patrick.net

  new post
register or log in

#investing   #housing   #politics   #humor  
10,719 registered users, 1 user online now: Entitlemented

Gun owners fears

By Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Jan 30, 5:18am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)   1 link   8,873 views   101 comments   watch (1)   share   quote  

http://theweek.com/article/index/239337/why-gun-owners-should-want-to-amend-the-second-amendment

If America's gun owners concede even small things now, they risk further erosions of rights later.

If only people felt that way about human rights and all other civil rights including privacy.

« First     « Previous     Comments 62-101 of 101     Last »

62   Reality   2013 Feb 3, 8:40am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Raw says

The article is right. We have no intention of honoring the terms of any deal that allows any gun in the hands of the average joe.

Chipping away at the worst guns at any given time is our strategy. Everyone knows it, and no one including the NRA can do anything about it.

It's just a matter of time my friends.

So the proud royal tomb builders boast about the technical excellence of their handiwork and how secret the entry ways are . . . just before they are sealed inside alive, to keep the secret, well, secret.

63   Kevin   2013 Feb 3, 9:04am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Call it Crazy says

Kevin says

You guys understand that the value of living in america falls to zero in the event of a tyrannical government triggering a civil war, right?

Well, if you have a well armed civilian population, wouldn't that be a deterrent to the .gov from triggering a civil war or trying to take more freedoms away??

No.

64   Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Feb 4, 6:50am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

IDDQD says

See, this is what I'm talking about: inflation of big words. Nobody takes the word "nazi" seriously nowadays for this exact reason. You calling patdown at the airport (to which you don't really HAVE to go in the first place) a "sexual assault" doesn't make it even close to real sexual assault a.k.a. rape. Ask any victim of real rape if these things are the same.

Your ignorance is disguising. Here's a few links you should read. I have about ten thousand others.

http://www.susiecastillo.net/blog/2011/4/25/my-tsa-pat-down-experience.html

http://www.10news.com/news/poway-woman-claims-she-was-sexually-assaulted-by-2-female-tsa-employees

"It's just nothing that you want to have happen to you," she said. "I mean, it is sexual assault. It's humiliation. It's embarrassment. It's horrendous."

The second pat-down then occurred. Buckenmayer said by this time, both male and female TSA agents were standing around talking about her genitalia.

"This one was akin to sexual assault... how she touched me," said Buckenmayer.

IDDQD says

to which you don't really HAVE to go in the first place

That's your fucking answer? We, the people, now have no right to travel and must give up our rights to human dignity for the privilege of traveling? We have to accept suffering sexual indignation in order to go to our sibling's wedding, our niece's birth, our parent's funeral? If that's your answer than double fuck you.

We, the people, allow the government to regulate the airline industry. The government has no fucking rights except what we the people bestow on it. So I say, we take away the rights of government to regulate air travel and let us build our own fucking planes. Eliminate the barrier to entry and then we'll have a real choice about whether we want to go through a TSA "protected" airline or one that doesn't have TSA agents. Guess what, everybody will choose the non-TSA airline even if it's run by Bob and Sons.

65   Kevin   2013 Feb 4, 11:04am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

And everyone will die in plane crashes.

I'm no fan of the TSA and security theater in general, but to say that we don't need regulation in air travel is ridiculous.

66   Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Feb 4, 12:35pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

TSA doesn't prevent plane crashes. You're thinking of the FAA, and most pilots say the FAA doesn't prevent plane crashes either.

I'll take my chances with a pilot over a TSA sexual predator any day.

67   deepcgi (3/3 = 100% civil)   2013 Feb 4, 2:16pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I don't believe it is ridiculous to say we don't need regulation by the Federal government in air travel. The current danger in flight these days is that someone will blow up the plane or crash it in some random location - not that they will fly a plane loaded with diesel fuel into thousands of people.

The days of hijacking planes is over. Over. No group of passengers will ever again sit peacefully while vigilantes fly them to oblivion (or Cuba - whichever comes first). The most the terrorist can hope for is to kill the people on the plane and a few others who are unlucky enough to be under the falling metal.

The individual airlines would need to convince me that they are safe enough for my patronage. I'm sure they would do that if the Feds did not interfere.

