Sorry, Gun Nuts: Hitler Actually Relaxed Most Gun Laws:

[thoughtone]

source: The Rude Pundit


Here's the deal, oh, sweet, stupid gun nuts: Have a history lesson. Gun control laws had nothing to do with the rise of the Nazis or the Holocaust. In fact, they were initially part of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I, punishing Germany by eliminating private ownership of guns. In the Weimar Republic, new laws liberalized gun ownership, allowing hunting rifles and more. The other gun control laws in Germany post-WWI were specifically put in to prevent armed takeover of the government by groups like the Nazi Party, which did not, in fact, stage a coup, but used electoral power to solidify its hold on the government (along with the Gestapo and the repression of demonized Communist groups). In fact, Hitler and the Third Reich opened up gun ownership even more, even if they did ban all Jews from owning guns. Yeah, the 1938 law said "a hunting license entitles the holder to carry firearms and handguns." That was new. It also lowered the age of gun ownership from 20 to 18 and changed one-year permits to three-year.

Oh, by the way, the law also took away any "stabbing weapons" from Jews. And if the Jews had been more strongly armed and attacked the government, all that would have happened is that even more people would have turned on them because the propaganda that said that evil Jews wanted to enslave the country would have appeared to be proven true. No, the Holocaust wouldn't have been worse. But it would still have happened. (This leaves out the enormous amount of armed Jewish resistance against the Nazis.)

The Rude Pundit understands that there's a lot of people out there who like to fellate their guns and call it love. He understands that there's so many who are jonesing for that first rampaging black man to come bursting in during a race riot so they can finally find out what really happens when Bushmaster fire hits human flesh. He understands that there's a whole lot of people invested in chasing the phantoms of resistance, as if they could actually survive if the government turns on us.

If you think you need to be armed with assault weapons because you might have to fight a government that wants to take your assault weapons away through laws passed by a legally-elected body, you are a traitor and kind of a dick. And if that's the best you've got for your argument on why you need to have military style weapons, then you, dear, dumb friend, are believing a whole heaping shovelful of lies.

Come, fantasize for a moment about something other than Jesus with a strap-on shaped like a Ruger reaming your asshole. Fantasize that many non-Jewish Germans opposed Hitler and wanted to rise up against him. You know what would have happened? The enormous Nazi army would have massacred them. The Third Reich existed because the German people wanted it to exist. Give it up.

Fantasize now that the American government wants you dead. Fantasize about the sound of that drone carrying missiles. It's a nearly silent whoosh. You hear it? You think your semi-automatic whatever could stop it? Now imagine being turned into blood vapor.

Really, though, it's never gonna happen. And neither is the race war. And chances are pretty damn good that you're never gonna get to point a gun at anyone other than a family member or yourself.

But, if nothing else, give up the Nazi analogy. Considering all the Nazi shit that shows up at gun shows in an approving way, you just look like hypocritical yahoos attempting to be smart, and that's just fuckin' pathetic.

 

[kain]

For me its not the 2nd amendment or a tyrannical government.
Its to prevent locals taking the law into there own hands.

Rubin Stacy, lynched in Fort Lauderdale on 19th July, 1935

I am sure he wasn't armed or had a weapon at home.

 

[thoughtone]

I am sure he wasn't armed or had a weapon at home.

Interesting!


source: Mother Jones

Whitewashing the Second Amendment

As the Supreme Court reviews a historic gun-rights case, lost is the Second Amendment's controversial history—when it wasn't a bulwark against tyranny but a way of enforcing it.

Wed Mar. 19, 2008

Racial politics dominated the talk in Washington this week as Barack Obama called on Americans to stop ignoring the country's racist past and move forward. The message, apparently, didn't reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices were busy ignoring race during a hearing on the biggest case of the year. On Tuesday, at the same time Obama gave his big speech, the court heard oral arguments in D.C. v. Heller, a case challenging the District of Columbia's 30-year-old law banning handgun ownership. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has reviewed the Second Amendment in 70 years, and its interpretation could have far-reaching implications for state gun laws. Heller is mostly about gun ownership, but it is also about race—not that you would know that based on the oral arguments.

