporations calling the AARP anti-democratic.
Um, that's exactly how Democracy works. Private citizens pooling their money and resources fighting for their rights against coastal leftist billionaires pushing an agenda? Thats the epitome of Democracy.
A handful of DC based anti-gun groups, staffed by professional lobbyists and activists, underwritten largely by a literal tiny handful of wealthy individuals or foundations, is attempting to smear a multi-million person Membership Organization, the NRA, as undemocratic.
You have to stand in awe.
It's like some Pharma PAC financed by a few huge corporations calling the AARP anti-democratic.
202
CBOEtrader
2018 Feb 22, 12:10pm
CBOEtrader
2018 Feb 22, 12:10pm
CajunSteve says
your neighbor is an individual, not a group. he has rights which you may not infringe upon.
An individual's rights extend only as far as not to intrude on their neighbor's rights.
your neighbor is an individual, not a group. he has rights which you may not infringe upon.
203
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:11pm
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:11pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Well Snopes is completely unreliable, the owners, David and Barbara Mikkelson , are rabid leftist who have publically endorsed CNN/MSNBC as "good sources of information" for their fact checking, and Snopes itself belongs to the New York Times now (very left leaning company).
Here's his comments on how to fact check stories.
By the way, Snopes.com has Soros being a Nazi collaborator as false, even though he was the assistant of the guy who was inventorying Estates of Fled or Captured Jews during WW2.
Snopes is almost as much of a joke as Polifact.
Well Snopes is completely unreliable, the owners, David and Barbara Mikkelson , are rabid leftist who have publically endorsed CNN/MSNBC as "good sources of information" for their fact checking, and Snopes itself belongs to the New York Times now (very left leaning company).
Here's his comments on how to fact check stories.
DAVID MIKKELSON: Well, other than checking out our site, a lot of different things. One is, of course, if a story is real, you're generally going to see it in more than one place. If you're finding something that seems rather sensational and it's only on one Web site and it's not something major like CNN or ABC, that's a pretty good tip that perhaps the story is just a rumor or something that someone made up.
204
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:14pm
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:14pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Exactly.
I wasn't even an NRA member until a couple of years ago. They are a citizen driven advocacy group in protection of a key civil right. They have been villainized by leftist media but that's no excuse for people who actively viillanize them based off of that smear campaign. People have their own brains, they should use them to think and form their own opinions.
A handful of DC based anti-gun groups, staffed by professional lobbyists and activists, underwritten largely by a literal tiny handful of wealthy individuals or foundations, is attempting to smear a multi-million person Membership Organization, the NRA, as undemocratic.
You have to stand in awe.
Exactly.
I wasn't even an NRA member until a couple of years ago. They are a citizen driven advocacy group in protection of a key civil right. They have been villainized by leftist media but that's no excuse for people who actively viillanize them based off of that smear campaign. People have their own brains, they should use them to think and form their own opinions.
205
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 12:23pm
Goran_K says
I disagree. Democracy is 1 person, 1 vote.
Not 1 person with $300MM = 2000 votes. 1 person with no money = 1 vote.
Um, that's exactly how Democracy works. Private citizens pooling their money and resources fighting for their rights against coastal leftist billionaires pushing an agenda? Thats the epitome of Democracy.
I disagree. Democracy is 1 person, 1 vote.
Not 1 person with $300MM = 2000 votes. 1 person with no money = 1 vote.
206
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 12:23pm
Goran_K says
Every real poll says otherwise.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
67% support a ban on assault weapons.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/poll-nearly-two-thirds-support-stricter-gun-laws/ar-BBJsIlA
64% favor tougher gun control laws vs 30% oppose.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-americans-ever-support-stricter-210018333.html
66% favor stricter gun control laws vs. 31% oppose.
Why are you pretty sure?
Every real poll says otherwise.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
67% support a ban on assault weapons.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/poll-nearly-two-thirds-support-stricter-gun-laws/ar-BBJsIlA
64% favor tougher gun control laws vs 30% oppose.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-americans-ever-support-stricter-210018333.html
66% favor stricter gun control laws vs. 31% oppose.
207
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:32pm
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:32pm
anon_8f378 says
Dude seriously?
From your MSN poll.
"The poll was conducted on Feb. 20 among 1,992 registered voters." I'm sure very tilted towards DNC registered voters.
The TYT poll has 330,000 respondents.
Guess which one is statistically more trustworthy?
Every real poll says otherwise.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
67% support a ban on assault weapons.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/poll-nearly-two-thirds-support-stricter-gun-laws/ar-BBJsIlA
64% favor tougher gun control laws vs 30% oppose.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-americans-ever-support-stricter-210018333.html
66% favor stricter gun control laws vs. 31% oppose.