For me it is all about individual liberty. All I see however is the end of such liberty for the benefit of a "common good". Red or Blue colored Keynesianism. What's the difference between the hues? I see few signs that the republicans will safeguard my individual liberties any more than the democrats. Both sides in the whitehouse have been quite happy with the Patriot Act.

My family and I have a right to certain liberties. Popular vote will not rob me of them. We all have lines we draw in the metaphorical sand that indicate the boundaries out of which we will allow invasion.

What's happening now is that the federal government is treading close to many people's lines in the sand. People love their country but no longer believe the government is "of" them. The country they love is the ground they stand on and the common belief that there is a check and balance for every entity that acts in the country's name.

I see no check or balance on the military.

68   StillLooking   2013 Feb 6, 2:34pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Call it Crazy says

Kevin says

You guys understand that the value of living in america falls to zero in the event of a tyrannical government triggering a civil war, right?

Well, if you have a well armed civilian population, wouldn't that be a deterrent to the .gov from triggering a civil war or trying to take more freedoms away??

huh? what?

We had a well armed civilian population before our Civil War.

69   tatupu70   2013 Feb 6, 11:07pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

So I say, we take away the rights of government to regulate air travel and let
us build our own fucking planes

Dan8267 says

TSA doesn't prevent plane crashes. You're thinking of the FAA, and most
pilots say the FAA doesn't prevent plane crashes either.

You said take away the right of government to regulate air travel. That would obviously include the FAA.

70   Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 12:01am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

IDDQD says

You seem to have no problem with argument that nobody needs a rifle with certain cosmetic features and will be perfectly fine with a muzzleloader,

I have never made any statement to that effect, nor is that the political position I hold. You simply assume that I'm for stricter gun controls because you view the world as being divided between pro-gun and anti-gun and nothing in between. This polarized view of the world you have is typical of Americans today, but it does not reflect reality.

What I have refuted in this and other threads is the argument that the Second Amendment right to form militias protects us from government tyranny. Back when the Second Amendment was written, government and civilians had the same weapons: muskets. Today the asymmetry in power is ridiculous, so the intent of the Second Amendment simply doesn't work.

However, just because I refute the ludicrous argument that minute men are going to band up and save us from government force, does not mean that I am for further limiting access to arms. I can reject this argument and also reject arguments from the other side. In other words, I don't have to play the stupid polar game of accepting all the dumb arguments from one side and rejecting all arguments from the other side. I base my opinions on facts and reason, not religious dogma.

IDDQD says

Both arguments are essentially the same - somebody telling you that they don't value a particular freedom you hold dear and see no problem when it's being infringed.

One can object to the TSA and their crimes without believing that an armed assault on the TSA is the answer. I'd love to see someone try to exercise their right to carry a firearm, legally registered to them, onto a commercial aircraft. When the TSA and police try to confiscate the gun, I'd love to hear them say, "from my cold dead hands". Somehow, I think the police would have no problems with making that true. But it would be nice to see a militia group try to fly commercial with their rifles. It would be even nicer to see them succeed. But I don't believe there's a snowball chance in hell of that happening.

Again, how does going toe to toe against a well-funded, well-armed government work? It seems destined to failure.

71   Ironman (97/100 = 97% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 12:07am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

StillLooking says

We had a well armed civilian population before our Civil War.

I think we have a better one now....

72   Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 12:08am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

deepcgi says

I don't believe it is ridiculous to say we don't need regulation by the Federal government in air travel.

Even more importantly, if the government takes the power to regulate and restrict access to air travel to supplies under their control, the government has the responsibility and liability to ensure that our right to travel is not infringed upon or inhibited. This is why No Fly lists and TSA rape scanners and sexual groping should not be tolerated.

deepcgi says

The days of hijacking planes is over. Over. No group of passengers will ever again sit peacefully while vigilantes fly them to oblivion

Exactly. The only reason 9/11 succeeded was that the U.S. had the policy of not letting civilians interfere in the hijacking situation. I guarantee you there were many able-bodied men on those flights thinking, "Man, I can easily take these fucking punks down, but then I'll get arrested and thrown in jail for a decade for endangering the plane.". This line of thought would not occur anymore and no jury would find a person guilty of any crime while that person was taking down a hijacker.

This change and locking the cockpit doors are all that is necessary to prevent another 9/11. And quite frankly, having the cockpit doors lock is something that should have been done even ignoring hijacking. Hell, I was shocked they weren't locked. What if some dumb-ass drunk in first class has too much to drink and thinks he could do a better job flying the plane? That has nothing to do with terrorism, is a lot more probable, and is amble cause to have locking cockpit doors.