First, by way of background: The key issue in Heller is whether the Constitution guarantees an individual, as opposed to a collective, right to bear arms within the context of a well-organized militia. The plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, is an armed security guard who, with the help of some rich libertarians, brought the lawsuit against the District, arguing that the city's handgun ban illegally prevented him from keeping his work weapon at home. Last year, in a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and ruled that the city's gun-control law was an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to bear arms. Fearing a flood of new firearms into the city as a result, the District appealed to the Supreme Court.

Dozens of interest groups, from the Pink Pistols to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, have filed amicus briefs, offering their take on the Second Amendment. But during oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy and his conservative brethren seemed to fully embrace the gun lobby's favorite romantic myth that the founders, inspired by the image of the musket in the hands of a minuteman, wrote the Second Amendment to give Americans the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny. But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

None of this figured into Tuesday's arguments at the Supreme Court. Instead, a majority of the justices, especially Kennedy, seemed to buy the story that the founders were inordinately concerned with the ability of early settlers to use guns to fend off wild animals and Indians, not rebellious slaves. (Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick counts pivotal swing-voter Kennedy making no fewer than four mentions of a mythical "remote settler," who Kennedy suggested would have needed a gun to "defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears, and grizzlies.")

Just as the court largely ignored the racist past of the Second Amendment, its focus on self-defense also glossed over the more obvious racial implications of the decision it was reviewing. The plaintiff, Heller, is a white man who lives in a 60 percent black city whose democratically elected leaders long ago decided that handguns were doing more harm than good to its citizenry. Indeed, while two of the original five plaintiffs in the Heller case are black women, not a whole lot of African Americans in the District appear to be out there clamoring to own more handguns for self-defense.

In an interview, Bogus says that polls consistently show that African Americans support gun control in much higher numbers than white people do, and probably for good reason: They're usually the ones looking at the wrong end of the barrel. As the NAACP points out in its brief on Heller, in D.C. in 2004, there were 137 gun-homicide victims. All but two of them were black. If the Supreme Court invalidates the city’s handgun ban, any ensuing uptick in gun violence is likely to have a disproportionate impact on African Americans, particularly young men.

Of course, it won’t only be young black men who suffer should the court decide that D.C. residents need more handguns. In fact, someone ought to remind Justice Kennedy about what happens when the wrong people get guns—namely the average, law-abiding D.C. residents who would supposedly benefit from the new gun ownership rights. With all his concern with grizzly bears, Kennedy has clearly forgotten about Carl Rowan Sr.

Back in 1988, the African American syndicated columnist shot an unarmed, 18-year-old white kid from Chevy Chase who'd gone for an unauthorized dip in Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, who shot the kid in the wrist as he tried to flee, claimed he'd feared for his life and was only defending himself. Nonetheless, the columnist was prosecuted for illegally possessing a handgun. The trial ended with a hung jury and Rowan escaped punishment (though the teenagers were sentenced to community service), but the incident fueled a tremendous amount of racial tension in the city that might have been avoided if Rowan had just, say, called the cops.

Gun-wielding journalists who can’t shoot straight may not be the bulwark against tyranny libertarians had in mind. Yet they’re just one of the many scary scenarios the District faces should the court rely on language inspired by slavery and the libertarians’ whitewashed version of American history to restrict the ability of a majority black city to protect its citizens from gun violence.

 

[Count23]

Interesting!


source: Mother Jones

Whitewashing the Second Amendment

As the Supreme Court reviews a historic gun-rights case, lost is the Second Amendment's controversial history—when it wasn't a bulwark against tyranny but a way of enforcing it.

Wed Mar. 19, 2008

Racial politics dominated the talk in Washington this week as Barack Obama called on Americans to stop ignoring the country's racist past and move forward. The message, apparently, didn't reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices were busy ignoring race during a hearing on the biggest case of the year. On Tuesday, at the same time Obama gave his big speech, the court heard oral arguments in D.C. v. Heller, a case challenging the District of Columbia's 30-year-old law banning handgun ownership. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has reviewed the Second Amendment in 70 years, and its interpretation could have far-reaching implications for state gun laws. Heller is mostly about gun ownership, but it is also about race—not that you would know that based on the oral arguments.