Dude seriously?
From your MSN poll.
"The poll was conducted on Feb. 20 among 1,992 registered voters." I'm sure very tilted towards DNC registered voters.
The TYT poll has 330,000 respondents.
Guess which one is statistically more trustworthy?
208
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:34pm
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 12:34pm
anon_8f378 says
5 million people beating 2-3 coastal leftist billionaires from stripping them of their rights. Sounds very Democratic even using your own definition.
I disagree. Democracy is 1 person, 1 vote.
Not 1 person with $300MM = 2000 votes. 1 person with no money = 1 vote.
5 million people beating 2-3 coastal leftist billionaires from stripping them of their rights. Sounds very Democratic even using your own definition.
209
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 12:50pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 12:50pm
This just in: Word is that Cruz' Adoptive Family told Sheriff Office that Cruz had previously pointed Firearms at people, before the shooting.
210
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 12:52pm
Goran_K says
The MSN one without a doubt. Read up on how polling is done--especially the parts about obtaining a representative population in the polling.
ude seriously?
From your MSN poll.
"The poll was conducted on Feb. 20 among 1,992 registered voters." I'm sure very tilted towards DNC registered voters.
The TYT poll has 330,000 respondents.
Guess which one is statistically more trustworthy?
The MSN one without a doubt. Read up on how polling is done--especially the parts about obtaining a representative population in the polling.
211
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 12:52pm
Goran_K says
Don't be ridiculous. The polling I posted above shows conclusively that the vast majority of the population is for tighter gun control. It's only the gun manufacturer $$ and their lobby that is stopping the will of the people.
5 million people beating 2-3 coastal leftist billionaires from stripping them of their rights. Sounds very Democratic even using your own definition.
Don't be ridiculous. The polling I posted above shows conclusively that the vast majority of the population is for tighter gun control. It's only the gun manufacturer $$ and their lobby that is stopping the will of the people.
212
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 12:53pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 12:53pm
anon_8f378 says
Right, the Gun Owner's National Association, the NRA, has 5M members.
Not one National Gun Ban Association has 5M members or even 1M members.
Clearly, the handful of Gun Ban Groups with a handful of wealthy donors is the "Will of the People".
Don't be ridiculous. The polling I posted above shows conclusively that the vast majority of the population is for tighter gun control. It's only the gun manufacturer $$ and their lobby that is stopping the will of the people.
Right, the Gun Owner's National Association, the NRA, has 5M members.
Not one National Gun Ban Association has 5M members or even 1M members.
Clearly, the handful of Gun Ban Groups with a handful of wealthy donors is the "Will of the People".
213
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 1:33pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
The will of the people is much more accurately measured by polling than by number of activists.
Right, the Gun Owner's National Association, the NRA, has 5M members.
Not one National Gun Ban Association has 5M members or even 1M members.
Clearly, the handful of Gun Ban Groups with a handful of wealthy donors is the "Will of the People".
The will of the people is much more accurately measured by polling than by number of activists.
214
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 1:33pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
The other thing, there are over 100M gun owners, so 5M is only 5%, yet the liberals think the NRA speaks for ALL gun owners.
Right, the Gun Owner's National Association, the NRA, has 5M members.
Not one National Gun Ban Association has 5M members or even 1M members.
The other thing, there are over 100M gun owners, so 5M is only 5%, yet the liberals think the NRA speaks for ALL gun owners.
215
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 2:19pm
anon_cf6c6 says
Another Trump supporter who is telling me how liberals think. It's amazing that Trump gives you such insight into the liberal mind...
In truth, it is obvious that the NRA doesn't speak for all gun owners. Otherwise 67% of the population couldn't possibly be for tighter gun control. Unfortunately the NRA controls many Congresspeople so the will of the people is stymied.
The other thing, there are over 100M gun owners, so 5M is only 5%, yet the liberals think the NRA speaks for ALL gun owners.
Another Trump supporter who is telling me how liberals think. It's amazing that Trump gives you such insight into the liberal mind...
In truth, it is obvious that the NRA doesn't speak for all gun owners. Otherwise 67% of the population couldn't possibly be for tighter gun control. Unfortunately the NRA controls many Congresspeople so the will of the people is stymied.
216
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 2:45pm
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 2:45pm
anon_8f378 says
You're not talking facts. Here are the top lobbyist orgs in the country by dollar amount.
Do you see the NRA? They aren't even in the Top 50. This imaginary "gun manfacturer money and NRA money" that is supposedly getting all these senators into office is nonsense (just like the Russia meddled narrative). The reason why pro-2A people get voted into office is because the majority of Americans still believe in gun ownership. Only lefty coastal enclaves hate gun ownership and enact strict gun controls, and ironically, they are also the source of most gun crime per the FBI homicide report.
