patrick.net

Exactly how did not having the right to bear arms prevent terrorist attacks in France and Belgium?

zzyzzx says

Exactly how did not having the right to bear arms prevent terrorist attacks in France and Belgium?

The more difficult it is to obtain weapons, the less often they will be used. If anything, the presence of weapons indicates a need for even tighter control over them.

No where else do people make the claim that because not all crimes are prevented, the laws prohibiting crimes should be revoked or law enforcement should not bother trying to enforce the law.

Hater says

The first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights, Human rights that cannot be repealed. Why are you against human rights?

1. The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with human rights, but rather civil rights.
2. The Second Amendment was already for all practical purposes repealed. If you cannot own nukes and RPGs and landmines, then you don't have a right to bear arms. The Second Amendment does not use the word gun and makes no distinction between guns and the vast array of other arms.
3. Possessing a gun clearly is not a human right.
4. Not being murdered is a human right.
5. Clearly gun possession is not a right since felons cannot legally possess guns and the general public cannot bear arms on airplanes and in courthouses and prisons.

Hater says

Why are you against civil rights?

Another straw man argument. The issue being debated with whether or not gun possession should be a civil right. Right now, it is not. If it were, the government could not
1. Prevent felons from possessing guns.
2. Prevent the imprisoned from possessing guns.
3. Prevent people attending trials from possessing guns.
4. Prevent people on airplanes and in the TSA security lines from possessing guns including both concealed and open carry.
5. Require background checks for gun possession.
6. Deny any person possession of a gun regardless of the results of the background check.
7. Require licenses for gun possession, open carry, or concealed carry.
8. Deny any such licenses for any reason.
9. Prevent or hinder the transport, purchase, or sale of guns including over state lines.
10. Limit the number of guns, types of gun, amount of ammo, or type of ammo possessed by anyone. This includes cop-killer bullets.

Furthermore, I am for the civil right of not to have one's life placed in jeopardy because some asshole just likes playing with guns. Your entertainment is not worth more than a person's life. Buy a fucking first-person shooter game and play all you want. That's what they exist for.

I am also for the civil right of the public not having to fear the police and get risk being shot simply because there are so many assholes with guns that the police are trigger happy.

more than half of the gun owners are dogmatic group-think morons

They could, I doubt it would have any effect on preventing terrorism in the U.S. This is a problem we will be dealing with for a long time, 2nd amendment or not.

While we're at it, I suggest the 1st amendment needs a good gutting as well. Been to a few political rallies, and it was mind numbing to see what people consider "freedom of expression".

If I knew my own state could maintain a regulated militia made up of trained volunteer residents, which answered to the governor rather than the Feds, I would feel better about gun control.

I don't believe the Federal Government should be entrusted solely with military fire power.

I also don't believe a federal no fly list made up of what has often been shown to be nearly arbitrary names should limit the right of self defense - primarily of citizens.

States should regain some of the power they have lost through political wars of attrition.

LOL says

more than half of the gun owners are dogmatic group-think morons

I'm sorry, seems you have gun owners confused with the masses from the democrat party - there now you're corrected.

deepcgi says

If I knew my own state could maintain a regulated militia made up of trained volunteer residents, which answered to the governor rather than the Feds, I would feel better about gun control.

Have you learned nothing from the Civil War? States couldn't stand up to the federal government even in 1860. Now that the federal government has nukes, ICBMs, tanks, Apache helicopters, and trillions of dollars of military hardware, what the fuck is a minute man militia going to do? Bleed until the opposition drowns?

I'm with Dan: it's absolutely time for Dem party candidates to run for POTUS and Congress on this very idea.

Is it time to repeal pressure cookers and soda cans too?

lostand confused says

Is it time to repeal pressure cookers and soda cans too?

Do pressure cookers and soda cans serve any purpose other than killing?

lostand confused says

Is it time to repeal pressure cookers and soda cans too?

If Dem party wants to put this in their platform who are we to object?

Dan8267 says

Have you learned nothing from the Civil War? States couldn't stand up to the federal government even in 1860. Now that the federal government has nukes, ICBMs, tanks, Apache helicopters, and trillions of dollars of military hardware, what the fuck is a minute man militia going to do? Bleed until the opposition drowns?