First, by way of background: The key issue in Heller is whether the Constitution guarantees an individual, as opposed to a collective, right to bear arms within the context of a well-organized militia. The plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, is an armed security guard who, with the help of some rich libertarians, brought the lawsuit against the District, arguing that the city's handgun ban illegally prevented him from keeping his work weapon at home. Last year, in a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and ruled that the city's gun-control law was an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to bear arms. Fearing a flood of new firearms into the city as a result, the District appealed to the Supreme Court.

Dozens of interest groups, from the Pink Pistols to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, have filed amicus briefs, offering their take on the Second Amendment. But during oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy and his conservative brethren seemed to fully embrace the gun lobby's favorite romantic myth that the founders, inspired by the image of the musket in the hands of a minuteman, wrote the Second Amendment to give Americans the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny. But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

None of this figured into Tuesday's arguments at the Supreme Court. Instead, a majority of the justices, especially Kennedy, seemed to buy the story that the founders were inordinately concerned with the ability of early settlers to use guns to fend off wild animals and Indians, not rebellious slaves. (Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick counts pivotal swing-voter Kennedy making no fewer than four mentions of a mythical "remote settler," who Kennedy suggested would have needed a gun to "defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears, and grizzlies.")

Just as the court largely ignored the racist past of the Second Amendment, its focus on self-defense also glossed over the more obvious racial implications of the decision it was reviewing. The plaintiff, Heller, is a white man who lives in a 60 percent black city whose democratically elected leaders long ago decided that handguns were doing more harm than good to its citizenry. Indeed, while two of the original five plaintiffs in the Heller case are black women, not a whole lot of African Americans in the District appear to be out there clamoring to own more handguns for self-defense.

In an interview, Bogus says that polls consistently show that African Americans support gun control in much higher numbers than white people do, and probably for good reason: They're usually the ones looking at the wrong end of the barrel. As the NAACP points out in its brief on Heller, in D.C. in 2004, there were 137 gun-homicide victims. All but two of them were black. If the Supreme Court invalidates the city’s handgun ban, any ensuing uptick in gun violence is likely to have a disproportionate impact on African Americans, particularly young men.

Of course, it won’t only be young black men who suffer should the court decide that D.C. residents need more handguns. In fact, someone ought to remind Justice Kennedy about what happens when the wrong people get guns—namely the average, law-abiding D.C. residents who would supposedly benefit from the new gun ownership rights. With all his concern with grizzly bears, Kennedy has clearly forgotten about Carl Rowan Sr.

Back in 1988, the African American syndicated columnist shot an unarmed, 18-year-old white kid from Chevy Chase who'd gone for an unauthorized dip in Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, who shot the kid in the wrist as he tried to flee, claimed he'd feared for his life and was only defending himself. Nonetheless, the columnist was prosecuted for illegally possessing a handgun. The trial ended with a hung jury and Rowan escaped punishment (though the teenagers were sentenced to community service), but the incident fueled a tremendous amount of racial tension in the city that might have been avoided if Rowan had just, say, called the cops.

Gun-wielding journalists who can’t shoot straight may not be the bulwark against tyranny libertarians had in mind. Yet they’re just one of the many scary scenarios the District faces should the court rely on language inspired by slavery and the libertarians’ whitewashed version of American history to restrict the ability of a majority black city to protect its citizens from gun violence.

good article. learn something new everyday

 

[QueEx]

​

 

[thoughtone]

I should have known where that talking point started.


source: Raw Story

Gun Appreciation Day’ chairman: Slavery wouldn’t have happened if slaves were armed


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Gr7pDs7hPnI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The chairman of Gun Appreciation Day may be taking “Django Unchained” a little too seriously.

Larry Ward on Friday told CNN that he created the first annual Gun Appreciation Day just days before President Barack Obama’s inauguration and the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday to “honor the legacy of Dr. King” and that slavery may never have happened in the United States if African-Americans had owned guns.

