Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Michael Moore's Latest Idea on Repealing and Replacing the 2nd Amendment

Today I came across this sadly bemusing article regarding Leftist film maker Michael Moore's latest idea.  Of course he misses the entire purpose of why our founders insisted that citizens must have the right to keep and bear arms, and it has nothing to do with sport or hunting.  I suppose it would have been more astonishing if he had understood that fact.  

What is truly sad is that there will be quite a few people that will look at his misguided ideas and think this newly proposed constitutional amendment of his is a really good idea. 

Never mind that most of his ideas will do nothing to change the number of deaths by gun violence, but in many cases will actually exacerbate the problem.  Indeed, many of the cities with the worst gun violence in the nation also have the strictest gun control laws.  I give you Chicago as an excellent case in point, as it leads the nation in gun deaths yet again this year.

Evidently these good folks are still of the mind that evil can be controlled via legislation.  Many of these well-meaning folks are the same ones that insist that we should not judge all Muslims by the terrorist acts committed by a small percentage of those that they claim have perverted Islam.  As far as that argument goes, they are absolutely correct.  One would simply ask that this same courtesy be given to lawful gun owners to not be judged by the actions of the few psychopaths that use guns to commit evil acts.  I won't hold my breath on this.

Regardless, here is the article from The Blaze by Dave Urbanski:

Michael Moore proposes change to Constitution that ‘repeals the ancient and outdated 2nd Amendment’

In the wake of the deadly Las Vegas mass shooting Sunday night, Moore proposed a 28th amendment to the United States Constitution that “repeals the ancient and outdated 2nd Amendment.”
He began his lengthy Facebook post with the following preamble:
“A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed.”
Moore — noting the Second Amendment was “written before bullets and revolvers were even invented” — said his proposed amendment “guarantees States can have State militias (a.k.a. State National Guards which are made up of citizen-soldiers who are called upon in times of natural disasters or other State emergencies), allows individuals to use guns for sport and gathering food, and guarantees everyone the right to be free of, and protected from, gun violence (i.e., the public’s safety comes ahead of an individual’s right to own and fire a gun).” 
Continue reading...

 At the end of the day, we have a God given right, and I would argue a duty, to protect innocent lives from evil as best we are able.  By disarming law abiding Americans in contradiction to our Bill of Rights and indeed by natural law's right to self preservation, Michael Moore and those that support his wrong-headed idea are creating far more problems than they ever hoped to solve.

As I am already a "life member" of the NRA, I think I will head off to their web site and make a donation in honor of Michael Moore simply to try and curb what little I can of the damage his foolish notion does with regards to his influencing the uninformed and ignorant in our country.

49 comments:

Dave Dubya said...

we have a God given right, and I would argue a duty, to protect innocent lives from evil as best we are able.

This sounds like it could be the preamble to the "Vigilante Code".

It's not just about evil. Mental illness, depression anger, fear reactions, and suicide are just a few other factors that take innocent lives. Who protects them?

I applaud Moore’s suggestion, fantasy that it is. Although he does allow for sport and hunting, I don’t agree with all of it. I love the part of women’s waivers, if indeed, it “has greatly reduced most spousal/domestic gun murders in Canada”.

When we get past the narrow statistics of Chicago, a larger picture emerges. States with the highest concentration of firearms in the population have the highest proportion in deaths by gunshot.

There’s a fairly strong relationship between the rate of gun-related deaths (murders, suicides, accidents) and the percentage of households that own guns: the fewer households with guns, the fewer gun deaths. ..People in states where many households have guns aren’t safer, they’re more at risk. (This is also true on the household level—American Journal of Epidemiology, 11/15/04.)

Many Americans are uninformed and ignorant of these facts. And I am sure Mr. Paine has some enlightening facts of his own to share.

T. Paine said...

Vigilante Code? Really? I am a vigilante if I wish to protect my family from harm from a person with evil intentions? I guess I don't understand your statement, Dave.

Moore's suggestions are tantamount to a gun ban. Sure, you can own guns (of the government-approved type) but you have to keep them in an approved off-home facility. Sure would make it easier to confiscate our guns in such a case, not that our government would EVER do that.

As for the "narrow statistics" of Chicago, the same holds true for D.C. and many jurisdictions in California. It clearly shows the correlation. Indeed, the crime prevention research center shows the huge increase in gun-related murders in England, Ireland, Jamaica and other nations AFTER they institute gun bans. https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

I am sure that the Brady Center would disagree, but even the FBI's own stats prove this fact out.

Burr Deming said...

Let me propose a hypothetical: If you became convinced that innocent lives would best be saved with more gun regulation, would you favor that regulation as a God given duty?

I'm thinking of these words of wisdom:

At the end of the day, we have a God given right, and I would argue a duty, to protect innocent lives from evil as best we are able.

I also wonder about this:

Of course he misses the entire purpose of why our founders insisted that citizens must have the right to keep and bear arms, and it has nothing to do with sport or hunting.

If I read the beginning of the amendment correctly, the entire purpose is explicit. Has to do with well regulated militia. That entire purpose would not involve any other God given right.

I like the phrase "well meaning." It involves accepting the motivations of one's debate opponents as they are presented. Not at all unusual for my friend T. Paine.

I suspect most of those favoring more regulation will be swayed by persuasive evidence that regulation does not result in safety. The key is persuasive. Pointing to the failure of gun regulation in cities or states which are surrounded by other states with little regulation would not qualify.

Instead, try this approach, or most anything written at http://infidel753.blogspot.com/

TB3 said...

Another mass shooting. Another blogpost advocating status quo.

Thank you for at least reminding me that Michael Moore is still around.

T. Paine said...

Mr. Deming, if you could take away every criminal's gun and ensure that governments won't disobey the constitution to enslave its citizens, then I would gladly give up my guns... if I owned any.

As for the 2nd amendment, look at the purpose of it in context, sir. SCOTUS has rightly declared the owning of firearms to be an INDIVIDUAL right. Further, the purpose of the constitutional amendment was such that We The People could defend ourselves. There are myriad writings (far more than two) from our founders specifically declaring this. The verbiage about militias in the amendment was due to the fact that this is how communities protected themselves, whether from Indians, the French, the English or so on back then. It was meant as a means of community protection as we did not always have a standing army or police forces (except in larger cities) for protection.

Further, look at the Bill of Rights. (That is the first ten amendments of the Constitution for those of you that never had civics classes.) Every one of those rights is stipulating something that is secured for the people of the United States. They list our individual rights. If this amendment was simply about the government providing for "a militia" as an adjunct to the army then don't you think this would have fallen under the body of the constitution and not under our individual rights that the Constitution was enumerating in the Bill of Rights, sir?

