I've been waiting to post my thoughts on all this. I'll be candid, and that might reveal horrible views, but here goes...

When I heard someone in the government was shot, my first reaction was to feel bad. But that VERY quickly turned to, "it's about time, fuck them."

And then I read about who it was and what she was doing, and I realized are you fucking kidding me, one of the good people was shot? Wow... just wow.

The way I understand it, the right to bear arms is in the constitution explicitly in the event that the people need to overthrow the government. I learned this because when I was younger, I held firmly the belief that guns are bad and we should get rid of them, someone explained to me why the constitution guaranteed the right to bear arms, and my naivete washed away. Sadly, it made sense.

So whatever, shrug. I don't have the will to further articulate the fact that violence is the only thing that can always guarantee freedom.

The liars with no balls on t.v. and the radio and elsewhere condemning violence in politics while lining their pockets with the gold of the people while washing their hands of the blood of the people can suck a dick.

Two things in the past year that have made me realize the government is no longer representing the people: No limit on corporate donations, and FCC rulings on the internet.

This was probably simply a preemptive strike by the right. Because now the left can't enforce real change without "stooping to their level." Maybe a psyche out. Hehe, they use dirty tricks like that.

Last thing, look up a picture of Gabrielle Giffords, a nice face shot and tell me if you see the kindness in her face and eyes. Then look up a picture of palin, or watch the above video, and, though she's trying real hard, tel me if you see the fucking evil.

"You think the language in the Second Amendment is clear enough, you know, about the right to bear arms?"
"Of course it's clear, everyone in America has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall. How could that possibly be misconstrued?"

-Family Guy

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^blankfist:
So the argument is: "If he had a gun the assailants could've gotten their hands on it."
My response: "If cops had guns the assailants could get their hands on it."
See how dumb that sounds?

Yeah, because it's not like cops have gone through a rigorous training regime for things like handling their weapons.
No, no you're totally right, guy who bought a gun and went to the shooting range twice = Cop.


So, are you now arguing that Constitutional rights to bear arms should only be honored and given to those with state and federal mandated training? Ridiculous. Anyhow, that's not what I was commenting on.

Anti-gun nuts always point out extreme examples of where guns could be dangerous under certain and specific circumstances. They speak with unfounded and baseless certainty that the criminals would be capable of wrestling the gun from the armed victim.

Their hypothesis of danger assumes the criminals are A) confident enough to attempt a retrieval of a weapon from someone's possession and B) extremely capable with a firearm, and that the victim is C) not capable with the firearm and D) not confident and able to command the situation with a firearm in his possession. It's too extreme and far-fetched a set of criteria to be plausible. That's what I was commenting on.

>> ^spoco2:
I am downvoting that shit.
Really, they come to a checkpoint and act like dicks right off the bat with the only letting the window down as little as they can and then are FUCKWITS in trying to suggest the guy is an 'illegal alien' because he has an accent? Please. Fucking racist shits right there.
Sorry, but THESE are the sorts of fucks who arm themselves to the hilt and are racist and bigoted against anyone who is remotely different to themselves.
They go out of their way looking for trouble, fuck I hate dicks like this.
The checkpoint guy should not have put his hand in, but these guys are doing all they possibly can to incite problems... shitheads.


True, the "illegal" comment is most likely bogus and certainly lame. They may be racist bigots, but that's incidental to what happened here, right? Even if these guys pulled up to the check point wearing KKK robes, it still doesn't detract from the problem at hand. It's simply incidental.

Also, whether or not they arm themselves to the hilt is incidental, as well. They have a right to bear arms. You can't condemn them for their rights. Still, where in the video did you see them pull out a weapon or even threaten violence? No where.

The only person being threatening is the BP by reaching in and trying to steal or break the camera. Filming him is NOT inciting a violent behavior; it is simply a documentation of events. The BP is a public servant, and there should never be a problem with filming a PUBLIC servant.

