patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,208,589 comments by 14,365 users - ElYorsh, Eric Holder, Patrick online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 201 - 240 of 1,321 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
219
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 3:45pm
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 3:45pm
There's not one anti-gun citizen run advocacy group with a 5 million person PAID MEMBERSHIP. Not even 100,000.
220
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 3:49pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 3:49pm
Wow, looking at the lobbyists, no wonder health care is so F**ked up in this country. Their stock shot to the moon with Obamney Care.
No wonder we don't have border security or immigration enforcement with "Don't ask for a copy of workers' papers, but don't you copy our IP" CoC Suckers being #1
And Alphabet/Google, that explains the war on Privacy.
No wonder we don't have border security or immigration enforcement with "Don't ask for a copy of workers' papers, but don't you copy our IP" CoC Suckers being #1
And Alphabet/Google, that explains the war on Privacy.
221
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 7:24pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
And we gave those scum bags yuge tax cuts, how fucked up is that, Right?
Wow, looking at the lobbyists, no wonder health care is so F**ked up in this country. Their stock shot to the moon with Obamney Care.
No wonder we don't have border security or immigration enforcement with "Don't ask for a copy of workers' papers, but don't you copy our IP" CoC Suckers being #1
And Alphabet/Google, that explains the war on Privacy.
And we gave those scum bags yuge tax cuts, how fucked up is that, Right?
222
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 7:24pm
Goran_K says
Just think this might just happen this time, one should be careful what they wish for.
If the NRA is really not spending much on lobbying then it could be easy to outspend them. Maybe some of those Hollywood types get this started.
There's not one anti-gun citizen run advocacy group with a 5 million person PAID MEMBERSHIP. Not even 100,000.
Just think this might just happen this time, one should be careful what they wish for.
If the NRA is really not spending much on lobbying then it could be easy to outspend them. Maybe some of those Hollywood types get this started.
223
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 7:24pm
Feux Follets says
Stop whining.
Goran_K saysDon't see you accusing Hollywood and Silicon Valley of "meddling in law making".
"discuss anything but the other users"
Reading comprehension issues ?
Stop whining.
224
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 7:24pm
anon_8f378 says
Yes, we know how polling is done, Hillary is going to win the election according to the polls.
Oh wait....
Read up on how polling is done--especially the parts about obtaining a representative population in the polling.
Yes, we know how polling is done, Hillary is going to win the election according to the polls.
Oh wait....
225
anonymous
2018 Feb 23, 6:11am
anon_cf6c6 says
Yep, and Hillary did win the popular vote. The polls were right.
Yes, we know how polling is done, Hillary is going to win the election according to the polls.
Oh wait...
Yep, and Hillary did win the popular vote. The polls were right.
226
anonymous
2018 Feb 23, 6:12am
Goran_K says
Because it shows your chart was pure BS. I count $34.5MM just in 3 donations. Not too mention how much they gave to all the other Congresspeople that they've bought. I'd conservatively estimate they paid $50MM which puts them 3rd behind only the CoC and NAR.
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?
Because it shows your chart was pure BS. I count $34.5MM just in 3 donations. Not too mention how much they gave to all the other Congresspeople that they've bought. I'd conservatively estimate they paid $50MM which puts them 3rd behind only the CoC and NAR.
227
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 23, 9:01am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 23, 9:01am
anon_83081 says
We gave all corporations a tax cut, and now our marginal rate is more in keeping with our competitors.
And we gave those scum bags yuge tax cuts, how fucked up is that, Right?
We gave all corporations a tax cut, and now our marginal rate is more in keeping with our competitors.
228
anonymous
2018 Feb 23, 9:28am
anon_8f378 says
OK, so she IS President? Right?
Oh wait.
anon_cf6c6 saysYes, we know how polling is done, Hillary is going to win the election according to the polls.
Oh wait...
Yep, and Hillary did win the popular vote. The polls were right.
OK, so she IS President? Right?
Oh wait.
229
anonymous
2018 Feb 23, 9:28am
TwoScoopsPlissken says
And, more importantly, Trump has followed Republican rule #1 and given more wealth to the 1%.
We gave all corporations a tax cut, and now our marginal rate is more in keeping with our competitors.
And, more importantly, Trump has followed Republican rule #1 and given more wealth to the 1%.
230
anonymous
2018 Feb 23, 10:12am
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Yet those companies get the protection of the US government. You don't think that is worth something? Maybe a little extra tax to pay for that defense, is that really out of the question? I do realize that if Ireland got invaded the US would come and help but what about the protection a US company has within it's boarder. Not to mention how it assists abroad. Think operation iraq liberation.
anon_83081 saysAnd we gave those scum bags yuge tax cuts, how fucked up is that, Right?
We gave all corporations a tax cut, and now our marginal rate is more in keeping with our competitors.
Yet those companies get the protection of the US government. You don't think that is worth something? Maybe a little extra tax to pay for that defense, is that really out of the question? I do realize that if Ireland got invaded the US would come and help but what about the protection a US company has within it's boarder. Not to mention how it assists abroad. Think operation iraq liberation.
231
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 23, 10:13am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 23, 10:13am
anon_8f378 says
Whereas Democrats don't help the 1%, right? Feinstein just wants to eliminate the F-35 and raise the tariff, right?
And, more importantly, Trump has followed Republican rule #1 and given more wealth to the 1%.