As for those islands of crime with strict gun control that are surrounded by lawless gun rights states, I think that is a gross inaccuracy, sir. Again, look at the links I provided in my previous comment that shows the spikes in gun murders in nations after bans are instituted.

By disarming law abiding citizens, we simply serve to make them potential targets and victims to the criminals that will not give up or will still have access to weapons, my friend.

TB3, I am not for the status quo either, sir. I think background checks to ensure that felons, domestic abusers, and those that are mentally ill are very necessary. These background checks and laws already exist though sir. What is lacking is perhaps a cross check of the background check tool with databases that we should create that show those under the care of a doctor for disqualifying mental health issues or with a criminal history. Nearly all gun owners I know do not want criminals or the mentally ill to have guns either. We simply need to get better at keeping guns out of those hands.

Majormajor said...

I wonder if leftist Michael Moore would agree to end federal funding to Planned Parenthood and the over turning of Roe v Wade to save millions of human lives?

Somehow I doubt it because it is not about lives it's about the politics.

TB3 said...

And I wonder if the leftist Michael Moore is going to ever make Canadian Bacon 2. That has about as much to do about the topic at hand as Roe v Wade anda reproductive health organization.

T. Paine said...



"I wonder if leftist Michael Moore would agree to end federal funding to Planned Parenthood and the over turning of Roe v Wade to save millions of human lives? Somehow I doubt it because it is not about lives it's about the politics." ~ Majormajor

You are absolutely right, my friend. It is precisely about politics and not as much about saving lives as Michael Moore would lead us to believe.

"And I wonder if the leftist Michael Moore is going to ever make Canadian Bacon 2. That has about as much to do about the topic at hand as Roe v Wade anda reproductive health organization." ~ TB3

TB3 I respectfully disagree, sir. It goes to show the motivation behind Mr. Moore's proposed amendment really isn't as much about saving lives as it is politics. If lives were truly of paramount interest to Mr. Moore, he would also be championing the overturning of Roe v. Wade as it has been responsible for the death of not 59 people, but 50 MILLION innocent unborn children since its passage. The fact that he supports abortion tells us that it is indeed about politics and not the saving of lives. Majormajor's statement shows us Michael Moore's glaring inconsistency here, sir.

TB3 said...

"It goes to show the motivation behind Mr. Moore's proposed amendment really isn't as much about saving lives as it is politics"

Did you even actually read Michael Moore's actual facebook post, or are you just basing this off of the summary from The Blaze? No where in his post does he indicate he is motivated about saving lives. He pretty clearly states his purposes:

"I, Michael Moore, along with all who support an end to this epidemic of gun violence, propose a new Amendment to our Constitution that repeals the ancient and outdated 2nd Amendment"

Furthermore, Michael Moore's opinion on abortion is fairly well known as he's publically discussed that he disagrees with his former church's stance on abortion. However, again, abortion and reproductive health have nothing to do with a discussion on gun control and gun violence. Because you can't really take this debate tactic and say 'Moore doesn't believe in saving lives if he's anti-abortion', because that can be flipped right back around on you. You're anti-abortion, so you believe in the sanctity of life, but you also don't want to actually discuss gun violence, its cause, or how to limit it. If saving lives were truly his motive and you're sticking him with the 'he's for allowing women to have abortions so he's not serious about saving lives' than the inverse can be attributed to you.

You don't care about saving lives, because you're comfortable with the status quo in regards to the regulations on the 2nd amendment. Oh, and I applaud your open mind toward broader background checks and a better system to monitor and log those background checks. It's a shame that opinion needed to be coerced out in the comments section rather than in the main article itself.

"The fact that he supports abortion tells us that it is indeed about politics and not the saving of lives. Majormajor's statement shows us Michael Moore's glaring inconsistency here, sir."

The only thing MM's statement shows us is his uncanny skill at derailing the train of conversation. If he wanted to show us Moore's inconsistency or hypocrisy on the actual topic, he would show us Moore's proof of ownership of the weapons he proposes regulating or pictures Moore gleefully using the aforementioned weapons. But go ahead. Jump off those rails, Mr. Paine. I look forward to Mr. Dubya taking this derailing as an opportunity to discuss your love of the living in relation with BLM... :)

Dave Dubya said...


It's fascinating to see how you two link completely separate issues.

"Pro-life" means a war of aggression is good. That is the same logic.

the motivation behind Mr. Moore's proposed amendment really isn't as much about saving lives as it is politics.

Really? And liberals all want a Stalinist dictatorship too, if we are to believe Cons superior judgment of motives.

This is what assigning motivation to others looks like.

“The motivation behind Majormajor’s and Mr. Paine’s opposition to abortion really isn't as much about saving lives as it is politics. They want to deny reproductive choice and control women, and then deny health care to poor children, while exposing them to more gun violence.”

Of course, turnabout is not fair play for the Right. But IOKIYAR.

Say, didn't one of those Republican hypocrites demonstrate IOKIYAR to vote against abortion for others, then urge your mistress to get one?

As long as you don't get caught, amirite?

"Values". Maybe my hypothetically assigned motivation was spot on after all.



T. Paine said...

TB3, thanks for your comment.

Respectfully, I still disagree with you, sir. I see no inconsistency at all with my values on this subject. I am vehemently against abortion as it kills a human life. I am also for the right to keep and bear arms in order that I may have the means to protect human life, particularly of those loved ones whom I hold dear.

Perhaps you are right though that it would have made for a better article if I had placed my own thoughts about background checks and appropriate databases to screen for criminals and the mentally ill into the body of my article instead of the comments.

Hey, nobody is perfect! Not even us conservatives! :)

T. Paine said...

Dave, your "motivation" statement directed towards me and Majormajor from a Leftist perspective is absolutely in line with what many Left-wingers would absolutely believe. I give you Mr. Mozart as an example over at Tom's blog this morning of this very fact. That is fine. I obviously don't expect him, nor perhaps you, to really understand... let alone see the consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life whether it be from abortion or at the hands of an evil person with a gun.

As for the idiot Republican congressman that got caught asking his mistress to have an abortion, I am glad that he is resigning. He should have simply said that he "evolved" in his thinking and is now "pro-choice". I am sure he would have been accepted as a Democrat then.

Just kidding... I think... :)

TB3 said...

Oh, I know well enough nobody is perfect. I'm reminded of my own failings daily!