73   Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 12:10am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Call it Crazy says

StillLooking says

We had a well armed civilian population before our Civil War.

I think we have a better one now....

People today may be armed more than before the Civil War, but certainly the difference between the weapons possessed by the government and those by civilians is far, far greater.

74   Ironman (97/100 = 97% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 12:28am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

People today may be armed more than before the Civil War, but certainly the difference between the weapons possessed by the government and those by civilians is far, far greater.

True, but what the civilians lack in weapons, they make up in overall available manpower, by far....

75   Ironman (97/100 = 97% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 12:31am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

People today may be armed more than before the Civil War, but certainly the difference between the weapons possessed by the government and those by civilians is far, far greater.

Oh, how's that working out for our military over in Afghanistan?

76   Quigley (9/9 = 100% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 1:36am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

The Feds and DHLS are already preparing for civil unrest. 1.6 billion rounds bought in the last year. Enough to wage all-out war for 30 years! Woo!

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-21-6-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition

77   tatupu70   2013 Feb 7, 2:12am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

Even more importantly, if the government takes the power to regulate and
restrict access to air travel to supplies under their control, the government
has the responsibility and liability to ensure that our right to travel is not
infringed upon or inhibited. This is why No Fly lists and TSA rape scanners and
sexual groping should not be tolerated.

Typical Dan hyperbole aside, the government must weight the rights of citizens not to be blown up in the sky with the right to privacy. I agree that the current TSA scans are over the line and probably not particularly effective. But it's a difficult line to straddle.

78   FortWayne (13/13 = 100% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 2:16am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I'm sure you guys heard about this police officer Christopher Dorner who is somewhere here out on a killing rampage. All over the news today. Ironically he preached gun control.

The day government learns to control their own guns and their own officers and soldiers, can be the day they can talk about responsible gun ownership for the rest of us.

I don't agree with government that puts us in danger and tells us to roll over and die.

http://ktla.com/2013/02/07/read-christopher-dorners-so-called-manifesto/#axzz2KEXJ3hFu

79   Ironman (97/100 = 97% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 2:30am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (5)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

FortWayne says

The day government learns to control their own guns and their own officers and soldiers, can be the day they can talk about responsible gun ownership for the rest of us.

They don't want to control THEIR guns, they just want to control OURS.... look, good ole Uncle Joe is telling you why....

*

80   Kevin   2013 Feb 7, 2:37am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Nobody wants your gold or your house. Stop eating peyote.

81   Ironman (97/100 = 97% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 2:39am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (5)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Kevin says

Nobody wants your gold or your house. Stop eating peyote.

Oh good.... since YOU said it, I feel better!!

82   Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 4:13am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Call it Crazy says

Oh, how's that working out for our military over in Afghanistan?

The reason our military can't do shit in Afghanistan is that our politicians are all fucked up. WTF is the winning condition in Afghanistan? All the Muslims love us and the Jews? You can't accomplish that by killing people.

Furthermore, why would the warfare industry want the war in Afghanistan to end? Does Burger King want people to stop eating shitty burgers?

83   Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 4:21am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

tatupu70 says

Typical Dan hyperbole aside, the government must weight the rights of citizens not to be blown up in the sky with the right to privacy.

There's a big difference between a minor infraction of privacy and mass strip searches, which is what the TSA scanners are. Furthermore, the scanners would not have prevented 9/11. Not at all.

Locking the cockpit door and making sure civilians aren't subject to arrest for taking down hijackers would have prevented 9/11.

Finally, if such strip searches are necessary, why is it that government is pushing to have a certain class of rich, powerful people not subject to them? Once the masses have become complacent with their rights being violated, the ruling class will have special, no rape lines that only they can use to get through the checkpoint.

In fact, the whole damn system is just security theater. Cargo sent through our nation's ports is not even checked, and that cargo could contain nukes, dirty bombs, and biological weapons. Why isn't security at the ports as important? Because it's cheap to invade people's rights, but it's expensive to check cargo.

Furthermore, a terrorist could easily blow up a planing using air mail. Just send a package with a smart phone and an explosive through air mail and have it detonate when the GPS says you are at X altitude.