In a press release earlier this week, Ward called on gun owners to turn out “en masse at gun stores, ranges, and shows from coast to coast” on January 19. And he explained to The Blaze that the event should “strike the fear of God in the gun-grabbing politicians.”

United for Change USA founder Maria Roach, who created a petition opposing Gun Appreciation Day, confronted Ward during a Friday appearance on CNN over the timing of his event.

“There are common sense, sensible ways to exercise your Second Amendment rights, and then there’s theater,” she explained. “I think too much of the argument and the discussion and the discourse this week is focused on just theater, ways that organizations are looking to fund raise and build their membership.”

“I’d like to address the Martin Luther King Day charge,” Ward replied. “I believe that Gun Appreciation Day honors the legacy of Dr. King.”[/COLOR]

He added: “The truth is, I think Martin Luther King would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history. And I believe wholeheartedly that’s essential to liberty.”[/COLOR]

Roach pointed out that Ward’s argument was ridiculous because “slavery means that you are a possession just like a gun.”

“So to say that if slaves had been armed — that’s just theater,” she remarked. “There is selfish, self-serving intent in a Gun Appreciation Day. I’ve spoken to thousands of people, they are outraged that you would plan your event two days before an American icon — a day that we celebrate nationally — who was murdered, he was slain by a rifle.”

“I think we need to step back and really question, what is the intent of these Gun Appreciation Days? Why not appreciate victims? Why not appeciate the Second Amendment? But Gun Appreciation Day is really a power play.”

Watch this video from CNN’s Newsroom, broadcast Jan. 11, 2013

 

[thoughtone]

When they said "a well regulated militia." I bet they didn't have this in mind!


source: The Grio


NRA was pro-gun control when it came to Black Panthers

In the wake of the deadly Newtown Connecticut shooting in December, President Barack Obama appointed Vice President Joe Biden to convene a gun violence prevention task force. The National Rifle Association, or the NRA, expressed its disappointment with a meeting it held with Biden, who will release his recommendations on Tuesday.

“We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment,” the NRA wrote in a statement. “While claiming that no policy proposals would be ‘prejudged,’ this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners — honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.”

While today’s NRA takes hardline positions against even the most modest gun control measures, this was not always the case. Throughout its history, the NRA supported gun control, including restrictions on gun ownership, and was not focused on the Second Amendment.

But the organization had a change of heart in the 1970s when the Black Panthers advocated for an individual right to bear arms. Ironically, the Panthers were the founders of the modern-day gun rights movement, which became the purview of predominantly white, rural conservatives.

The ambiguous reading of the Second Amendment notwithstanding, gun control is as old as the Republic, and the amendment was not interpreted as an absolute in the early days of the United States. There was a balance between individual rights and public safety.

For example, slaves and freed blacks were barred from gun ownership, reflecting fears that African-Americans would revolt. At the same time, the founders proscribed gun ownership to many whites, including those who would not swear their loyalty to the Revolution. And contrary to legend, the “Wild, Wild West” had the most severe gun control policies in America.

Meanwhile, the Black Codes of the post-Civil War South were designed to disempower blacks and reestablish white rule.

This included the prohibition on blacks possessing firearms—a law which was enforced by white gun owners such as the Ku Klux Klan, who terrorized black communities. The Northern framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and the first Civil Rights Act viewed gun rights as fundamental to upholding the constitutional protections of the freedmen.

When Prohibition-era organized crime led to the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934—the nation’s first federal gun control laws—the NRA not only supported restrictive gun control measures, but drafted legislation in numerous states limiting the carrying of concealed weapons. When NRA president Karl Frederick was asked by Congress whether the Second Amendment imposed any restrictions on gun control, he responded that he had “not given it any study from that point of view.”

Frederick said he did “not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” He helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model law which required a police permit to carry a concealed weapon, a registry of all gun purchases, and a two-day waiting period for firearms sales.

In the 1960s, the NRA continued to support gun control, a wave which was fueled by the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and the racial strife and violent uprisings in the nation’s urban centers.