I appreciate your reasonable response. Since you do not see your own inconsistancy, you can recognize the lack of inconsistancy in Mr. Moore's own proposal using your own experience. Since his expressed purpose for the proposal was to deal with gun violence and not protecting the sanctity of life, there's no inconsistancy. His proposal provides an opportunity for gun ownership and their use. It's a proposal; An idea; A thought on how to deal with gun violence. That's the topic at had. Was there any specifically about what he proposed that you're against? I think it may overreach, but as a conversation starter Mr. Moore's proposal has a lot to bite your teeth into.

Dave Dubya said...

Dave, your "motivation" statement directed towards me and Majormajor from a Leftist perspective is absolutely in line with what many Left-wingers would absolutely believe.

But it doesn't work the other way, right?

So it is fine for cons to assign motivations to liberals, but not the other way around. That is your position.

We got it. IOKIYAR. Or a con. Same thing.

You can deny it, but I claim the same power of defining terms and motivations that you claim.

That concept of "equality" is a tough one isn't it?

I obviously don't expect him, nor perhaps you, to really understand... let alone see the consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life whether it be from abortion or at the hands of an evil person with a gun.

This shows you utterly missed the point of my example of assigning motivations. You also missed the fact those "good guys with guns" in Vegas saved nobody with their guns.

If we didn't have an industry of military-style weapons flooding the country, the death count would be lower. So much for wanting to "save lives".

"More weapons of death mean more lines saved." THAT is sheer lunacy, and disproved by the fact that higher concentrations of legal gun ownership mean higher rates of gun deaths.

Where is the "consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life" when that reality is proven?

Where is that "consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life" when it comes to war of aggression?

Where is that "consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life" when it comes to killing the innocent by unjust death sentences?

Where is that "consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life" in saying "fine people" marched with Nazis?

And for TB3, where is that "consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life" when it comes to attacking BLM as a racist hate group for protesting the senseless loss of life?

See? It's not all about guns and abortion. Those are two separate issues. If you can combine the two, I can add the rest.

THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAME ISSUE! If they are, then you are selectively anti-life, anti-equality, and pro-death.

In other words, a hypocrite. But I prefer to think of you as "well intentioned but self-filtered in information".

TB3 said...

"And for TB3, where is that "consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life" when it comes to attacking BLM as a racist hate group for protesting the senseless loss of life? "

Like I said. We're either talking about guns, gun violence and gun regulation, or we're talking about anything and everything. If the conversation gets derailed by 'Hur hur, Michael Moore is pro women's issues so he's a hypocrit and negates any opinion he has on the topic of guns' than we get to have more conversations rehashing BLM. Glad, Mr. Dubya, you finished that alley oop I tossed you to punctuate my point.

Dave Dubya said...

TB3.
In the conservative black and white world view, supporting a woman’s right to not bear the child of her rapist means we cannot support innocent, living, breathing, thinking human life anywhere. I think that’s their point. It’s hard to tell, since their definition of words is often their own.

Our lesson here is: Only conservatives may define terms, discern motives, and “support innocent life”, while they support proliferation of military-style weapons, a war of aggression and capital punishment.

(I wonder if they know innocent Iraqi zygotes, embryos, fetuses AND their mothers were killed by their war.) IOKIYAR.

It just makes sense. Or rather, Con-sense as I've termed it.

Majormajor said...

DD,

Pure political B.S.

I guess you don't want to save human lives after all

T. Paine said...

TB3, I understand your point. The subject at hand is about guns and gun control. Abortion and other life issues were not necessarily relevant to the specific issue at hand. That said, I still understand and can appreciate Majormajor's point too. If one truly cares about the sanctity of life, shouldn't that also translate and be represented in our specific positions on other life affecting issues too? This especially becomes relevant if those positions are seemingly at odds with one another.

Now I am sure Michael Moore can rationalize his gun control stance with his pro-choice stance and not see any inconsistencies or contradictions there whatsoever, just as I can justify my pro-life stance and articulate why our right to own and bear firearms to protect life is indeed consistent. I know our friend, Mr. Dubya, has some disagreements with this, and such is his right.

As for the specifics of Michael Moore's proposal, I think his idea of us having to keep our weapons at some approved facility away from our homes is a non-starter and defeats the purpose of having a firearm for self defense. Next, while I can appreciate his intentions in wanting to check for permission with former partners' consent before owning a weapon, I think that also is a non-starter. If there were matters of domestic abuse involved, then by no means should a person be able to pass a background check; however, a former partner could nix one's gun ownership for no valid reason other than spite otherwise.

I think Mr. Moore looks at gun ownership from a sport and hunting aspect that sometimes gets abused by sick or evil people. He doesn't look at the real reason why the founders made our right to bear arms the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights. Most of the historical context of why that right should be inviolate is lost on many of our well-meaning gun control friends. They think such things could never happen in America, and yet the 20th century is replete with authoritarian governments coming to power and disarming their citizenry prior to other horrible abuses then ensuing.

Contrary to the hyperbole from some, I don't advocate us having grenade launchers, flamethrowers, and tanks owned by private citizens. But by the same token, I do not have a problem with a 15 round hand-gun magazine either. As I have said in the past, the proliferation of firearms throughout our nation's history is such that by severely restricting them or banning them now would only ensure that the good law-abiding folks are the ones that turn in their weapons. This essentially makes America a "gun free zone" just like Sandy Hook Elementary and the Mandalay Bay Hotel were in which evil armed men can then prey upon us with extreme prejudice.

T. Paine said...

"So it is fine for cons to assign motivations to liberals, but not the other way around. That is your position." ~ Dubya

Huh? I am not sure where you got that notion. Regardless, Leftists have been assigning motivations to conservatives just as often as it has been reciprocated from the Right, sir. Surely you don't honestly think otherwise, do you?

"...disproved by the fact that higher concentrations of legal gun ownership mean higher rates of gun deaths." ~ Dubya

No sir, it does not. I have already provided you with data and links proving that your statement is not true, Dave. It isn't from the Brady Center though, so I am sure it is not valid for you. :)

"In the conservative black and white world view, supporting a woman’s right to not bear the child of her rapist means we cannot support innocent, living, breathing, thinking human life anywhere." ~ Dubya

If a unique innocent human life is created at conception, which is scientifically inarguable, then how does my not want to see that life destroyed, even if conceived by the pernicious and evil act of rape, make my pro-life stance inconsistent, Dave? That doesn't mean that I don't have any sympathy or concern for the woman that is raped. On the contrary, I have nothing but. This is why rape is such a heinous crime and should be punished with life in prison, in my opinion. Oh, and by the way, I don't agree with the death penalty either, just so you know I am being consistent there. And before you go off half-cocked, that doesn't mean that I am against a cop or even myself from having to use deadly force as a last resort in order to protect innocent life.

