Seems to me we've had this discussion before.
Yes. Yes we have. Let's just keep it civil?
#1, this is the classic "conundrum" when government fails to solve a problem.
Are you
OUT OF YOUR FRIGGING MIND?
Just kidding.
Is the War On Drugs a ridiculous ongoing pointless disaster because drug laws and enforcement aren't draconian enough? Or because prohibition is stupid?
Pgg, Please don't side step the questions. Please answer one. I think you answered 50% of these with questions. Guns aren't drugs. Guns are guns. And while people are addicted to both Guns and Drugs (See Blade's posts)
Guns are a different beast.
Your argument makes NO sense. You choose prohibition because it failed and, golly, now want to compare it to Guns...just because? That's worse than a Strawman argument. It's a reverse double tuck with a triple axel straw man and you FU CKED up the landing!
Is the economy limping along in pseudo-recovery because there wasn't
enough stimulus spending? Or was the stimulus
stupid? (Or maybe irrelevant?)
Same thing here. Great little news bite. but it's MEANINGLESS.
I can do the same thing. Watch. Watch. Ready? Watch. OK. Watch.
1) Did we make seat belt use a required law in the 50 states? YES. OR NO?
2) Have they saved lives? YES. OR NO. Are you going to now quote the one accident where a seat belt
kept a water crash victim from getting out of the car? Or ask a question.
But anyway, that's a FOOLISH COMPARISON, as are drugs and alcohol.
I have faith in you PGG, you can do MUCH better than that. If that's your best, then, ya know, give it up.
What you MEAN TO SAY IS, "We have tried everything and it's failed, so, I give up."
IRONY ALERT: thank GAWD your beloved Framers took a different viewpoint of the US.
They could have pulled a PGG and California'd out as well. Or a Doctor712 and Florida'd out. But I'm here advocating to find SOME CHANGE and you're saying, "I'm out."
Ok, you're out.
#2, why on earth would we trust the people who have demonstrably failed to legislate wisely for the last EIGHT DECADES to suddenly get it right?
Why on earth would you not give a crap enough to find a solution? (see how the old answering with a question is annoying as crap?) I'll add to it though: so, politicians NEVER GET IT RIGHT. Seat belts. Cigarette warning labels and ID checks to make sure Johnny Idiot doesn't get his smokes at 12 years old. For every Johnny Idiot that DOES get Johnny Idiot's older brother to buy a pack of cigs FOR HIM, we have a BOBBY IDIOT that walks out of 7-11 with some Laffy Taffy and a Slurpee. So, DM vs Cancer. I don't know the stats but I think you get the point.
Same thing with alcohol. WE ALL drank at 18. I mean ALL. We snuck it, stole it, made it, whatever. The law is there TRY TO MAKE SOME PREVENTION. Period. Not solve the world. It's a deterrent. It's NOT perfect. Nothing is perfect. I'll take 1/100 rather than 0/100.
oh, and to answer your quoted question, you vote right? WHY. These are the people who have....bla bla...demonstrably.... bla bla....
Keep in mind that these are the same astoundingly gun-ignorant people who
- ban classes of guns based on cosmetic features alone (eg, fed & CA "assault" weapon bans)
- (per my quote of CA Sen Yee above) want to muddy the already filthy waters of the CA "assault" weapon ban by retro-banning a device that makes up perhaps 3% of magazine locks
- write articles and get the most basic facts wrong (.223 millimeter AR-15)
Wait, did a politician write that article, or a reporter. Let's not lump those two together. Politicos ban. Reporters screw up basic facts. They are their own special breeds of idiot. And some are good people.
Could we? We could try. Of course, it'd be a ridiculous failure, not to mention unconstitutional.
Thank you, Justice PGG. I actually think we've covered this ground, oh, Political Science scholar. This sort of statement really shows your level of understand of the Judicial Branch of our government.
California has made it illegal to sell magazines over 10 rounds for more than a decade now. That hasn't stopped people from obtaining them.
Well, let me rephrase that. It has stopped me from obtaining them, because I obey the law. Criminals don't bother paying attention to misdemeanor magazine capacity laws when they're committing violent felonies. Isn't that odd?
You're right. I'm not worried about YOU buying a 100 round clip. Or a 40 round clip.
a) Does the ban in California bother you and do you see it as an affront to your liberties? Of course you do.
b) Go send your unconstitutional note to the Supreme Court, see how far you can run that puppy up the flagpole.
Use a lot of whining, annoyed verbiage.
c) It hasn't stopped people from obtaining them with RELATIVE EASE.
d) Ban them nationally and let's see if purchasing rates go UP OR DOWN (duh) and whether or not Jimmy Idiot goes through the trouble of ordering them from India (wait wait wait, no internet purchases, new rules. make inroads to Indian govt to have clips removed from sales to US. FIGHT FOR A CHANGE. ANY CHANGE.