The organization actively lobbied in favor of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned gun sales by mail, and enacted a system of licensing those people and companies who bought and sold firearms. Franklin Orth, then the executive vice president of the NRA, said that although certain aspects of the law “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

During that time, the NRA and conservative politicians such as California Governor Ronald Reagan supported gun control as a means of restoring social order, and getting weapons out of the hands of radical, left-leaning and revolutionary groups, particularly the Black Panther Party.

Responding to the perceived failures of the nonviolent civil rights movement, the Black Panthers took a more militant and uncompromising approach of the fallen leader Malcolm X. Led by figures including Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale, the Panthers’ “by any means necessary” approach included a most aggressive gun ownership policy to protect their communities from police abuse.

Beginning in 1966, the Panthers carried out police patrols, in which they rushed to the scene of an arrest with their loaded weapons publicly displayed, and notified those being arrested of their constitutional rights. California state legislator Don Mulford introduced a bill to repeal the state law allowing citizens to carry loaded guns in public if they were openly displayed. Mulford had the Panthers in mind with this legislation.

On May 2, 1967, a group of Black Panthers protested the bill by walking into the California State Capitol Building fully armed. In response, the legislature passed the Mulford Act. And Gov. Reagan, who was a major proponent of disarming the Panthers, signed the bill into law, effectively neutralizing the Panther Police Patrols.

Yet, in the 1970s the NRA began to shift their direction rightward and actively lobby for gun rights. Their chief lobbyist, Harlon Carter, was a former border control agent and staunch supporter of gun rights. In 1977, Carter and his faction staged a coup within the NRA, against an establishment that wanted to shift away from gun control and crime in favor of conservation and sportsmen’s issues.

With the Black Panther Party and other left wing gun control foes out of the picture, the new hardline NRA feared the government would similarly take away their guns. Further, these predominantly white and conservative gun rights advocates in the NRA shared the Panthers’ distrust of the police.

Ironically, Ronald Reagan—who had signed the Mulford Act to disarm the Black Panther Party—changed his stance and advocated for guns as a defense against state power.

“So isn’t it better for the people to own arms than to risk enslavement by power-hungry men or nations? The founding fathers thought so,” Reagan said in a radio commentary in 1975.

In 1980, the NRA endorsed Reagan for president, the first such endorsement by the group. On March 30, 1981, President Reagan and three others were shot and injured by John Hinckley, Jr., 25, outside the Washington Hilton Hotel.

 

[mangobob79]

Smdh !! All dat shadow boxin

 

[Lamarr]

While today’s NRA takes hardline positions against even the most modest gun control measures, this was not always the case. Throughout its history, the NRA supported gun control, including restrictions on gun ownership, and was not focused on the Second Amendment.

The organization actively lobbied in favor of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned gun sales by mail, and enacted a system of licensing those people and companies who bought and sold firearms. Franklin Orth, then the executive vice president of the NRA, said that although certain aspects of the law “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

exactly! the NRA is a 'compromise' organization, ready to sell you out at the drop of a hat. f*ck the NRA.

Still don't understand why black folk don't support the 2A after researching it's blatant, obvious racist history.

 

[QueEx]

exactly! the NRA is a 'compromise' organization, ready to sell you out at the drop of a hat. f*ck the NRA.

. . . feeling sold Huh . . .

Still don't understand why black folk don't support the 2A after researching it's blatant, obvious racist history.

Thats because YOU either fail to understand or just don't want to hear what people are saying.

There is huge support for the the Amendment, BUT not unfettered access to guns; or unfettered access to every kind of gun; or unfettered access to guns anywhere one decides to take his/her gun. None of those things I just mentioned are contrary to the Second Amendment. Moreoever, there is NO RIGHT guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution THAT IS ABSOLUTE -- that is -- there is no Constitutional guarantee that doesn't have some kind of time, place or manner restrictions/limitations.





.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Thats because YOU either fail to understand or just don't want to hear what people are saying.

There is huge support for the the Amendment, BUT not unfettered access to guns; or unfettered access to every kind of gun; or unfettered access to guns anywhere one decides to take his/her gun. None of those things I just mentioned are contrary to the Second Amendment. Moreoever, there is NO RIGHT guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution THAT IS ABSOLUTE -- that is -- there is no Constitutional guarantee that doesn't have some kind of time, place or manner restrictions/limitations.