Have you learned nothing from Vietnam? In 1860 men went to war and returned home after victory, defeat or didn't return at all. And people at home waited and got their news from newspapers. So yeah, the Feds prevail. If only barely. Not because they were Feds but mostly because the North had better industry. In 1968 the Tet Offensive was a failure for NV and had huge body count disadvantage but it didn't matter in the end - it pretty much broke US's resolve to continue. Why? Because of steady stream of bodies coming back and public starting to ask "is it really worth it". Because pictures of devastation and piles of other side's bodies all over TV wasn't a pretty sight for the people at home. In the end better weaponry and huge body count advantage didn't matter - the people wanted out. Heck, the people wanted out of much less bloody Iraq occupation. Today, the government won't be able to keep casualties under wraps even if media is fully under its control.
Look at Russia: the media is completely controlled and spewing government propaganda 24x7, there is literally a law forbidding disclosure of military losses carrying real prison terms. Nevertheless the information about heavy military losses got out through social media and screwed plans to capture a vital land bridge to the occupied Crimea. Why? Because Russian public wanted victories like cakewalk in Crimea, but wasn't ready to pay real price once it became apparent that the other side is resolved to fight back and is capable of inflicting pain.
Now, what is the great idea for which US military would be ready to suffer losses and lay devastation to their own territory battling against tens of millions of "militiamen" with tanks and nukes and for public on Fed side to accept it? Is gun confiscations in order to prevent terror acts big enough of idea?

The first amendment should be modified to make hell to pay for those who give publicity to terrorists. The media giving free advertising/air time to terrorists (presumably because it boosts ratings and is highly profitable). Giving free advertising to Islamic terrorists after the act ought to be the same crime as the media paying money to a terrorist if he will murder Americans and give them an exclusive on his life story and grievances.

Another needed reform is profiling needs to be allowed. Common sense tells us that we should not be letting Americans be murdered to avoid inconveniencing innocent Muslims. The Constitution prohibits searches not based on probable cause warrants and religion and ethnicity are not allowed to be cited as probable cause.

But when there is one Muslim attack after another and many Muslim groups promise future attacks, it is nothing but politically-correct nonsense to force, say, a Swedish-American grandmother to be searched as often as a Muslim when boarding a plane.

There is no probable cause to search me when I board a plane or when I enter a county fair or stadium. Yet they search me. If they can waive the Constitution for that, they can waive it to put increased scrutiny on Muslims.

Straw Man says

Have you learned nothing from Vietnam?

Yes. If you are protected by China, the U.S. won't nuke you. How does that apply to a civilian militia defeating the U.S. military on the military's home ground? The federal government didn't give a shit about Vietnam. It was just politics. It most certainly does care about its own territory.

Sen Bob Bennett was a neighbor of mine on September 11, 2001. On September 16th I got to sit down with him for an hour in a room of only 6 people, and ask very frank questions on what had just happened.

The first question I asked him was, "Will we declare war...and upon whom?"

His answer was, "Not a chance..the days of declaring war..except in rhetoric, are behind us." Several of us asked him "why" simultaneously.

He said, "Insurance companies. When my colleagues saw the buildings come down, their first reaction was "who is going to pay for this? And they didn't mean those who were responsible. They know that the insurance companies are off the hook for boundless expenses whenever Acts of God or War take place. There will be no declaration of war, but we will go to war anyway."

I asked him, "Isn't that against the consitution?" He replied, "In my opinion, yes. At this point, the only power Congress has is the purse strings...and a vote against funding the military at a time like this is as good as burning the flag on Flag Day."

He went on to talk about the problem being the erosion of States Rights - that at some point in the recent past many people have come to believe that the Federal Government is naturally superior in authority to the States - that the Federal Government can place all manner of weapons of war from tanks to intercontinental missiles to fighter and bomber aircraft wherever they like and expect nothing from the hosting state but a bended knee, and the threat of denial of federal funds for anything from natural disasters to road repair.

His tone was quite terse when he concluded, "...and it is not because the Constitution gives the Federal Government that power, or that it is better funded than the states, but because only the Federal Government can issue itself it's own credit cards with infinite limits. The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department can't wreak havok endlessly and the Senate can't even give them a thorough audit. The Feds should be paying rent to the States for the privilege, instead of waving monopoly money in their fists"

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.....I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, a State of Very Frayed Nerves has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire. Please authorize a stinging and painful Leaflet Campaign followed by a Blank Check for the Executive Branch of Government."

Franklin D. Roosevelt
December 8, 1941
(adjusted very slightly for modern understanding)