The gun expert from the New York Times

[Nahullo]

Not that I approve of this guys actions, but the Second Amendment isn't for hunting or personal protection. It's for doing exactly what this guy did.

So, according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, which reads: “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” the actions of this nut-job when he shot and killed a 9 year old kid, killed a judge, killed several other citizens and wounded a member of congress and over a dozen other folks were aligend with the Second Amendment?

Please, help me understand your logic and the justification for such an asinine comment.

 

[Eldritch]

And they should be. Americans are NOT happy and DC is NOT changing the way it does business. Something is going to have to give or the tree of liberty will be watered. The Right wing cocksuckers are too busy blowing the corporate special interests to stop the left wing scumbags from giving the country away to communists and lawless foreign invaders. Meanwhile, the folks in real America are punch drunk and bled almost dry. They’re starting to feel like they need to hit someone back. The Middle East war was a good distraction tactic for Bush that got him through his second term, but if someone doesn’t throw real America a bone sometime soon, there will be blood.

So, according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, which reads: “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” the actions of this nut-job when he shot and killed a 9 year old kid, killed a judge, killed several other citizens and wounded a member of congress and over a dozen other folks were aligend with the Second Amendment?

Please, help me understand your logic and the justification for such an asinine comment.

The intention of the Second Amendment is to keep the citizens of the State armed so they may rise up in violent revolt against the agents of an oppressive state. Even a very casual review of the documents left behind by our forefathers who founded this nation make that quite clear. The 2nd amendment of the United States constitution is the gift of rebellion for all future generations of Americans to hold. The validation of rebellious action is given by those who survive the rebellion. Obviously this man will be frowned upon by the nation he assaulted that has survived his passing, much as the Rebel states in the South have been since their Civil War. His assault on representatives of our government is however a powerful reminder that they in fact can be killed and in a time of most unfortunate circumstances, SHOULD be killed. I personally feel that that dark day has not yet come upon us, but I do take this event to be a powerful reminder that this nation is one that has been won through the use of force and shedding of much blood to gain liberty. I hope some others in this nation, while mourning the innocent lost in this assault on our nation, take the time to remember that it is the gift of our forefathers and birthright of this nation that we all hold the capacity to shed the blood of tyrants so that all Americans may be free of unjust law.

 

[RRR70]

So, according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, which reads: “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” the actions of this nut-job when he shot and killed a 9 year old kid, killed a judge, killed several other citizens and wounded a member of congress and over a dozen other folks were aligend with the Second Amendment?

Please, help me understand your logic and the justification for such an asinine comment.

This

A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression.
James Madison

 

[Dr. Evil]

So, according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, which reads: “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” the actions of this nut-job when he shot and killed a 9 year old kid, killed a judge, killed several other citizens and wounded a member of congress and over a dozen other folks were aligend with the Second Amendment?

Please, help me understand your logic and the justification for such an asinine comment.

The militia to which the constitution refers represents the whole body of the people, bearing arms against the possibility of a tyrannical government. That's EXACTLY what the American Revolution consisted of, and exactly why we have the second amendment.

If you'd cared to actually read the post instead of knee-jerk like a twit, you'd have seen that El doesn't condone THIS particular happening. Yes, it's totally and thoroughly reprehensible that this guy killed so many people, some of them children (I ain't crying so much for the judge, I have a pretty dim view of them), and I hope this guy spends the rest of his life in the slam as a personal fleshlight for Big Bob.

The point El was trying to make is that the whole reason we have guns is that we may keep the politicians in their place.

 

[2strokeYardSale]

A newspaper asking Paul Helmke to comment on a murder committed with a firearm is like asking Rev. Fred Phelps to comment on the death a gay man from AIDS.

 

[Nahullo]

Not that I approve of this guys actions, but the Second Amendment isn't for hunting or personal protection. It's for doing exactly what this guy did.

So, according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, which reads: “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” the actions of this nut-job when he shot and killed a 9 year old kid, killed a judge, killed several other citizens and wounded a member of congress and over a dozen other folks were aligend with the Second Amendment?

Please, help me understand your logic and the justification for such an asinine comment.

And they should be. Americans are NOT happy and DC is NOT changing the way it does business. Something is going to have to give or the tree of liberty will be watered. The Right wing cocksuckers are too busy blowing the corporate special interests to stop the left wing scumbags from giving the country away to communists and lawless foreign invaders. Meanwhile, the folks in real America are punch drunk and bled almost dry. They’re starting to feel like they need to hit someone back. The Middle East war was a good distraction tactic for Bush that got him through his second term, but if someone doesn’t throw real America a bone sometime soon, there will be blood.