.

In a nutshell.
But that's the attraction to being an idealogue: you don't have to think or understand anything or anyone else's perspective. You just draw a hard line in the sand and choose to never cross it, believing in your own and your philosophy's infallibility.

 

[thoughtone]

. . . feeling sold Huh . . .




Thats because YOU either fail to understand or just don't want to hear what people are saying.

There is huge support for the the Amendment, BUT not unfettered access to guns; or unfettered access to every kind of gun; or unfettered access to guns anywhere one decides to take his/her gun. None of those things I just mentioned are contrary to the Second Amendment. Moreoever, there is NO RIGHT guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution THAT IS ABSOLUTE -- that is -- there is no Constitutional guarantee that doesn't have some kind of time, place or manner restrictions/limitations.





.

 

[Greed]

In a nutshell.
But that's the attraction to being an idealogue: you don't have to think or understand anything or anyone else's perspective. You just draw a hard line in the sand and choose to never cross it, believing in your own and your philosophy's infallibility.

I love how you guys make these type of statements as if it doesn't apply to you as well.

You believe the gun industry views the massacre of children as a net positive because gun sales spike in the short term.

All of you are a detriment to sensible debate just like the people you hate on the other side of the issue.

 

[Greed]

exactly! the NRA is a 'compromise' organization, ready to sell you out at the drop of a hat. f*ck the NRA.

Still don't understand why black folk don't support the 2A after researching it's blatant, obvious racist history.

That's because they are satisfied with the way things are in regards to black people.

One of your problems is you keep attributing some type of ignorance to their position. They know the history of the issue and they choose servitude. Acknowldge it.

 

[QueEx]

I love how you guys

You believe

All of you are

What's that quote, " . . . who believes there is no virtue or truth but on his own side . . ."

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I love how you guys make these type of statements as if it doesn't apply to you as well.

You believe the gun industry views the massacre of children as a net positive because gun sales spike in the short term.

All of you are a detriment to sensible debate just like the people you hate on the other side of the issue.

I do make such statements because it doesnt apply to me. As I've gotten older and matured, I've long come to understand that different people can have different opinions based on different life experiences. I just expect people to be able to back their opinions up based on actual events and not on what they think they should believe due to their purported ideology.
I also do believe the gun industry sees masssacres of all kind as a net positive because it does lead to higher sales. How they view them is my opinion but the spike is a fact

What's that quote, " . . . who believes there is no virtue or truth but on his own side . . ."

I like that quote.

 

[Greed]

What's that quote, " . . . who believes there is no virtue or truth but on his own side . . ."

You QueEx, thoughtone, and Dave. That's why Hitler references summarizes a large enough percentage of opposition to you to make a thread about it, why assertions of child murdering being a good thing to the opposition are posted on this board, and why everyone wants Biden to shut up because he's giving fuel to irrational opposition, which is obviously rated as the dominant characteristic of the people who disagree with you.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Hitler references, whether from the left or the right, are always the resort of the desperate.
I never said child murdering was a good thing for the opposition. I don't consider gun manufacturers as opposition and as long as there have been gun massacres and the accompanying press, they've been good for business. Even if everyone at Smith and Wesson cried a thousand tears for each person murdered, I have serious doubts they donated all the money they got when gun sales spiked.

 

[Greed]

I do make such statements because it doesnt apply to me. As I've gotten older and matured, I've long come to understand that different people can have different opinions based on different life experiences. I just expect people to be able to back their opinions up based on actual events and not on what they think they should believe due to their purported ideology.
I also do believe the gun industry sees masssacres of all kind as a net positive because it does lead to higher sales. How they view them is my opinion but the spike is a fact

You getting older has nothing to do with you becoming an adult. You made a judgment about how people get to the truth. Now you're saying that process doesn't apply to you, why? Are you somehow just naturally right?

 

[Greed]

Hitler references, whether from the left or the right, are always the resort of the desperate.
I never said child murdering was a good thing for the opposition. I don't consider gun manufacturers as opposition and as long as there have been gun massacres and the accompanying press, they've been good for business. Even if everyone at Smith and Wesson cried a thousand tears for each person murdered, I have serious doubts they donated all the money they got when gun sales spiked.