Oh, and by the way, extending the debate to fallacious arguments about conservative supporting wars of aggression and the killing of Iraqi's, embryos, and their zygotes is akin to Majormajor extending the debate to include abortion. In essence you just did what you griped about Majormajor doing, sir. I guess consistency is also your hobgoblin too, huh? :)

Dave Dubya said...

That is fine. I obviously don't expect him, nor perhaps you, to really understand... let alone see the consistency in wishing to protect innocent human life whether it be from abortion or at the hands of an evil person with a gun....extending the debate to fallacious arguments about conservative supporting wars of aggression”

See the projection? It’s OK for cons to extend the debate and incorporate abortion into a discussion of guns protecting lives. But, whoah! What gives liberals the right to include other loss of innocent lives by guns?

And what is fallacious about conservatives supporting wars of aggression? Did Saddam cause 9-11? Saudis did it. Bush's war based on lies for crony profit was open aggression.

I think we have conflicting definitions of words and reality here.

If I may distract us back to the actual subject:

I don't advocate us having grenade launchers, flamethrowers, and tanks owned by private citizens. But by the same token, I do not have a problem with a 15 round hand-gun magazine either.

We agree. (Bells ring! Trumpets blare! The Chorus sings!)

I would still feel better with background checks, registration, and safety certification though.

I have no problem with keeping a gun for self-defense. And I still say nobody needs 30 round mags and automatic rifles for it.


Time for a Fact-check:

There’s a fairly strong relationship between the rate of gun-related deaths (murders, suicides, accidents) and the percentage of households that own guns: the fewer households with guns, the fewer gun deaths. ..People in states where many households have guns aren’t safer, they’re more at risk. (This is also true on the household level) American Journal of Epidemiology, 11/15/04.)

People with access to more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates—as much as 114 percent higher than states with lower gun ownership rates.

• A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data found that for every one percent increase in a state’s gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

• Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as safe-storage requirements or assault-weapons bans.

Sources: Injury Prevention and gun ownership (British Medical Association) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (deaths)

TB3 said...

Thank you for the reasonable response, T.Paine. And thank you for digging into Mr. Moore's proposal. Just like any and every bill or proposal submitted in our Congress, it never (or very rarely ever) remains intact and identical to the original submission. Mr. Moore's proposal, were it to eeeevvvvver hit the floor of the Congress, would end up looking totally different than what he proposed. That's the nature of our system. Like I said; It's a starting point for conversation.

The spousal waiver, though the intent is in the right place, I don't see this being feasible unless it's under very specific situations. I agree with you that if there's a history of domestic abuse, that should show up on a strong background check and prevent someone from exercising their right to bear arms.

I also agree with you regarding the gun storage provision he suggests. I believe that's unreasonable, but I do believe in proper firearm storage. I just don't think that warrants federal enforcement through a constitutional amendment. If improper storage results in the unfortunate, I hope existing/future law would adaquately punish and properly dispense justice to the offender.

I do think his third point should be explored more. Biometrics would be a great tool to help combat gun violence by those who do not own the gun they intend to use to commit violence. I'd love to see some research or studies on this. Also the sci-fi nerd in me finds this appealing. This is the whole 'The bad guy recovers the hero's gun, tries to shoot the hero and fails because it only works for the hero' scenario.

I like his point about mental health, but it's kind of out of place in a gun regulation bill. I do think more than lip service needs to be given to mental health in our country. Serious, adult conversations need to be had about mental health and how to deal with it in both regards to owning guns and in a broader sense as well. Many problems could be addressed with stronger mental health solutions. But I don't think it needs to be in an amendment replacing the 2nd Amendment.


"As I have said in the past, the proliferation of firearms throughout our nation's history is such that by severely restricting them or banning them now would only ensure that the good law-abiding folks are the ones that turn in their weapons."

And speaking of hyperbole; Unless I missed it, I didn't see anywhere in Michael Moore's proposed amendment that indicated that guns would need to be turned in. Banned does not equal confiscation. Though these conversations often result in one side saying that their guns are getting taken away.
Though I'm not naive enough to believe that someone wouldn't try to get that through congress, the reality is we're not going to have government stooges coming to take our guns. I would, however, expect to see government gun-trade-in programs for banned weapons. I imagine existing ownership of theoretically banned weapons would be grandfathered in.

I think it's very important these kinds of conversations happen, so I appreciate you taking the time and effort to have it. All too often they get derailed, and it's too important to backburner for the same he said, she said and whataboutism that typical political/societal conversations degenerate into.

Dave Dubya said...

Would you look at that.

After our straying back to the subject, Mr. Paine finds two consecutive liberals agreeing with him.

Cheers, gents!

T. Paine said...

Dave, I simply pointed out that you were griping that Majormajor extended the debate to include abortion. You then turned around and extended the debate with even greater non sequiturs of "wars of aggression" and so forth. I was merely pointing out that you were doing what you railed against Majormajor for doing. Or were you merely thinking that since he can do it, so can you? It doesn't really matter to me either way, sir.

"I would still feel better with background checks, registration, and safety certification though." ~ Dubya

Background checks are already required in every case, even gun shows, with the lone exception of sales between private citizens on a non-commercial basis. I do think those background checks should be more stringent and attached to updated databases regarding a person's status as a felon, domestic abuser, or mentally illness. Gun registration is dangerous and a non-starter with me. That is the first step to confiscation. I think safety and training are always excellent ideas; however, I don't want the government mandating this as it will also require a defacto registration again.

I am heading out on vacation so I will make sure to provide a bunch of research that refutes your stats when I get back. Cheers!

T. Paine said...

TB3, you have some very good comments that deserve more attention than I can provide at the moment. I will address these when I return from my trip. Cheers!