The border patrol are set up miles from the border. They're stopping anyone and everyone and a lot of them are abusing their powers, and more importantly, if this whole scenario doesn't smack of "your papers, please" then I don't know what does.

If this went to court... is he required to put his hand on a fucking bible too? LOL

Everyone has the right to bear arms. He should equip both shoulder sockets with attached semi-automatic assault rifles... then ask them if they still need a thumbprint to cash a check. I'm not serious of course.

The guy has a heck of a case on his 'hands' if he decides to pursue this case.

I really don't like guys like the one being interviewed here. It's great that he wants to protect the right to bear arms, and that he cleared things with the police before hand and maintained a good relationship with them. I'm all for that. I am against the complete lack of common sense, and sudden disjoint with the extent of this stunt.

There's a now old saying, Don't bring a gun to a knife fight. It seems to me that common sense would extend that to don't bring an assault rifle to a peaceful anti-government protest.

The right to peaceful assembly and the right to bear arms does not make bearing arms at a peaceful assembly a wise way of demonstrating those rights. It's a good way to spin the peaceful assembly into a tragedy. It's only after the peaceful assembly gets beaten down that you come back and hold an assembly with the assault rifle in hand.

To modify the Constitution is extremely difficult and the Amendments must be ratified. You're talking about an incredibly difficult process that has very little to do with the democratic process. But, yes, there is a way to change the Constitution. I just wanted to stop you before we started going down the road of "the Constitution is a living document" shit that is a tired and laborious argument.

Hell, Jefferson wanted government, laws and debt to be generational and change every 19 years or so. Good thing he was in Paris at that time and Madison was his buffer to the Constitution.


"Nobody can deny that gun ownership is a right which can (and from time to time does) harm others - can you? One may argue the extent and potential of this, but I thought even libertarians (actually, especially libertarians) had the principle that the government can't intrude on an individual's rights UNLESS they are in violation of other people's right to live."

51% of the population cannot vote your right to bear arms away. The government cannot take this right away, either. But, if an individual takes his gun and shoots someone, he has used his right to encroached on another person's rights which makes him wrong. What is it that you're not getting? Sorry, that sounded harsh. Let me rephrase. What is it I'm not properly communicating.

Also, I have no idea where you live. And, yes, I wouldn't presume to know anything about your country, because I most likely do not know anything about it. Civil discourse is great. I welcome it. I apologize if I'm sounding snarky. I just feel like Sisyphus pushing a rock of Libertarianism up the mountain of Leftist Authoritarians and it gets very, very tiring.

>> ^blankfist:
Regardless, it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, because we have the right to bear arms. No manner of democratic process can remove that right...


Wait a sec, you're not saying there are no ways to change the Constitution, are you? I was under the impression that the Congress can draw up and pass amendments (even if they're amendments of amendments, right?), and, at the very least, the people should be able to vote on their rights.

All that aside, you're confusing me now. Nobody can deny that gun ownership is a right which can (and from time to time does) harm others - can you? One may argue the extent and potential of this, but I thought even libertarians (actually, especially libertarians) had the principle that the government can't intrude on an individual's rights UNLESS they are in violation of other people's right to live. That's a sound and a logical argument from where I'm standing right now, so feel free to poke any holes I'm not currently seeing in it.

P.S. Let's not do the "you know jack about my country routine", please. There are MANY areas for which you could provide valid and valuable criticism about the way my country is run (because my country is run almost exclusively by stupid greedy cunts), just as I can about yours. And civil discussion is always valuable - I know I've learned much from you, blankfist. And VS as a whole has provided me with valuable insight into US politics - like I've said before, I've met Americans who confessed knew way less about USA than I do. So I'm sorry for my lack of humility in this department

^I live in a fairly safe neighborhood. I live a few blocks from where OJ murdered his wife.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, because we have the right to bear arms. No manner of democratic process can remove that right... though that doesn't stop them from augmenting it heavily. If you think it would be safer in the US without guns, it's really just an armchair evaluation, isn't it?