And are Hitler references, by people you disagree with, plentiful enough that this thread is a reasonable extension of the gun debate? Or maybe it wasn't meant to be an extension of debate and the point was to troll.

And what is the moral connection for the manufacturer if a child is killed in Connecticut or Chicago, then gun sales increase in Montana? What repentance is owed by the gun industry that would have it make sense for them to donate that money to anyone.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

And are Hitler references, by people you disagree with, plentiful enough that this thread is a reasonable extension of the gun debate? Or maybe it wasn't meant to be an extension of debate and the point was to troll.

Yes,they are. In the last two weeks, the "Hitler took the guns" story has been pushed hard from high profile talkers and liars like Beck, Jones, and O'Reilly. This thread and the OP use actual history to debunk that story.

And what is the moral connection for the manufacturer if a child is killed in Connecticut or Chicago, then gun sales increase in Montana? What repentance is owed by the gun industry that would have it make sense for them to donate that money to anyone.

I don't expect them to. But when it's pointed out that they profit and see the profit from these events let's not pretend I'm just saying something outrageous to be inflammatory.

 

[QueEx]

You QueEx, thoughtone, and Dave. That's why Hitler references summarizes a large enough percentage of opposition to you to make a thread about it, why assertions of child murdering being a good thing to the opposition are posted on this board, and why everyone wants Biden to shut up because he's giving fuel to irrational opposition, which is obviously rated as the dominant characteristic of the people who disagree with you.

Bro, you're on some kind of "Assumptive Trip" today sir. First with those "You Guys" assumptions and now with the "Hitler assumptions."

So that I don't have to assume; please tell me what Hitler references are you referring to; and, please point out with specificity where I have agreed with any such references.

Thanking you in advance.


,

 

[Greed]

Yes,they are. In the last two weeks, the "Hitler took the guns" story has been pushed hard from high profile talkers and liars like Beck, Jones, and O'Reilly. This thread and the OP use actual history to debunk that story.

So in other words, the point is to troll. Is thoughtone on Beck's, Jones', or O'Reilly message boards debunking anything? Why is he here debunking an assertion not made by people on this board?

I'll blindly concede that at least one person here has randomly made a Hitler connection, now is that enough to make a new thread instead of addressing the one or two post, by one or two members, in the thread they said it?

thoughtone exist on this board to troll as evidenced by threads like this.

I don't expect them to. But when it's pointed out that they profit and see the profit from these events let's not pretend I'm just saying something outrageous to be inflammatory.

I asked what repentance the gun industry owe, not if you think they will offer it.

I never disagreed with the existence of the correlation that short-term sales spikes follow events like this. I challenged your assuredness that anyone prefers it.

 

[Greed]

Bro, you're on some kind of "Assumptive Trip" today sir. First with those "You Guys" assumptions and now with the "Hitler assumptions."

So that I don't have to assume; please tell me what Hitler references are you referring to; and, please point out with specificity where I have agreed with any such references.

Thanking you in advance.


,

I made a post about the common logic between three people and three ideas from those three people.

I don't expect you to take ownership of any of it, but I still won't pretend it's not there. Your thought process is no different than the other two people I mentioned.

 

[QueEx]

Well, I am more than a bit busy today (not your problem) and I don't have time to nuance what you're saying. Maybe its plain to you -- but not to me. So, if you don't have time to make clear to the reader (me) what you, the sender, are saying -- then I damn sho don't have time to try and decifer it.

Thank you, nevertheless . . .




`

 

[Upgrade Dave]

So in other words, the point is to troll. Is thoughtone on Beck's, Jones', or O'Reilly message boards debunking anything? Why is he here debunking an assertion not made by people on this board?

I'll blindly concede that at least one person here has randomly made a Hitler connection, now is that enough to make a new thread instead of addressing the one or two post, by one or two members, in the thread they said it?

thoughtone exist on this board to troll as evidenced by threads like this.