Make it harder for me to BUY A 100 ROUND CLIP FOR MY AR than it is to BUY A BOX OF MONTECRITO'S FROM HAVANA. Legit ones mind you. Sure, I can DRIVE to montreal, buy em, drive back to the US, sneak through Customs (maybe), and smoke em. Guess what, I never did a Cigar run to montreal. I lived in a state that TOUCHES montreal practically. quebec at least. And if our neighbors to the north helped out with US purchases (ID PLEASE...) it would be all the more hard.
Just like the last time we had this discussion, you're totally missing the point of guns and the 2nd Amendment.
Ok, so lemme give you a little background here. Because this is a doctors' forum with scientists and those in training, so who knows what people's backgrounds are, and aren't (until they start making SCOTUS' decisions on their behalf, but I digress). I'm a writer. My expertise is Television Writing. I've dabbled in Movies, but I wouldn't call myself an expert Film Writer just yet. Working on it. You're a Physicians. Your Expertise is Anesthesiology (I'm jealous, and you know that's true) and Medicine, and all things Human Body. My prior training was 4 years at an Ivy League School majoring in Political Science. Specifically, American Politics. More specifically in the Federal Convention of 1787. And lastly, James Madison. I'd say 25% of my training was at the Graduate Level. Maybe 20%. Two theses of 80 pages each (one on SCOTUS, one on Madison). A year of my life.
OK PGG, are you going to sit there and tell me that you have a SINGLE FRIGGING CLUE about the circumstances of that Convention, and tell me that I'm missing the point of the 2nd Amendment (adopted 4 years later, not that that matters much)? As sure as s hit, I'm convinced that you have NO IDEA, no schooling, no training, no formal knowledge with the exception of a few books on your shelf from Borders and an uninformed opinion that would hopefully, serve yourself and your own interests. Swing lefts and rights here when it comes to medicine, I do it with writing when needed, don't lecture me about the US Constitution - and certainly, what would and wouldn't be found constitutional. You haven't a single clue. I accept my knowledge level, I don't come out here speaking on behalf of SCOTUS and getting you inside the minds of the framers - a task that some people spend their ENTIRE LIVES trying to deliberate in the poli sci academic circles of their institutions. but you're a doctor, so you're omnipotent, i get it.
The 2nd Amendment is not about deer hunting
.
F UCK, I gotta go back and rewrite thesis #2.
It's about the power of the people
I'm with ya.
(individually - don't rehash that old "militia" crap)
I wouldn't. Seriously.
Still with ya. I'm roped in now.
for the purpose of killing
I like where you're headed with this PGG!!!! Woot. GO PGG!!!!!
You stud!
as efficiently as possible
W?
T?
F?
PGG. You may THINK that. You may WANT TO THINK THAT. but, for something to be, Professor, tacitly proven as someone's (or a group of people's wishes) they need to EXPLICITLY STATE THAT. And golly gee, those Framers went through so much trouble in that hot convention room in Philly after Madison finally got his Quorum (not on the first time, some people must've just wanted to lollygag through the status quo - sound familiar) they went through sooooooooooooo many nights and weeks and Mint Iced Tea, BEING EXPLICIT on certain counts, and LEAVING SOOOOOOOOOOO much open to interpretation, that, not arguably, they wanted this this to be able to adapt. At least, there are Poli Sci scholars out there, by the 100000s that argue that point to the same certaintly my Orgo Prof taught me about Carbon being tetravalent. THINK about WHY and WHEN they chose to be explicit, and when they did not. Some times, Professor, the most powerful form of speech - is silence. This is part of the study and the understanding of the Constitution. ESPECIALLY if you spent weeks at a time in The Stacks reading Madison's personal notes dictated (by himself and to himself, whatever) every evening
the Convention took place.
So, you're wonderfully news bitey "efficient" and "that's the point" crap, is just that. Horseshi IT.
Let's not dance around the issue, or indulge in euphemisms. Guns are for killing people.
Thank you Professor.
The clear, unambiguous intent of the 2nd Amendment and the people who wrote it was to ensure that the people (individuals) would be as well armed as the military.
Find that phrase for me in the 2nd amendment please. Please. I'll buy you a drink at ASA in Washington this fall... anything at the bar. 4 drinks.
Would you like me to post the ACTUAL text for anyone playing along at home?
With the years that have passed, the text, and its meaning has been debated and debated. Thus, the moniker of the Cons as a "living document." WHAT IM saying is that there is STILL room to debate and discuss and learn and let it breath, if that suits 2012. What you're saying is, "God made the world. It's done. Period. Let's move on."
The repetitive crap about whether the Founders could have forseen the invention of machine guns is irrelevant.
It's totally relevant Professor. Living document, your words.
What they feared was an imbalance of power between the people (individuals) and the government
. Enough evidence and historical fact supports that. What's your point?
That the population requires 100 round clips for the people of the US to be as strong as their G?
No really, can you answer that? Can you take it a step further and suggest that US CITIZENS should
have the rights and legal status to PURCHASE AND USE:
1) F-15s (how FUN would that be!!!!!)
2) Tanks
3) Those cool choppers that they used in Red Dawn, name escaping me right now. Bullets included. Jennifer Grey not included.