Even easier still, a suicide bomber could simply detonate a bomb while in the security checkpoint, killing the masses of people crowded around it. What are you going to do about that? Have a security checkpoint before entering the security checkpoint?

84   Bap33   2013 Feb 7, 5:13am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

Because it's cheap to invade people's rights, but it's expensive to check cargo.

best line you have coined in a while. 100% agree.

85   Ironman (97/100 = 97% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 5:14am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (4)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

You can't accomplish that by killing people.

BHO thinks so...

*

86   FortWayne (13/13 = 100% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 5:28am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

Because it's cheap to invade people's rights, but it's expensive to check cargo.

best line you have coined in a while. 100% agree.

Much agreed, hey it's cheaper to get obedience from unarmed people than to fix the economy they screwed up up there in Washington.

87   FortWayne (13/13 = 100% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 5:38am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Hey here is our LAPD at it's finest.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jump-out-boys-20130207,0,7728636.story?track=lanowpicks

A clique that celebrated shootings. You get killed, they celebrate... with psychopaths like that running around I'm certainly going to cling onto my guns.

88   Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 6:15am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Call it Crazy says

BHO

BHO = GWB

89   Ironman (97/100 = 97% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 9:58am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (4)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

Call it Crazy says

BHO

BHO = GWB

Like I've been saying over and over... different sides to the same coin!!

90   tatupu70   2013 Feb 7, 10:25pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

BHO = GWB

Hey, I agree with you on things occasionally too.

Does that make tatupu70 = Dan8267?

91   Macropodia (24/26 = 92% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 11:27pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

That depends on how easily you get excited....
go too far and they turn up the juice on that xray machine and shock you back to realilty...

IDDQD says

You calling patdown at the airport (to which you don't really HAVE to go in the first place) a "sexual assault" doesn't make it even close to real sexual assault a.k.a. rape.

92   Macropodia (24/26 = 92% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 11:31pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

So you'd rather have no patdown and unnecessarily increase the chances some nutjob takes down the plane...
You're a simple ass.
Complicating the issue unnecessarily.....
no patdown = smuggled explosives onto plane = terrorist event.
It's the price you pay for air travel in these times...
Get with the program or get on the train....

Dan8267 says

That's your fucking answer? We, the people, now have no right to travel and must give up our rights to human dignity for the privilege of traveling? We have to accept suffering sexual indignation in order to go to our sibling's wedding, our niece's birth, our parent's funeral? If that's your answer than double fuck you.

93   Macropodia (24/26 = 92% civil)   2013 Feb 7, 11:34pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Shipping wars! First I've heard of that....

Quigley says

The Feds and DHLS are already preparing for civil unrest. 1.6 billion rounds bought in the last year. Enough to wage all-out war for 30 years! Woo!

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-21-6-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition

94   Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Feb 8, 7:30am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

tatupu70 says

Does that make tatupu70 = Dan8267?

In your wet dreams.

95   mikem   2013 Feb 8, 11:01am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

96   Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Feb 8, 1:05pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

mikem says

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

Yet it does. We can't have land mines, missiles, C4 explosives, nukes, tanks, armed helicopters, etc. So clearly this quote is violated severely.

97   Moderate Infidel   2013 Feb 8, 1:17pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

mikem says

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

Unless they are non landed peasants, slaves, native americans, women or anyone else other than white protestant males.

98   JodyChunder   2013 Feb 8, 2:41pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

tatupu70 says

Hey, I agree with you on things occasionally too.

How can you agree with this?

99   tatupu70   2013 Feb 8, 9:17pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

tatupu70 says

Does that make tatupu70 = Dan8267?

In your wet dreams.

Wow--good one Dan. Lightning fast wit. I never saw it coming......

In truth, you're right. My dream is to be a nerdy, egotistical computer programmer living in Boca with severe anger management issues. Where do I sign up??

100   Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Feb 9, 10:50am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

tatupu70 says

Where do I sign up??

Same line that your mom's in.

101   Bap33   2013 Feb 10, 4:38pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

total burn

« First     « Previous     Comments 62-101 of 101     Last »

Watch comments by email

home   top   users  
housing crash   thunderdome   sexy pix   site suggestions  
best comments   ad hominem comment jail   random post   patrick.net on twitter  
about   contact  
please recommend patrick.net to the criminally insane