I'm afraid for people who believe these made up stories about "NRA money", because it shows me they are willing to ignore reality and accept biased fantasy narrative.
Don't be ridiculous. The polling I posted above shows conclusively that the vast majority of the population is for tighter gun control. It's only the gun manufacturer $$ and their lobby that is stopping the will of the people.
You're not talking facts. Here are the top lobbyist orgs in the country by dollar amount.
Do you see the NRA? They aren't even in the Top 50. This imaginary "gun manfacturer money and NRA money" that is supposedly getting all these senators into office is nonsense (just like the Russia meddled narrative). The reason why pro-2A people get voted into office is because the majority of Americans still believe in gun ownership. Only lefty coastal enclaves hate gun ownership and enact strict gun controls, and ironically, they are also the source of most gun crime per the FBI homicide report.
I'm afraid for people who believe these made up stories about "NRA money", because it shows me they are willing to ignore reality and accept biased fantasy narrative.
217
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 3:37pm
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 3:37pm
Feux Follets says
OF Course they would donate to oppose Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton would have severely weakened the 2A movement. Trump ran on a pro 2A platform. I spent money to oppose Hillary Clinton (over $10,000+).
Why is this a big deal?
Hillary Clinton got $1.2 billion dollars in donations from Hollywood, Silicon Valley and other groups, the most money ever gathered by a single presidential candidate, and she still lost.
I laugh about that until this day. Don't see you accusing Hollywood and Silicon Valley of "meddling in law making".
In the 2016 election, the NRA spent $11,438,118 to support Donald Trump’s campaign and donated $19,756,346 to groups opposing Hillary Clinton’s. However, the bulk of the contributions have gone to House and Senate members. Here is a look at the top 10 recipients of NRA contributions.
OF Course they would donate to oppose Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton would have severely weakened the 2A movement. Trump ran on a pro 2A platform. I spent money to oppose Hillary Clinton (over $10,000+).
Why is this a big deal?
Hillary Clinton got $1.2 billion dollars in donations from Hollywood, Silicon Valley and other groups, the most money ever gathered by a single presidential candidate, and she still lost.
I laugh about that until this day. Don't see you accusing Hollywood and Silicon Valley of "meddling in law making".
218
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 3:39pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 3:39pm
anon_8f378 says
If Gun Control is such an important issue, how come the activists haven't founded a mass membership organization after many decades?
The Prohibitionist Killjoys had mass membership organizations. So did the Slavery and Civil Rights Movements.
Asking for Tougher Gun Restrictions is like asking for Tougher Murder Restrictions, most people will reflexively say "yes". The devil is in the details. And support for a total repeal of the 2nd Amendment would probably poll in the single digits or low teens, a minority viewpoint.
The fact that one National Gun Rights Association has millions of members but the Gun Banners have nothing in the same league is a measure of the enthusiasm for and against. Enthusiasts have higher turnout, and more likely to consider their most important issue to be THE deciding factor in electing a candidate.
Remember, Australia was founded by the Rum Corps, Military officers who doled out 100, sometimes hundreds, of Lashes - often fatal - for falling out of the chain gang. Often double if you were a Papist Croppie. Even hardnosed Royal Navy captains who had no problem giving a few lashes for drunkenness or fighting or gambling, were shocked at the lashes Botany Bay Prisoners were given for trifles by the corrupt, omnipotent Military Authorities that ran the Colony.
The will of the people is much more accurately measured by polling than by number of activists.
If Gun Control is such an important issue, how come the activists haven't founded a mass membership organization after many decades?
The Prohibitionist Killjoys had mass membership organizations. So did the Slavery and Civil Rights Movements.
Asking for Tougher Gun Restrictions is like asking for Tougher Murder Restrictions, most people will reflexively say "yes". The devil is in the details. And support for a total repeal of the 2nd Amendment would probably poll in the single digits or low teens, a minority viewpoint.
The fact that one National Gun Rights Association has millions of members but the Gun Banners have nothing in the same league is a measure of the enthusiasm for and against. Enthusiasts have higher turnout, and more likely to consider their most important issue to be THE deciding factor in electing a candidate.
Remember, Australia was founded by the Rum Corps, Military officers who doled out 100, sometimes hundreds, of Lashes - often fatal - for falling out of the chain gang. Often double if you were a Papist Croppie. Even hardnosed Royal Navy captains who had no problem giving a few lashes for drunkenness or fighting or gambling, were shocked at the lashes Botany Bay Prisoners were given for trifles by the corrupt, omnipotent Military Authorities that ran the Colony.
« First « Previous Comments 179 - 218 of 1,321 Next » Last » Search these comments
"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."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.