T. Paine said...

"I do think his third point should be explored more. Biometrics would be a great tool to help combat gun violence by those who do not own the gun they intend to use to commit violence. I'd love to see some research or studies on this. Also the sci-fi nerd in me finds this appealing. This is the whole 'The bad guy recovers the hero's gun, tries to shoot the hero and fails because it only works for the hero' scenario." ~ TB3

I am not opposed to this idea in theory; however, the few prototypes they currently have are very glitchy. It does no good to have a firearm for self defense if the biometric reader doesn't work flawlessly every time to allow the owner to use the firearm and nobody else. I think we will eventually get to this point where this is a viable technology. Currently it doesn't work very well and is prohibitively expensive. ~ T. Paine

"I like his point about mental health, but it's kind of out of place in a gun regulation bill. I do think more than lip service needs to be given to mental health in our country. Serious, adult conversations need to be had about mental health and how to deal with it in both regards to owning guns and in a broader sense as well. Many problems could be addressed with stronger mental health solutions. But I don't think it needs to be in an amendment replacing the 2nd Amendment." ~ TB3

I am in agreement with you on all points here, sir. ~ T. Paine

"As I have said in the past, the proliferation of firearms throughout our nation's history is such that by severely restricting them or banning them now would only ensure that the good law-abiding folks are the ones that turn in their weapons." ~ T. Paine

"And speaking of hyperbole; Unless I missed it, I didn't see anywhere in Michael Moore's proposed amendment that indicated that guns would need to be turned in. Banned does not equal confiscation. Though these conversations often result in one side saying that their guns are getting taken away. Though I'm not naive enough to believe that someone wouldn't try to get that through congress, the reality is we're not going to have government stooges coming to take our guns. I would, however, expect to see government gun-trade-in programs for banned weapons. I imagine existing ownership of theoretically banned weapons would be grandfathered in." ~ TB3

With all due respect, I don't think I said anything hyperbolic in nature, sir. If you were to ask Mr. Moore, and indeed many of our leftist brothers and sisters in congress, they would very much like to ban certain guns with higher capacity magazines or that have a "military" appearance so as to inaccurately be classified as assault weapons. And while some of the pro-gun rhetoric is unfounded, there are indeed those that have had their firearms taken away from them without due process. I refer specifically to President Obama's edict to remove guns from senior citizens if they "didn't/couldn't take care of their own finances". As with most of government's regulatory creep, often times it is done through incrementalism. It goes back to the slowly boiling the frog in the warm water rather than just trying to throw it into the already boiling water. I think that is how a lot of the Left's (and right's) agenda is advanced. Whether it is expanded entitlements and gay rights/marriage on the left to attempts to restrict abortion on the right, it is often done piecemeal. I think this also applies to gun control. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, sir. Sorry it took me so long to respond, as I have been out of town the last few weeks. Cheers! ~ T. Paine

Dave Dubya said...

Mr. Paine,

(I hope you had a great vacation. We missed you.)

One should understand the far Right propaganda of the NRA depends upon their, um, targets, to not posses the facts. This is also true of FOX, Breitbart, Hate Radio, Republicans, and of course, Trump. The NRA lock-stepped with the latter far Right sources in attacking Hillary during the campaign. Since then they’ve gone into full culture war mode.

“They use their media to assassinate real news...They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler...They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again, and then use their ex-president to endorse the resistance.”

The message is clear. More demonizing, blame, and hate for liberals, public education and our free press.

It. Never. Ends. But that’s another issue.

If I may respectfully offer some facts that could clarify some points presented.

many of our leftist brothers and sisters in congress, they would very much like to ban certain guns with higher capacity magazines or that have a "military" appearance so as to inaccurately be classified as assault weapons.

Mr. Paine understands the difference between banning sales and confiscation, I’m sure. However his “boiling frog” is a slippery slope fallacy. In fact, until recent decades, there was neither slope nor frog there, until the mass flooding of military style weapons into our population.

Another fact is high capacity magazines were developed for military use, which means they were intended for assaulting the enemy and killing them more abundantly and efficiently. The term “assault rifles” derived from Hitler’s “Sturmgewehr”. Bonus fact: Hitler never confiscated firearms from “good Germans”.


This narrative is entirely false: “...those that have had their firearms taken away from them without due process. I refer specifically to President Obama's edict to remove guns from senior citizens if they didn't/couldn't take care of their own finances”

I highly doubt Mr. Paine can name just one of these disarmed elderly recipients of Social Security disability. The “Obama gun Confiscation” myth has always been a fringe Right paranoid conspiracy theory. They tend to believe the very worst, and for them most frightening, intentions from Obama. The stoked-up anger and resentments give them a sense of unity and purpose, while inflating their feelings of patriotism. The same is largely true with their similar antagonism towards journalism, public education, unions, liberals, BLM, etc. (Maybe this isn’t a separate issue after all.)

Bonus fact two: Obama never confiscated firearms from law-abiding citizens.

And for the record, it was most assuredly NOT “President Obama's edict to remove guns from senior citizens”. It was neither edict, nor an initiative to remove, anyone’s guns.

Dave Dubya said...

If readers kindly take note, we can allow a few more facts to see the light of day.

(Note the date of the law that the Social Security Administration’s new rule was following.)

(Note the rule applies to recipients of Social Security disability, not all “senior citizens”.)

(Note also the strict conditions that must be met for purchasing a new gun. Again, NOT confiscation.)

From Snopes:

In July 2015, the Social Security Administration (SSA) proposed — and in December 2016 issued — new rules to “implement provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) that require Federal agencies to provide relevant records to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).”

The Social Security Administration rule would add Social Security disability recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs to the federal background check system for gun purchases.

The rule would require that the Social Security Administration report to the Attorney General, for inclusion in the NICS, Social Security recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”:

Criteria for inclusion in the NICS include that an individual is disabled based on a finding that the individual’s impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the mental disorders listings. These listings consist of medical conditions that we consider severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity, regardless of age, education, or work experience. Individuals whose impairments meet a listing are the most severely disabled individuals we serve. If we find an individual to be disabled based on a listing-level mental impairment, and he or she satisfies all of the remaining requirements, we are required to report them to the NICS. If we do not find an individual to be disabled based on a mental impairment, he or she has not met the reporting requirements and we will not report them to the NICS.


Thank you for considering these facts.

Tony Burns said...

If I am not mistaken, the primary catalyst for the Second Amendment, and for ratification of a federal constitution, was Shay's Rebellion, which established a need of a Federal government maintaining control, something that was impossible otherwise without a standing army. The purpose of the militia was not to help dissatisfied customers rebel against the government. Its purpose was to prevent this.

The individual's right to bear arms was not itrinsic, but necessary to solve the problem of militia men throwing rocks at trained rebels threatening the state.

The founders should have stated their intentions more clearly: perhaps by justifying the amendment as needed in order to have a well-trained militia.

The courts only recently made the Amendment mean the right to keep arms no human needs ok. The founders never heard of this interpretation.

Before the modern court reinvented the founders meaning, many early American towns did not even allowed personal fore arms in the city limits.

Bythe way, nowhere does it say what kind of arms. Can we limit some of them? If so, then limits are ok, and if not, then Hillbilly Bob next door can keep and bear a hydrogen bomb.

TB3 said...

"reinvented the meaning"

I believe there is an often used phrase parroted by members of the other side of the political spectrum:

Activist Judges

T. Paine said...

Mr. Burns, first let me thank you for your comment, sir.

