1) There are soooooooooooooooooooooooooo many reasons to mock Reagan. The fact that he was motivated by fear of scary armed black men in leather and sunglasses is merely one. 2) The simple fact that so many conservatives worship at the alter of someone who would sacrifice the 2nd Amendment so readily rather than see it applied equally makes them equally worthy of derision as well. 3) The fact that I'm even having to explain this...
I said "much" ... in other words, statistically a gun will not protect someone from gun violence very often. Having a gun also increases the chances of the owner being the subject of gun violence. The point I was getting at was that people focus on Guns (which is fine) but very little on protecting individual rights and freedoms (which is not fine). The threat to the security of your girls is just as great from the Gov't these days as it is from some criminal. While a gun may afford some protection from a criminal ... it will not protect from the Gov't. When the swat team is outside, having a gun will not give you any security.
A better question is "which ones are not". The Patriot act made it our "patriotic duty" to give up individual liberty. "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness" - where does not even begin ? Pot, Prostitution, Alcohol, arbitrary search and seizure, Asset forfeiture, banking, taxation (private property rights) on and on and on. The whole point of putting individual liberty "Above" he legitimate power of Gov't was so that Gov't would not make laws that messed with individual liberty. We have fallen so far down the slippery slope we can not even see the mountain top anymore. We the people ... as per the social contract gave the Gov't authority (in general) only for protection from direct harm (theft, murder, rape). That's it. If the Gov't wants to make a law outside it's legitimate purview it must appeal to "we the people" and the bar is "overwhelming majority" - not simple majority. It is supposed to be very difficult for the Gov't to mess with individual liberty. Now we have city councils doing it.
This statement has been debunked and discredited numerous times. There is no reason to keep bringing it up as if it were factual, when it is not. Neither will any other aspect of the constitution of the united states. Those apply after the fact, in a court of law, after the damage has already been done.
This is the gun control section. Here, we can discuss why some feel it is okay for armored car drivers to use guns to protect cash, but someone transporting their children cannot. If it is just "yapping" to you, you are welcome to visit the forum section that fits your personal preferences. When you say our guns won't protect us from the state, is that because of all the success we have had in the Middle East fighting an enemy hiding among friendlies? Its funny, I have been to the shooting range my whole life and only find others, who like me, want to improve their marksmanship. The only people who sexualize shooting are those who support gun control. You are going overboard trying to insult others for, what you claim, is their position. Many of those who liked Reagan, think he was wrong in this case. Is anyone here opposed to second amendment rights for minorities?
Seems you're the one who doesn't know his history. You're about a hundred years late... Starting in the 1860's, postbellum southern Black Codes strictly prohibited blacks from owning firearms. These were presumably free adult citizens, summarily stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights. Now, you're right about the 1967 Mulford Act signed into law by then-California governor Ronald Reagan - but it supports my position that the origins of gun control were rooted in the desire to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. So "thank you" for providing further evidence in support of my position.
And my position that racism is the key to scaring conservative white men into supporting gun control legislation. Note: I do NOT condone racism. I'm simply saying there are enough rabidly racist old white guys out there that the sight of heavily armed black and hispanics in the streets would make them give up their principles for safety...
You are wrong again. "Racist old white guys" who would not want to see "heavily armed (sic) black (sic) and hispanics (sic) in the street" know that gun control is absolutely ineffective against the type of criminals who commit violent crimes of any race or ethnicity. An even more cynical view would be to conclude that liberal support for gun control exists because the progressive crowd cannot bring themselves to admit the problems that exist in a large component of their political base.