I wouldn't presume what works best for you in your country.

That's right bitches! Right to bear arms!

Yelling fire in a theater doesn't get you kicked out, it gets you arrested. Being obscene in court will get you jailed for contempt. And it should. The government can definitely outlaw certain types of speech. Rights have reasonable limits, some of which were decided by the same generation of statesmen that founded the country and wrote the Bill of Rights.

For those who slept through 9th grade, the test applied to free speech is "time, place, and manner." You have the right to express your ideas, but you have responsibilities as a citizen: to express those ideas in a way that does not disrupt the normal function of civil society, cause panic, or incite violence.

Gun control is obviously a murkier subject, and one that gets reexamined all the time. Saying that the right to bear arms necessarily allows all forms of weapon ownership and use is a thoughtless oversimplification.

Blankfist, you've obviously have never been to Newark. My brother lived there for a few years during his studies.

I agree with your "right to bear arms" statement, but I believe it's the right to OWN a gun, not the right to carry a concealed weapon that you can pull out anywhere at your own choosing.

I'll also agree with Darkhand in the post above and I'll also add that these guns are/were usually used for purposes that would infringe on the rights of others. (i.e. robbing, murder, etc)

hmm, well... the video makes three points: 1. 13th amendment vs compulsory civil service, 2. "terrorist list" vs 2nd amendment, and 3. "crisis times" vs selfish opportunism

first off, this video screed, imho, deliberately attempts to strip much of the context from these issues

1. this c-span interview is from august 2006, and perhaps wrongly attributes "involuntary servitude" to the issue of civil service (e.g. butler v. perry)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&invol=328

2. this emanuel speech took place at a brady center event in may 2007, and is more of a democratic "stump" speech in favor of *reinvigorating* the purpose of the brady bill... whereas i think most of us would support banning *suspected terrorists* from the right to bear arms, the emanuel speech says *nothing* about the *real* problem with these "terrorist lists* ... i.e. the inefficient screening process leading to, imho, bloated lists

3. this wsj interview is at least current, but almost completely stripped of its context, i.e. extraordinary challenges test the mettle of those challenged, *not* crisis necessarily gives gov't the *excuse* to strip civil liberties

^ I'd say what makes the debate phony is that Democrats don't really want to try to repeal the 2nd amendment anymore. I think there's a consensus in the Democratic party that the 2nd amendment provides for an individual right to bear arms (and we now have a SCOTUS decision affirming it).

Republicans try to make political hay of the fact that Democrats want laws to attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and try to limit the level of firepower an individual can personally own, but there just isn't any grassroots interest in the topic, generally. We're pretty happy with how gun laws work now, and are pretty tolerant of shifts in either direction.

So essentially, these "pro-gun" people are spoiling for a fight with people who don't really care. Worse, they're making up bullshit about how Obama in particular wants to end the private ownership of guns entirely, which is not just distortion, it's fiction that flies directly in the face of facts.

This is really and truly the most phony of the phony Republican wedge issues, largely because my half of the wedge just says "meh" about the whole topic.

Abortion is generally a better wedge because people on both sides care, though why people can't seem to come together in agreement over contraceptives and real sex ed as tools to reduce them, I can't fathom.

Sorry, I suppose I should wait until one of our resident Colmses makes a mindless post about liberal babykillers before we get on that topic.

>> ^deedub81:
Call it a phony issue if you'd like, but I sleep better at night knowing there is one rifle and one handgun close by.

Dude, I'm a gun-totin' liberal.

I like guns. I like shooting things. I've shot everything from small handguns, to uzi's, to riot-guns (my brother is a cop). I'm in no way against firearm ownership. I'd even be fine with people owning RPG's if they passed federal background checks.

But, my theory on gun-control and the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the "phony" gun-control debate. The major Senators and congress members are playing all of us, including the NRA, with this issue, and getting MAJOR contributions as a result.