I would agree that Shays' Rebellion was indeed a catalyst for replacing the weak Articles of Confederation with our Constitution. That said, the Second Amendment was not a result of that event. Indeed, James Madison who was largely responsible for the drafting of our Constitution did not even want nor even see the need for the Bill of Rights, let alone the 2nd Amendment. It was his contention that every right or power not specifically enumerated to the government within the Constitution was beyond their scope of governance and were rights that therefore resided with the people and states. In other words, it was unnecessary to have to explicitly spell out our individual rights, as anything that was not included within the body of the Constitution was assumed to be rights not restricted by or intrinsic to the federal government.

Further, Massachusetts Governor Bowdoin requested that the already existing state militia put down Daniel Shays' rebellion. The militia refused, as they sympathized with the rebels, including Daniel Shays who was being taxed but was not paid for his service in the militia during the revolutionary war. The governor had to constitute and pay his own private militia to thus put down the rebellion.

As for the 2nd Amendment, it has been PROPERLY adjudicated by SCOTUS based on the founders' original intent that this is an individual right, just like the other rights within the Bill of Rights. If the 2nd Amendment was merely about providing for a militia in place of a standing army, it would have been done in the body of the U.S. Constitution and not within the Bill of Rights reserved for We The People or the States. If you read the legislation and personal correspondence of nearly all of our founding fathers, you would realize that this is indeed the case, sir, and that they not only heard of this interpretation but it was the very impetus for them including it among the individual rights of our Bill of Rights.

Sticking to the founders' original intent in the defense of our liberties as espoused in the Constitution is NOT what activist judges do, and it is indeed not what was done with regards to our second amendment, TB3 & Mr. Burns.

Tony Burns said...

Mr. Paine, may I then assume that the "in order to have a well trained militia" statement was just drunken blather added as an afterthought, and their actual intention was the intrinsic right of one fellow to be able to dipense with another when the situation calls for it?

One has to wonder what use declaring intent in a law is if SCOTUS can later explain that the stated intent is not the intent and that some other intent is the real intent.

Tony Burns said...

And, why was the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights? The real answer is that this was major legislation under consideration. However, the given reason was that the people have a right to have a well-trained militia in order to avoid the necessity of a potentially oppresive standing army. Of course you know this already, having read the early debates yourself, but I thought I would review it, not for your sake, but to educate the ignorant lurking among us.

Tony Burns said...

An engineer? You drive trains? I always wanted to do that.

T. Paine said...


Mr. Burns, the settlers, particularly around the western edge of the frontier typically did not have law enforcement or official governmental means of protecting these small communities and outposts. The people therefore relied upon themselves to fight off Indians and deal with serious criminal threats. They needed the means to do so by being armed, and by being able to band together in a militia in order to repel French or Indian attacks. This amendment was not meant merely as a means of creating a governmental standing-army replacement. It was meant as a means to provide for the individuals to be able to bear arms for their own defense and livelihood.

Did you read my previous statement, sir, about the founders' intent on this being an individual right and not simply an addendum to the body of the constitution because they "forgot" to provide for a fighting force for the government? I think much of this history and civics lessons on the topic have been lost or revised to suit more "progressive" mindsets these days, sir.

"An engineer? You drive trains? I always wanted to do that." ~ Mr. Burns

LOL! Now that is funny! I wish I was that kind of engineer, sir. That would indeed be fun!

Tony Burns said...

I still don't understand. If a founder says he is creating a rule in order to have a well trained militia, how did you figure out that the rule was created for a different purpose?

Why did he bother explaining why he was creating the rule? It would seem his explanation is not worth the parchment it is written on. The founder does not get to choose the reason he created his amendment. We do. We will keep the amendment. We like it. His explanation, however, is fired. Anybody got an eraser that works on parchment?

T. Paine said...

Mr. Burns, I think we may be talking over each other, sir.

What I was trying to point out is that a militia back in the 18th century is not the equivalent of a state's national guard today. It was simply a very loose confederation of townsfolk that supported each other in their mutual defense when necessary. By such manner, they had and have a right to keep and bear arms.

Again it is unanimous among the Founding Fathers that wrote/spoke on the topic, that We The People have a right to keep and bear arms, and not simply as a means of becoming part of a paramilitary group because there wasn't a standing army.

Tony Burns said...

I am not even disputing the "right" to bear arms for the purpose of private self-defense. I am diputing that the Second Amendment addressed that presumed right. The Second Amendment documented the right it addressed in the text of the Amendment.

Dave Dubya said...

“A very loose confederation of townsfolk, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That doesn’t sound like the intent either.

To illustrate how dominant the NRA and Right wing propaganda has taken our nation:
=
May 3, 1994

To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
=

The Right is taking us to hell. Human sacrifice to their Gun God proves it.

T. Paine said...

Dave, the NRA has been around for 146 years. During all of that time, never has a single mass murder ever been rightfully attributed to a NRA member.

As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."

Mr. Burns, I understand your point. You are still missing mine. I guess it is fruitless to try and explain the nuances. Evidently I am just not that good of a writer to get my point across. I do appreciate your contributions to the discussion, sir.

Tony Burns said...

I understand your point. Your point is threefold:

1. The founding fathers embraced gun ownership as a right unto itself. If we could ask them today, not one would disagree. I have not commented on that point so far.

2. The fact that gun ownership is addressed in the Bill of Rights validates point one. I did address that, and it was based on knowledge of the actual historical debate.

3.We must avoid agreeing with the explanation for the Second Amendment documented in the text of the Second Amendment because it contadicts the modern justification for curtailing certain gun laws. This is your main point, though, as you noted, you are struggling to articulate it in a straightforward way. I am glad I was able to assist in this regard.

-- Regards.

Dave Dubya said...

Mr. Paine,

Nowhere did I accuse an NRA member of a mass shooting. You are deflecting from my point about their propaganda. They always lie about Democrats coming to confiscate their guns.

You recently repeated one of their lies.

This narrative you repeated is entirely false: “...those that have had their firearms taken away from them without due process. I refer specifically to President Obama's edict to remove guns from senior citizens if they didn't/couldn't take care of their own finances”

I highly doubt Mr. Paine can name just one of these disarmed elderly recipients of Social Security disability. The “Obama gun Confiscation” myth has always been a fringe Right paranoid conspiracy theory.

(Note the date of the law that the Social Security Administration’s new rule was following.)

(Note the rule applies to recipients of Social Security disability, not all “senior citizens”.)

(Note also the strict conditions that must be met for purchasing a new gun. Again, NOT confiscation.)

From Snopes:

In July 2015, the Social Security Administration (SSA) proposed — and in December 2016 issued — new rules to “implement provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) that require Federal agencies to provide relevant records to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).”