Neither do I. I would love to have a discussion with you, Phyxius, but we have to get past something first. Follow me now…. We can agree that a white supremacist will never accept the humanity of the black race. He will stereotype them all as lazy/criminals/(insert racist insult here) and use the N-word to describe them as a group not worthy of human dignity. It is a dark part of human nature. Hatred requires an object, and when the chosen object is your fellow man there is a requirement that you first dehumanize them to provide the necessary self-justification for the hatred. Once you are comfortable doing this you can set about the task of assigning everyone a rank in the stereotypes you create. This is your prime complaint. The hypocrisy stands out, however, for you are the only one here who acts this way. You have decided to treat people as a group you wish to mock rather than deal with them and their individual merits. “Ammosexuals” is merely your version of the N-word. You know this to be true. Listen, I know how easy it is to fight the strawmen we create—those fictional creations of our egos who exist to make the flimsy arguments we can so easily demolish. But the real world is different. For example, you get into an argument here with someone who tells you gun control is linked to racism, and your response is to cite an example proving his point—not because you agree with him—but because you were busy chasing another fictional white rabbit—your desire to tell us you believe white men are racists who worship Ronald Regan—for which there is zero evidence amongst those within the gun control forum. You may be correct in assuming that some white men both “worship” Regan and are “racists”, but no evidence exists that you are presently talking to any of them. There are many gun control issues we can discuss here. Defensive uses of firearms, crimes committed with them, the history of the 2nd Amendment, how it should be interpreted, the constitutionality of court rulings on it, etc. I invite you to take a crack at any of these. But before I spend any more time on you I would like to know whether it will be a waste of my time. So the question is: Are you willing to engage any one of us in a substantive discussion/debate, or will you offer nothing more than insults hurled at a group of people you have decided to put into your personal hate box?
Of course the following the constitution (and the principles on which this country was founded as per the Declaration of Independence) will protect on from the Gov't. That was the main purpose of those documents. What applies after the fact ? You did not seem to understand the content of my post and I am not able to make any sense out of your responses. You need to elaborate more.
I do not think you understood my post or perhaps my post was not well worded. What does some enemy in the Middle East have to do with a SWAT team showing up at your house ? My point was in relation to the focusing so much on gun control - like this is the only right that matters - while ignoring all the other violations of individual rights and freedoms leading to the creation of a quazi totalitarian police state. (The thing that the 2cnd amendment was supposed to prevent) There is a bigger picture here. I am in full agreement with the 2cnd amendment. My question is why the folks that care about this liberty, do not seem to care about the others.
I misunderstood. I think most care about the others, but this particular one seems to be in the most danger at the moment.
And the courts have been consistently holding that those principles apply in fewer and fewer instances with each passing year. It has been going on for far longer than anyone has been alive. What applies after the fact, are the constitutional protections intended to protect the public against government overreach. They do not apply prior to a bad act being committed. If police officers raid your home by mistake, you cannot legally keep them from entering the premises, nor can you use force against them. Instead you are legally obligated to allow them to carry out the raid to whatever extent they choose, and it is only after the fact, once you have gone to court, do the protections within the constitution get applied. If they find evidence of wrongdoing you can argue that it should be suppressed since the raid was illegal, but the courts have greatly weakened the exclusionary rule, and have held that illegal searches are now justified if evidence of wrongdoing is discovered.
There is little I can think of that is more dangerous than when a Gov't starts to use Fear of an external threat in an effort to get the public to away rights and freedoms/individual liberty for security. This is exactly what the Patriot Act was about .. making it our "Patriotic Duty" to give up individual liberty ... because some bad guys with towels on their heads flew a few planes into a few buildings. Obama then changed the name to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act" . Have you not noticed the complete lack of Gov't transparency and is this not a big fat canary in the coal mine... warning of totalitarianism ? We have the head of the NSA lie to congress (a felony) - about criminal acts the NSA was committing. Not only does the guy not get punished, he keeps his job. Obama's response "If we want increased security - we have to give a little" My jaw dropped when I heard this. I get that the average Joe is not going to understand the historical meaning of this statement (fear to get people to trade rights for security) .... but Obama was a "civil rights" Harvard Constitutional scholar. Has Obama never heard of Ben Franklin ? "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security". This is what makes his comment so insidious. Perhaps Ave Joe does not know but Obama does. He knew the historical parallels of what he was saying yet .. he said it anyway. A complete 180 from all of the principles he claimed to believe in. The founders were well aware of the age old tactic of using fear of an external threat as an excuse to take away liberty. Stalin used the same trick - pretty much writing the modern textbook about how to use fear to get folks to trade liberty for security. Stalin called his program "Security for the Motherland" La La La La La .. (insert patriotic music here) Hitler did exactly the same thing calling his program "Fatherland Security" (more patriotic music) Bush - lacking the creative ability to come up with a new name - called his program "Homeland Security" ... made it our "patriotic duty" to give up liberty. And you are worried about your gun ? Your gun is not going to do you any good when the stormtroopers come calling. The mainstream media under complete control - a propaganda machine for the establishment/oligarchs. Just like any other totalitarian regime. The two party system has been transformed in to a one party system. Red or Blue does not matter - both worship the oligopoly-bureaucracy fusion monster that runs this country. Both hate individual rights and freedoms and trample on the constitution regularly. Both hate fair and free markets and support the anti competitive practices of the Oligopolies towards driving the worker into a state of indentured servitude. and I am just getting started. What good is your gun when everything worth fighting for has been stripped away ? This is my point.