Whereas Democrats don't help the 1%, right? Feinstein just wants to eliminate the F-35 and raise the tariff, right?
233
anonymous
2018 Feb 23, 7:56pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
No, the Republican party is the party of the 1%. Everything they do has pretty much one thing in mind--help the rich.
Whereas Democrats don't help the 1%, right? Feinstein just wants to eliminate the F-35 and raise the tariff, right?
No, the Republican party is the party of the 1%. Everything they do has pretty much one thing in mind--help the rich.
234
Patrick
2018 Feb 23, 7:59pm
Patrick
2018 Feb 23, 7:59pm
anon_3b28c says
Historically you'd have been right, but we live in strange times, where the elite are represented more by Democrats than Republicans:
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Whereas Democrats don't help the 1%, right? Feinstein just wants to eliminate the F-35 and raise the tariff, right?
No, the Republican party is the party of the 1%. Everything they do has pretty much one thing in mind--help the rich.
Historically you'd have been right, but we live in strange times, where the elite are represented more by Democrats than Republicans:
We cross-checked the Open Secrets list of the top 100 individuals donating to outside spending groups in the current election against the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires and found that, as of June 19, there were 22 individuals on the Open Secrets list who were billionaires. Of those 22 billionaires, 13 -- or more than half -- gave predominantly to liberal groups or groups affiliated with the Democratic Party. The other nine gave predominantly to conservative groups.
236
HappyGilmore
2018 Feb 24, 8:59am
Patrick says
No, it's still the case today. Although sometimes looking at donations is useful, in this case you need only look at voting behavior of both parties.
Dems voted for tax increases for the wealthy. Dems voted for capital gains tax increase. Dems voted against free trade (as a party) Dems voted for regulation of Wall St.
Reps voted for tax breaks for the wealthy. Reps voted for capital gains tax decrease. Reps voted for free trade (as a party). Reps voted to eliminate regulation of Wall St.
Actions speak louder than words.
Historically you'd have been right, but we live in strange times, where the elite are represented more by Democrats than Republicans:
No, it's still the case today. Although sometimes looking at donations is useful, in this case you need only look at voting behavior of both parties.
Dems voted for tax increases for the wealthy. Dems voted for capital gains tax increase. Dems voted against free trade (as a party) Dems voted for regulation of Wall St.
Reps voted for tax breaks for the wealthy. Reps voted for capital gains tax decrease. Reps voted for free trade (as a party). Reps voted to eliminate regulation of Wall St.
Actions speak louder than words.
238
anonymous
2018 Feb 26, 7:11pm
So my main gripe is that guns barely register on the 'major problems' scale. Its alright for corporations to profit from selling us poison that gives us heart disease, cancer, diabetes etc, but we as a country get our panties in a twist about a few dead kids because they 'were murdered'. Is it not still murder if the weapon is mass poison?
240
ThatGuy
2018 Feb 26, 7:13pm
I've been thinking about the anti-gun rhetoric these days
and I think I finally understand why I'm so upset by it...
My conclusion is that humanity has its priorities all messed up.
How often do you think about heart disease?
Do you know what a malignant neoplasm is?
What do you know about lower respiratory disease, accidental death, or cerebrovascular disease?
These are the top 5 killers in our country, 61.6% of deaths, and there is no outrage, no movement. 1.6M dead in 2015. Our reaction is madness.
Gun violence happens and its sad
The news will share it and the world will cry together
"we must do something!" we say...
But behind the scenes, a sinister force is at work
to distract you from our real problems
and we buy it hook, line, and sinker
And when a nutjob with an immense history
providing specific public warning of his terrible plans
Takes a semi-automatic weapon and follows through on his threats, the news takes it viral, with a revolting level of propaganda, and the crowd cheers for change. But the change is at the expense of honest people being able to defend themselves from tyranny. The evil will not yield their weapons, and history has shown that weapon bans don't work.
I don't ask you to give up your anti-gun thoughts.
I ask you to give them the respect that 1.34% of deaths deserve. 0.55% if you don't include suicide.
Please share this if you agree, it took a bit of time to look up the data, which you can find here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_06.pdf
and I think I finally understand why I'm so upset by it...
My conclusion is that humanity has its priorities all messed up.
How often do you think about heart disease?
Do you know what a malignant neoplasm is?
What do you know about lower respiratory disease, accidental death, or cerebrovascular disease?
These are the top 5 killers in our country, 61.6% of deaths, and there is no outrage, no movement. 1.6M dead in 2015. Our reaction is madness.
Gun violence happens and its sad
The news will share it and the world will cry together
"we must do something!" we say...
But behind the scenes, a sinister force is at work
to distract you from our real problems
and we buy it hook, line, and sinker
And when a nutjob with an immense history
providing specific public warning of his terrible plans
Takes a semi-automatic weapon and follows through on his threats, the news takes it viral, with a revolting level of propaganda, and the crowd cheers for change. But the change is at the expense of honest people being able to defend themselves from tyranny. The evil will not yield their weapons, and history has shown that weapon bans don't work.
I don't ask you to give up your anti-gun thoughts.
I ask you to give them the respect that 1.34% of deaths deserve. 0.55% if you don't include suicide.
Please share this if you agree, it took a bit of time to look up the data, which you can find here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_06.pdf
« First « Previous Comments 201 - 240 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.