The Social Security Administration rule would add Social Security disability recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs to the federal background check system for gun purchases.

The rule would require that the Social Security Administration report to the Attorney General, for inclusion in the NICS, Social Security recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”:

Criteria for inclusion in the NICS include that an individual is disabled based on a finding that the individual’s impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the mental disorders listings. These listings consist of medical conditions that we consider severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity, regardless of age, education, or work experience. Individuals whose impairments meet a listing are the most severely disabled individuals we serve. If we find an individual to be disabled based on a listing-level mental impairment, and he or she satisfies all of the remaining requirements, we are required to report them to the NICS. If we do not find an individual to be disabled based on a mental impairment, he or she has not met the reporting requirements and we will not report them to the NICS.


You will likely repeat the lie and continue to accuse Obama of some fictional “edict”. Your loyalty seems not to the truth, but to the NRA and false beliefs.

You have supported my point with this:

“And they get what they want over time.” This is because of their effective propaganda. Their propaganda and lobbying made it easier for mass shooters to slaughter people.

The moderate views of the former presidents has been drowned by NRA propaganda. My point is made.

T. Paine said...

Dave, you specifically cited a letter to express your point about the "NRA and right wing propaganda", the implication being that the evil Right and the NRA are indirectly (directly?) responsible and to blame for mass shootings. With that being the case, how does my point that in 146 years of its existence, no NRA member has ever been responsible for a mass shooting? It seems that my response was directly relevant to your unproven and frankly inaccurate assertion regarding mass shooting gun violence, and not mere "deflection" as you are always quick to claim while often partaking in it yourself, sir.

"They always lie about Democrats coming to confiscate their guns." ~ Dubya

And yet you have admitted on many occasions how "nobody needs assault rifles with 30 round magazines". So have many Democrat politicians. That said, if nobody needs them according to you, then the first step must would be to prohibit the sale of any future such weapons. The second step is to restrict use of existing ones or implementing buy back programs etc. If they could outlaw them outright, there are politicians on the far Left that absolutely would do so.

From Politifact:

"In 1994, she (Senator Feinstein) authored the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was signed by President Bill Clinton. It prohibited the manufacture of 19 specific kinds of military-style, semi-automatic firearms, often called assault weapons. It also banned the manufacture and sale of gun magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. The bill expired in 2004 after efforts to extend it failed in Congress. Its restrictions did not apply to any semi-automatic weapons or magazines made before the ban’s effective date: Sept. 13, 1994.

In an interview with 60 Minutes that aired in February 1995, correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Feinstein about this loophole, which made it legal to buy and sell hundreds of thousands of the assault weapons the senator had sought to restrict. Feinstein responded: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.’"

So don't tell me that the Democrats are not coming to confiscate our weapons in violation of the second amendment. The only reason they have not done so is because of constitutionally-minded Americans, many of which support the NRA to lobby and protect this right.

T. Paine said...

I find it interesting that when some idiot high on drugs or alcohol crashes his car into oncoming traffic and killing innocent people that the Leftists shrug and say "that sucks" because he acted irresponsibly and CRIMINALLY in operating his vehicle, but when some bastard misuses his firearm and kills innocent people, then all firearm owners are tarred with this crime. Is this perhaps because many Leftists don't want the the scrutiny on a pet issue of drug legalization?

And no, I cannot give you a name of an elderly recipient of Social Security that has had his weapons confiscated, nor can I name anyone that was arrested for drunk driving that killed someone else in my town and state, but I know it has happened.

Even Clinton apologist and lapdog Stephanopolous has noted that NRA members are good citizens. Those that are members of the NRA are typically the ones that are the responsible and law abiding gun owners. They are not the ones that we need to fear. We need to be working together to ensure felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill are unable to get or keep their firearms, instead of demonizing anyone and everyone that happens to own an AR-15 or an AK-47.

"Their propaganda and lobbying made it easier for mass shooters to slaughter people." ~ Dubya

Bull crap. The NRA wants and works towards responsible gun ownership, including safety and marksmanship training, and strengthening gun laws in order to ensure that mass shooters and other evil doers are prevented or stopped from their plans. Years ago when I lived in Virginia, the NRA worked very closely with legislators in the state to ensure that any crime committed with or while in possession of a firearm automatically ensured maximum sentences for the perpetrator. Crime and gun violence dropped precipitously in the following years. These are the kinds of things the NRA does. After all, NRA members have families that they want to have safe from criminals and mass shooters too. Such is my counter-point.

Dave Dubya said...

What’s with your straw man? I never accused an NRA member of anything, other than telling lies.

“So don't tell me that the Democrats are not coming to confiscate our weapons”..because Diane Feinstein wants to and she controls every Democrat? That’s you reasoning? That is the most absurd generalization, as well as intellectually dishonest.

Are you so paranoid and simplistic to believe one woman’s notion is what all Democrats, or even most Democrats, advocate? You are wrong to make such an assumption. I thought you could reason better than that. Beliefs trump facts and reason again.

And no, I cannot give you a name of an elderly recipient of Social Security that has had his weapons confiscated

That’s because it NEVER happened! It is an indoctrinated and false belief directly from the NRA.

You demand I accept your paranoid beliefs without evidence. And when I give you the facts, you ignore them. This is what con-servatism is all about. This is why your belief system is dangerous to democracy itself. You believe almost any lie and propaganda from your echo chamber. Fine. But don’t try to con me. I demand facts and evidence and reason.

"Their propaganda and lobbying made it easier for mass shooters to slaughter people." ~ Dubya

Bull crap. The NRA wants and works towards responsible gun ownership. Oh really? That’s it? Come on, man. Don’t play that game. They lobby for, and ARE, the people who manufactured and sold the guns used in mass slaughter. They profit from those weapons of mass destruction, and they want more of them in our society. They endorse and finance, or oppose candidates according to that agenda.

These are facts, sir, and you can’t seem to accept them, or maybe you are cornered by them and need to deflect. See the straw man above.

strengthening gun laws in order to ensure that mass shooters and other evil doers are prevented or stopped from their plans.

Wow. We sure can’t argue with NRA success on that front, can we? In case the NRA won’t tell you this fact, mass shootings are on the rise and getting worse. You want to say easy access to those weapons, thanks largely to the NRA, has nothing to do with it?

And you think I’m wacked out for saying nobody needs 30 round mags for self-defense? I suppose that makes me a real gun-grabber.