Every member of the SCOTUS should be fired for dereliction of duty - not applying the principles on which this nation was founded to constitutional issues ... "False interpretation" and so on. I did claim that one should be able to use force against police who make a mistake. The problem is that powers have been given to the police and the state that are illegitimate. Powers the police and the state were not supposed to have. Police should not be doing some raid on the basis of someone "having some Pot" or some other similar bad law, to begin with. Please see Post 40 for a more in depth summary of my thoughts.
The legal standard in the united states used to be that it was not a crime for a member of the public to resist illegal arrest, because the police officer carrying out the arrest was devoid of legal authority. Such is no longer the case. Now the legal standard is that the authority of the police officer is absolute in all circumstances, and even unlawful and illegal orders must be complied with.
Well, this is the gun control section, so this is a good place to discuss gun rights. NSA has not been successful in preventing terrorist attacks, so giving up any degree of freedom has not kept us safe. You are 100% wrong about guns not protecting us when the "storm troopers" come. This is evident in the Middle East where fighting an enemy hiding among friendlies has proven to be a failure. It would be even more problematic is the "Storm troopers" were sent in to kill their own people. (Maybe even their own family) Knowing this is not an option, they are trying to erode gun rights little by little (AKA boiling the frog) If you don't defend the second amendment, you will have nothing to defend your other rights with.
When it comes to localized skirmishes with the stormtroopers, you're probably right. We would lose. If it ever got so bad that it went state or even nationwide, there might not be enough stormtroopers to contain it. Besides, simply being armed at the levels we are gives the government pause, and is another check and balance on how far the government is willing and able to go in potential oppression of the populace. Governments are, after all, responsible for the largest numbers of deaths.
From one extreme to the other. The first case is probably too little power and the second case is definitely too much power. The second case is something one would expect in a quazi totalitarian police state. The trampling on the constitution and individual liberty has been done in conjunction with an increase in police powers. One thing we have seen is people lashing out against police. What they should be lashing out against is Gov't and SCOTUS who are responsible for these bad laws. We hear the term "one bad apple" often used to apologize for misuse of police power. This is nonsense. Police are just people. People in general are selfish, insecure, controlling, vendictive, greedy, ... and on and on. Police are not on some moral pedestal. They are just people and as such carry the same baggage as most people. Over time many police tend to get jaded - this is not surprising given they have to deal with a group of people who are the bottom of the barrel on a daily basis. (this does not make all people like those people but police will sometimes forget this). Bottom line. Power corrupts ... more power corrupts more. When we increase police power that power the abuse of police power is going to increase. Couple this with bad law which puts police in confrontational situations with civilians more often and there are going to be more problems.
You are being myopic. In general - if one person thinks that their gun is going to protect them or their family against a swat team (the state) they are badly mistaken. If it comes to a point where we have an armed insurrection - this is something different. I agree with your suggestion that one of the purposes of amendment 2 was to protect us "from" the State. What you do not seem to understand is that there are other rights and freedoms being ripped away that are just as important as gun rights ... they go hand in hand. - - - Updated - - - I agree completely. My main point was that the current war that Gov't is waging on the people is not just in relation to guns. It is a full out assault on individual rights and freedoms/liberty.
Tell that to the colonists which the British started the war by confiscating arms. - - - Updated - - - The collected stories of people defending themselves outnumber the stories of guns being used for bad purposes.
everyone who researched obummer for 2 minutes knew that he was a complete pos commie muslim and they voted for the piece twice.
unarmed doesn't "innocent", dummy. the guilty have no right to protest or resist police actions at the scene. Tough stuff. Don't live in a ghetto.