That's not trolling. He offered a printed/posted opinion from a pundit, like anyone can do at anytime on any subject. It wasn't inflammatory and he didn't call anyone out. If you feel "trolled", it's your issue, not his.
Don't ask me if he's on one of those other boards because I wouldn't know, I don't go to them. Whether he did or didn't is irrelevent, he posted it here for us to discuss or ignore.

I asked what repentance the gun industry owe, not if you think they will offer it.

I never disagreed with the existence of the correlation that short-term sales spikes follow events like this. I challenged your assuredness that anyone prefers it.

Not "preferred" (never used that word) but they like the results and dont do anything to stop it.
They, smartly, pay the NRA to do the talk and take the heat.

 

[Ghetto Gutta G@ngsta]

Kalashnikov

 

[thoughtone]

You QueEx, thoughtone, and Dave. That's why Hitler references summarizes a large enough percentage of opposition to you to make a thread about it, why assertions of child murdering being a good thing to the opposition are posted on this board, and why everyone wants Biden to shut up because he's giving fuel to irrational opposition, which is obviously rated as the dominant characteristic of the people who disagree with you.

Yes,they are. In the last two weeks, the "Hitler took the guns" story has been pushed hard from high profile talkers and liars like Beck, Jones, and O'Reilly. This thread and the OP use actual history to debunk that story.

When one cannot use logical, fact based arguments to confirm their point, the next line is to use the Hitler card.

 

[thoughtone]

Kalashnikov

The handle say's it all!

 

[thoughtone]

I love how you guys make these type of statements as if it doesn't apply to you as well.

You believe the gun industry views the massacre of children as a net positive because gun sales spike in the short term.

All of you are a detriment to sensible debate just like the people you hate on the other side of the issue.

You tell me than, why is it that the gun industry (NRA) answer to gun deaths is more guns?

Sounds like a capitalistic marketing ploy to me.

Nobody used the word hate other than the libertarian.

Projecting?

 

[thoughtone]

So in other words, the point is to troll. Is thoughtone on Beck's, Jones', or O'Reilly message boards debunking anything? Why is he here debunking an assertion not made by people on this board?

I'll blindly concede that at least one person here has randomly made a Hitler connection, now is that enough to make a new thread instead of addressing the one or two post, by one or two members, in the thread they said it?

thoughtone exist on this board to troll as evidenced by threads like this.


I asked what repentance the gun industry owe, not if you think they will offer it.

I never disagreed with the existence of the correlation that short-term sales spikes follow events like this. I challenged your assuredness that anyone prefers it.

thoughtone exist on this board to troll as evidenced by threads like this.

I'll blindly concede that at least one person here has randomly made a Hitler connection, now is that enough to make a new thread instead of addressing the one or two post, by one or two members, in the thread they said it?

The truth shall set you free!

 

[thoughtone]

Don't ask me if he's on one of those other boards because I wouldn't know, I don't go to them. Whether he did or didn't is irrelevent, he posted it here for us to discuss or ignore.

Are you kidding? Why would I go to that porn?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Are you kidding? Why would I go to that porn?

Beats me.
You definitely wouldn't be looking for intelligent debate and information there.

 

[thoughtone]

Beats me.
You definitely wouldn't be looking for intelligent debate and information there.

...or intelligence in particular.

 

[Greed]

When one cannot use logical, fact based arguments to confirm their point, the next line is to use the Hitler card.

And who used it? Who are the "gun nuts" from the subject line?

You tell me than, why is it that the gun industry (NRA) answer to gun deaths is more guns?

Sounds like a capitalistic marketing ploy to me.

Nobody used the word hate other than the libertarian.

Projecting?

You should understand just as well as anyone. Why did anyone, in response to the recession caused by easy money policies, call for giving the financial industry another $20 trillion in easy money. Then all of you said thank you for saving the world.

Why do people look at a job problem among poor people then suggest further restrictions which increases the cost on low-income employers?

If you want to know why an organization called the National Rifle Association wants to double down on guns and increase access, then look at yourself.

Short answer is people are fucking stupid and quite enthusiastic about advocating destructive policies when they think they'll be removed from it's effect.