So the logic you used, to justify your comment, is centered on… “The Right wing cocksuckers are too busy blowing the corporate special interests to stop the left wing scumbags from giving the country away to communists and lawless foreign invaders.” I don’t see how this relates to the Second Amendment and the nut-job’s actions in killing citizens, a judge and shooting a US congressperson.

 

[Marlowe]

So, according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, which reads: “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” the actions of this nut-job when he shot and killed a 9 year old kid, killed a judge, killed several other citizens and wounded a member of congress and over a dozen other folks were aligend with the Second Amendment?

Please, help me understand your logic and the justification for such an asinine comment.

It's pretty harsh, but it's not asinine.

You think the Founders gave a damn about hunting?

No.

You think they gave a damn about personal protection?

If they were worried about their skins, they wouldn't have gone against the Crown.

The 2A exists because they'd seen, up close and persona, what happened in Europe when the populace was disarmed.

Do you think the checks and balances we talk about stop inside the government itself?

The people are the final check. Always has been. That's why the 2A exists.

It's the codified right to revolution.

Something that has never happened anywhere else. That's what makes it so powerful, and so scary to politicians.

They continue to rape this country for moneyed interests, and as long as they do that, they will live in fear, unless they succeed in subjugating the rest of us.

 

[gixxerjoeca]

So how much is a "stockpile"? I would say that the libs answer would be anything over 0.

Many said that people with a history of mental instability, like the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, should not be able to buy a gun — and no one should be able to buy stockpiles of ammunition used by the 22-year-old assailant.

 

[Eldritch]

So the logic you used, to justify your comment, is centered on… “The Right wing cocksuckers are too busy blowing the corporate special interests to stop the left wing scumbags from giving the country away to communists and lawless foreign invaders.” I don’t see how this relates to the Second Amendment and the nut-job’s actions in killing citizens, a judge and shooting a US congressperson.

He used force of arms to kill multiple representatives of the U.S. government in what he apparently felt was a necessary act of defiance against what he felt was an unbearable tyrannical government. This is in essence the definition of the protection provided by the second amendment.

As I said, I don't necessarily approve of his logic and he seems like a fruitcake to me, but in times of tyrannical oppression, this sort of action would be appropriate.

 

[afm199]

Actually GLOCK "is" capable of high rate of fire. GLOCK 18 (select fire) has rate of fire of approximately 1,100 rounds per minute .
I just like to get all technical 'n shit.

Everyone says that. But cyclical rate of fire and ACTUAL are two different things. Unless you can swap magazines at a mad rate, you won't get 200 rounds a minute out of any hand held pistol with standard magazines.

I pointed it out cuz the commentator called it a "pistol that shoots hundreds of rounds a minute."

 

[RRR70]

They continue to rape this country for moneyed interests, and as long as they do that, they will live in fear, unless they succeed in subjugating the rest of us.

There are plenty of sheeple (as indicated in this thread and other gun related or goobment intrusion in people lives threads on teh BARF) that will gladly assist the goobment in disarming and controlling law abiding people.

 

[RRR70]

Everyone says that. But cyclical rate of fire and ACTUAL are two different things. Unless you can swap magazines at a mad rate, you won't get 200 rounds a minute out of any hand held pistol with standard magazines.

I pointed it out cuz the commentator called it a "pistol that shoots hundreds of rounds a minute."

That's why I said "capable". Shit, revolvers are "capable" of firing rate around 500 RPM, just ask Jerry Mikulec (8 shots in under a second).

 

[Nahullo]

The militia to which the constitution refers represents the whole body of the people, bearing arms against the possibility of a tyrannical government. That's EXACTLY what the American Revolution consisted of, and exactly why we have the second amendment.

If you'd cared to actually read the post instead of knee-jerk like a twit, you'd have seen that El doesn't condone THIS particular happening. Yes, it's totally and thoroughly reprehensible that this guy killed so many people, some of them children (I ain't crying so much for the judge, I have a pretty dim view of them), and I hope this guy spends the rest of his life in the slam as a personal fleshlight for Big Bob.

The point El was trying to make is that the whole reason we have guns is that we may keep the politicians in their place.