4) RPGs
Have is OCCURRED TO YOU Professor, that your argument holds NO WATER. Firstly, if you think the US citizen needs 100 round clips in order to keep equally armed with our G, you need to step away from your Anesthesia cart and stop sniffing the Glue. Like throwing a hot dog down a hallway. And second, today, that US living document could not POSSSSSSSSSSIBLY provide for 1-4 that I just listed, without an ALL OUT LIVE ACTION VERSION of CALL OF DUTY. So, there goes your argument in BOTH directions. So, limit the fuc king 100 round mags legally. According to your logic, if a US CITIZEN
CANNOT FLY AND ARM an F-15, then I raise you and say, add in AUTOMATIC GUNS and EXCESSIVE CLIPS. Let SCOTUS take a look, see if they can stamp it, Baby Steps.
If you're worried about the US G falling to **** in the next 100-200 years, and the people need to protect themselves, let the document figure that one out NOW. Today, we have other problems. It's sort of How CURRENT CULTURAL AND SOCIETAL NORMS work in the US. We think about our best interests - for better or worse - now. We've made mistakes and rounded up Japanese people, and I'm sure innocent Muslims. Mistakes. But we've also outlawed sending a Bomb in the Mail....isn't a BOMB an ARM PGG? You don't even need to explode it. See how amazing our lawmakers can be!!!!!! We've also outlawed sending nude pictures of Jimmy the Idiot, when he was 8, in the mail to the Sandusky's of the world. God that kid finds a way into SO much trouble. (ps. we can discuss first amendment later, but suffice it to say i have NO problems with a llllll the RIGHT limits on 1st amendment. i don't sit at home, complaining that i want EVERY right that madison "thought" i wanted 200 years ago, and gosh darn it Cooter if i don't get every possibly NON EXPLICIT right I'm gonna raise a firestorm!!!!!) Like you gun rights shmucks. Get a Glock. As Nicholson said, (nice writing) "It don't add inches to your dick." Though he was referring to an automatic weapon. Ha, a criminal with a brain. "Buys you a Life sentence..." was the next line I think.
Surely if they could see the current imbalance of power that accompanies the technology, surveillance, databases, aircraft, etc at the government's disposal ... they would oppose ANY kind of limitation on the small arms the people could possess.
Woah, woah woah woah woah. YOU ALMOST back-peddled through that hoop PGG. I almost missed it. SMALL arms. You just added the word, SMALL into the US constitution. DID. YOU. NOT?
Surely. I'll keep the Surely's to Writing and a Little of my PoliSci training, can you promise to do the same with Medicine, Professor? Whatever SCOTUS/1787 background you have is probably from a Chapter in Ketchum. Stop preaching dude.
Your argument makes 0 sense. 1) I'm convinced that you have very little knowledge of the Federal Convention and really don't have any idea about what went in that room, or knowledge of SCOTUS' historical decisions in general, so I have to think you, sir, cannot sit there and tell ANYONE, what those Framers were thinking about the US circa 2012. Or what they would and would not want. I gave you my take.
Because the people have definitely lost the upper hand in the last 100 years or so.
Absolutely they have. I guess we should fold up the Constitution into a paper airplane and fling it off a cliff, yes?
Or no. Are you afraid of your G? Do you want to arm yourself SIMPLY because you know you can? Again, I'm not worried about you. You want to make a hypothetical about what 1787 peeps WANTED in that Federal Convention???? About the US G having ALL this unbalanced power? Here's a hypothetical: show Madison the news clippings of the Massacre yesterday. Of the killings in the streets of HOW MANY US CITIES on a daily basis? Not with 6 shooters, but with Tek 9s and all that crap. Then TELL US what the Framers envisioned for the US...
Has it even occurred to you
no. no, it has not.
that the reason the anti-gun politicians would get voted out of office is because the people correctly decided those politicians were an affront and threat to freedom and individual liberty?
Do you feel that way? 1) Did you vote for Bubba? 2) Do you, honestly, feel a threat from your G to your freedoms and liberties? 3) Or, as a naval man, do you think they are there to PROTECT and ENSURE that freedom better than any other regime in the HISTORY of recorded time. Or at least modern times. 4) Caveat, I think the Romans kicked ass for a while, so, 86 them. When I SENSE that the G is about to turn on me, I'll get out my Glock, some Campbells soup, round up my family and aim out the window. I'll go down in a BARRAGE of CHOPPER BULLETS according to you and it REALLY wouldn't matter if I had a Glock or a Canon, however, I imagine you'd like to legalize Canons as well. If you'd truly like the US citizenry to be as well equipped as the G, join a Militia, they are fine people. And, also, I don't want to live in that America. Apparently, neither does the US Supreme Court, Congress, POTUS or your Legislature (god, maybe I voted on that Prop, the 100 Clip Prop, gotta look up the year). Point being, the times, they are a changing. Join us. Fear terrorists, I MEAN THE G, oops, less.
part two follows in next post...
I ACTUALLY OVERWROTE THE LIMIT of 32000 characters. ha.
D712