That is illogical and out of reality. I’m only being honest here. You seem to be a frightened man, sir. You hold paranoid beliefs that are not based in reality. Maybe you are frightened by Black people. You believe BLM is a racist hate group, because they object to killings by rogue cops. This is what the Klan and Nazis and Trump say too. They hate BLM. You even bought Trump’s lie about “very fine people” marching with Nazis at a rally THEY organized and called “Unite the Right”. Do you still believe Trump’s lie? If so, why? What facts can you offer?

Just as you couldn’t name one person Obama disarmed, you couldn’t name one “very fine” person with the Nazis. You simply chose to believe Trump, like you do the NRA. You even buy their line that they reduced gun violence. Wow. Excuse me if I don’t buy that line, especially when no evidence is presented.

This is either willful delusional thinking or brainwashing. If a liberal says the sky is blue, you would want to say it is green, just because liberals are always wrong in your ideological black and white world view. You reject facts that don’t conform to your beliefs.

And your deceptions and deflections cannot hide that that fact.

I’m sorry if you are so frightened. But don’t lie to me. I will call it out and you will only get angry.

Tony Burns said...

Dave don't forget your meds this morning. You could end up angry and uncivil and we wouldn't want that to happen.

Dave Dubya said...

Tony,
Thank you for the med check. I don’t want to become as angry as someone living in fear of liberals kicking in their door and confiscating their precious tokens of manhood and weapons of mass death. The anti-Feinstein Militia will stand ready with our Second Amendment Remedies. Maybe we need artillery, mortars and grenades just to be sure we are safe from Feinstein and her horde of pink-hatted women.

From what I have learned here, that's what the Founders foresaw. How can we be safe with 30 round mags? A 20mm Gatling gun would send those anti-American liberals the message. Why do they hate freedom?

I feel so helpless with my pitiful 10 round magazine. Maybe if I send the NRA a few hundred dollars I’ll feel safe?

You know what's funny? Mr. Paine thinks I'm out of touch for agreeing with Ronald Reagan.

T. Paine said...

I am not going to waste much more time on your comments here. It really serves little point. Your twisting of facts and spewing that which is not true does not really lend itself to intelligent debate with you, Mr. Dubya.

And you are either hopelessly naive, intentionally dishonest, or a damned fool if you think Diane Feinstein is the only politician on the Left that doesn't want to either severely restrict or outright confiscate some, if not all, firearms from Americans. To varying degrees, but all still huge gun control proponents, many of the same caliber as Feinstein, are the following circus staff: Chris Murphy, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Jared Huffman, Seth Moulton, Gabby Giffords, Jack Reed, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carolyn McCarthy, Nancy Pelosi, Zoe Lofgren, James Clyburn, Robin Kelly, Mike Thompson, and Carolyn Maloney just to get started.

"They (NRA) lobby for, and ARE, the people who manufactured and sold the guns used in mass slaughter. They profit from those weapons of mass destruction, and they want more of them in our society." ~ Dubya

And millions of those "scary assault rifles" are kept and used properly by law abiding citizens everyday, including in self defense against mass murderers. I think we should place legislation up for vote to restrict Ford, GM, and Dodge from manufacturing and selling vehicles since they are used to kill more people every year than gun violence. (And they sure shouldn't sell trucks to Home Depot for terrorists to rent and mow down people with.) At least this way we could clean up the planet and force everyone to use public transportation to prevent non-existent anthropogenic global warming, right?

You don't get it. If we magically got rid of every weapon in America, there would still be mass killings. It is because there are evil and sick people in the world. They will use vehicles, bombs, or other legal products in an unintended illegal way to kill innocent people.

It is a good thing that a man in Texas had his AR-15 handy to shoot and stop the church killer there, or even more folks would have likely died.

And then you resort back to Trump, BLM, blah blah blah. Good Lord! And you accuse Majormajor of deflecting and not sticking to the topic at hand.

Oh, and as I have pointed out to you ad nauseum, I don't look at issues and decide from a purely Right and Left perspective. It is why I am very supportive of much scientifically sound environmental legislation. I am not the one to immediately reject an idea simply because it comes from the other side of the political aisle. There is a parable about a pot and a kettle that seems to apply to you here, sir.

You are the one that seems to want to always stir the pot with hyperbole, deflection, mischaracterizations, and making claims about others that simply aren't true, Mr. Dubya. I mean after all, I don't fall into line with your ideology, so I am a racist, Nazi, Trump-supporting authoritarian, who supports the NRA so that they can manufacture more weapons of mass destruction by your assessment, correct? Hell, if I was the person you have accused me of being in the past, I would pretty much loathe myself too.

Dave, I'll be happy to make another donation to the NRA on your behalf. Time to move on again.

Dave Dubya said...

Mr. Paine,

It is unfortunate the “good guy with the gun” was too late to save the victims in the church. Maybe he saved other lives, we can’t know. I would have done the same thing. You see, I have a rifle or two, but not the paranoia that evil liberals are coming to take it. Call me naive or gullible, but I don’t buy Trump’s or the NRA’s lies and hate.

We do know the body count was high because of the easy access to military style weapons, greatly expanding the power of said evil. Heaven forbid a waiting period to assure background checks.

And thanks for contributing to the NRA’s pro-Trump, hate-the-EVIL-liberals propaganda.

"We are witnesses to the most ruthless attack on a president, and the people who voted for him, and the free system that allowed it to happen in American history," whines Dana Loesch in the NRA advertisement. "From the highest levels of government to their media, universities, and billionaires, their hateful defiance of his legitimacy is an insult to each of us."

"But the ultimate insult is that they think we’re so stupid that we’ll let them get away with it. These saboteurs, slashing away with their leaks and sneers, their phony accusations and gagging sanctimony, drive their daggers through the heart of our future, poisoning our belief that honest custody of our institutions will ever again be possible."

"So they can then build their utopia from the ashes of what they burned down. No, their fate will be failure and they will perish in the political flames of their own fires. We are the National Rifle Association of America. And we are Freedom's Safest Place,"

Sounds just like “responsible gun safety”, amirite?

We HATE anyone opposed to Trump. That’s their totalitarian STATIST message.

“Honest custody of our institutions”. What a joke. That’s our glorious Dear Leader they’re talking about. Would you bet your last Ruble on that? Do you buy that? You are paying for it. Thanks for the pro-Trump hateful message, partner.

I shall have to live in the dark as long as you can’t show my facts to be incorrect. Or “twisted”. Is that how the Right regards facts they don’t like but cannot refute?

At any rate, I agree with Reagan, and you do not. That is the fact of the day, old buddy.

Strange times.

Bojin said...

I wrote a blog about gun control as well. My position on gun control is in my blog here https://lawpoliticals.blogspot.ca/2017/08/gun-control-real-truth.html