Hmmm, a personal attack, interesting… But that discredits your, clearly well educated, debate skills. Yes, I read the posts and I am well aware of the constitution and its amendments – I took an oath to defend it and did.

If you don’t like the way the country is headed, then start a political movement and make a change. If you want to justify and advocate the use weapons to make your, wonderfully articulated point, so be it. But let “El” make his own comments, to justify the deaths in AZ base on what he wrote. “Not that I approve of this guys actions, but the Second Amendment isn't for hunting or personal protection. It's for doing exactly what this guy did.”

 

[Nahullo]

It's pretty harsh, but it's not asinine.

You think the Founders gave a damn about hunting?

No.

You think they gave a damn about personal protection?

If they were worried about their skins, they wouldn't have gone against the Crown.

The 2A exists because they'd seen, up close and persona, what happened in Europe when the populace was disarmed.

Do you think the checks and balances we talk about stop inside the government itself?

The people are the final check. Always has been. That's why the 2A exists.

It's the codified right to revolution.

Something that has never happened anywhere else. That's what makes it so powerful, and so scary to politicians.

They continue to rape this country for moneyed interests, and as long as they do that, they will live in fear, unless they succeed in subjugating the rest of us.

What is this ‘hunting crap’ where is that coming from? No, the 2A was not designed to allow people to assassinate political leaders (and kill unarmed citizens) with whom they disagree. It was designed to keep the power in the hands of the people.

So is this, your argument, it’s the start of a revolution?

 

[RRR70]

What is this ‘hunting crap’ where is that coming from? No, the 2A was not designed to allow people to assassinate political leaders (and kill unarmed citizens) with whom they disagree. It was designed to keep the power in the hands of the people.

So is this, your argument, it’s the start of a revolution?

Ok, I'll do it AGAIN

A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression.
James Madison

 

[Eldritch]

Hmmm, a personal attack, interesting… But that discredits your, clearly well educated, debate skills. Yes, I read the posts and I am well aware of the constitution and its amendments – I took an oath to defend it and did.

If you don’t like the way the country is headed, then start a political movement and make a change. If you want to justify and advocate the use weapons to make your, wonderfully articulated point, so be it. But let “El” make his own comments, to justify the deaths in AZ base on what he wrote. “Not that I approve of this guys actions, but the Second Amendment isn't for hunting or personal protection. It's for doing exactly what this guy did.”

I did not justify them. I stated clearly I did not necessarily approve. I simply ALSO made clear the reminder of what our nation must hold close to heart, the seed of revolution and more importantly, the fruits of independence and personal responsibility that grow from that seed. The majority of Americans in this day and age, PARTICULARLY those who are responsible for making most of the important decisions (City Dwellers), are FAR too comfortable with letting the government do their thinking for them.

 

[aminalmutha]

well Glocks do not use CLIPS

they use MAGAZINES its a pet peave of mine when people who use guns or talk about them have no idea wtf they are talking about.

I typically immediately disregard anything anyone has to say about firearms when they confuse the terms or display that they don't know the difference between them.

 

[Marlowe]

What is this ‘hunting crap’ where is that coming from? No, the 2A was not designed to allow people to assassinate political leaders (and kill unarmed citizens) with whom they disagree. It was designed to keep the power in the hands of the people.

So is this, your argument, it’s the start of a revolution?

Is there some 'strawman' check box we can unselect on you?

That's about the fourth argument you've attempted to have that wasn't there.

Where did I say it was the start of a revolution?

Answer: Nowhere.

I simply pointed out that Eldritch has a point -- it was devised to enable a revolution, should one become necessary:

That when things got so bad, that the populace en masse felt the only answer was to start over, that they would have the tools to do so. It was also designed to help prevent this outcome -- by discouraging government from becoming so oppressive they'd have to be killed, knowing the people would retain that power.

You should probably read up on our Founders ideas of what made a legitimate government. Hint: by the people, for the people, etc.

Anyway, nobody is suggesting it's the start of a revolution, or that we want to see it happen, or that he should have done this.

We're simply pointing out a truth that you are apparently uncomfortable with.

 

[Nahullo]

Ok, I'll do it AGAIN

I think it is tragically prophetic that a lunatic in AZ with a gun has become your Second Amendment Hero.

 

[Marlowe]

I think it is tragically prophetic that a lunatic in AZ with a gun has become your Second Amendment Hero.

And now onto a strawman followed by ad hominem...