Time to be "Well Regulated"?

[sellitman]

I say yes. You?

39 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Make it much harder to get guns & Ammo
	16 (41%)
	Outlaw guns completely
	3 (8%)
	Leave my guns alone MF'er
	15 (38%)
	Not sure of the answer
	0 (0%)
	Something else (Post away)
	5 (13%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[-..__...]

1. No fucking way.

There's still work to be done with repealing some existing/current gun control laws.

[Johnny Rico]

4. Getting rid of the '86 ban on new manufacture of fully automatic weapons would be a good start.

Given that owners of legal full auto weapons are the most responsible gun owners in the country, the law is absurd.

[sellitman]

6. Sure

Imagine if every man woman & child had a wonderful semi automatic weapon in that theatre........

[Johnny Rico]

9. And who has advocated such a position? Please, be *specific*.

I want names!

[sellitman]

10. How about the NRA leader himself?

"Guns don't kill," LaPierre said, "Batman kills. Had someone in the audience been armed, this tragedy could have been averted."

http://hotdogfactory.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-nra-comments-on-deadly-aurora.html


It was Batman's fault too! Imagine that!

[Johnny Rico]

17. He said "someone", not "every man woman and child".

Still waiting for you to find someone who has advocated such a position.

[sellitman]

23. More guns in the theater?

Okay. First of all, when LaPierre says such a thing, there is a zero percent chance that he is picturing anyone other than himself as this heat-packin’, justice-servin’, massacre-mitigatin’ motherfucker. And let’s just say for the sake of argument that his self-image is completely accurate. Let’s assume you would stay ice cold in the middle of that turmoil. Let’s say that in a pitch-dark, packed theater that has been thrown into chaos by unexpected gunfire- and that also has big-budget gunfire on the big screen, and pumping through the THX sound system- He would instantly know exactly where to shoot, would have an unobstructed line of fire, and would have perfect aim. Great, then! The theoretical is so sanguine in the face of death! He would be a theoretical American hero.

But what if there’s a third person who’s able to carry in the theater? And what if this person isn’t a justice machine like he thinks he is? What if this person doesn’t handle real-life bloodbaths like a professional to begin with, and on top of it, now there are two people shooting into a dark, crowded theater? Does he choose the right target? Does he hit that target?

And what if there’s a fourth person? What if she just got her gun that very day and hasn’t ever shot it? What if she wants to be a hero? Which of the three gunmen currently firing away in a dark room does she try to take out?

What if there’s a fifth person, and it’s one of these garbage people who brings an infant to a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises? He’s defending his family now, and there are four people who might murder his child. Which one does he aim for? Does the Baby-Bjorn affect his accuracy?

What if there’s a sixth person, who had a few drinks at the ESPN Zone before the show?

Or a seventh person? Or a tenth? Or a fiftieth?

Are you sure more guns would have made this situation better? Are you sure?

[Johnny Rico]

25. That's not the question at hand. You said:

"Imagine if every man woman & child had a wonderful semi automatic weapon in that theatre"

To which I said:

"who has advocated such a position? Please, be *specific*."

You still have not documented that a single person has advocated such a position.
Please do so, or admit that you cannot.

[sellitman]

27. You have created a straw man from my argument

LaPierre himself remarked more guns would have possibly prevented this atrocity. Clearly it would not.

[Johnny Rico]

28. Your LaPierre quote is from a satire site!

Are you actually attempting to use it as evidence?

You made an assertion. Either support it or admit that you can't.

[NewMoonTherian]

41. Clearly? On what evidence?

Any of the situations you posited above would have been better than a room full of unarmed victims.

[rbixby]

71. Can I just say that this is a pretty obvious attempt at trolling?

Or will you report and try to have this hidden?


Also....see below discussion, it pretty much completely fits the bill of trolling.

[rl6214]

24. Are you really citing that tripe as an actual quote from the NRA or lapierre?

[Johnny Rico]

26. Your link is from a satire site. You're not exactly covering yourself in credibility, here.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

18. Gangs would agree with you.

So would the folks at the Conservative Cave.

[Johnny Rico]

19. Legal owners of machine guns are the most responsible, law abiding gun owners

in the history of this country.

Gangs would agree with you

Yes, so many gang members are anxious to go through an extensive FBI check so they can legally obtain a machine gun...

[UnrepentantLiberal]

20. So you're for gun regulation.

Good to hear that.

[Johnny Rico]

22. Some, yes. Less than we presently have, though.

[Scootaloo]

33. Define "Less" please

"Less" is not a quantifiable term. Set some parameters.

[Johnny Rico]

40. Sure. Repeal the '86 machine gun ban, '68 Gun Control Act, and '34 Gun Control Act.

[Scootaloo]

43. So...

You want to end trade regulations and taxes on foreign producers who wish to sell automatic weapons in the US?

Well. At least you're specific! Gonna give you a point for that.

[Johnny Rico]

46. I know what I want...! Forgot one, though: CCW reciprocity.

I think that about covers it.

[baldguy]

48. So, your position is basically identical to the most extreme RW policies of the NRA.

Ans you would make it easier for people like James Holmes and Timothy McVeigh to get all the weapons they want. And more.

[DiverDave]

53. Well?

Answer the question rico.
gawd, are you really using johnny rico from that horrible film about the alien bugs?

lol figures

[Johnny Rico]

57. Well, what?

Answer the question rico.

I believe I did, citing which policies in specific that I would like to see repealed.

gawd, are you really using johnny rico from that horrible film about the alien bugs?


The movie was horrible, I agree completely. The book was not. Heinlein was the greatest science fiction writer of the 20th Century.

[baldguy]

69. You know that "Starship Troopers" was Heinlein's satire of fascism.

You do understand that, right?

[PavePusher]

70. Heinleins' book did not depict a facist society, nor was it satire.

It was, in fact, a lengthy lesson on duty, honor, professionalism and your favorite word, responsibility.

Verhoevens' movie of the same name was an attempt to satire facism.... and failed horribly.

[baldguy]

73. Wow! I'm...I'm not really sure how to respond to this.

We usually see such mindless, concrete devotion to highly counter-factual statements only from reptile-brained Teabaggers, RW evangelical "Christians". "Starship Troopers" so widely acknowledged and is so obviously a depiction of a fascist society that, for any normal person to attempt to think otherwise would most likely cause them to have a stroke. Or a catatonic fit, at least. Saying it isn't fascist is like saying water isn't wet, or the Pope isn't Catholic, or that Fox News isn't the propaganda arm of the GOP.

The fact that it's satire is a little more difficult for the casual reader to grasp, but not much. Heinlein's masterful artistry is fully on display when he can paint his characters with such outrageous and absurdly over-the-top images, and yet have them act with totally convincing seriousness and absolute conviction. Verhoeven's failure was that he took Heinlein's story with three-dimensional, if slightly unreal characters from a smart & thoughtful satire, and turned it into a Hanna-Barbera cartoon of Ken & Barbie's bug hunt with their childhood friend, Obersturmbannführer Doogie Howser. All that was missing was the fluffy dog.

In reality, the characters from the book would be considered to be dysfunctional psychopaths if they existed in real life. This is one of the only things that Heinlein allows to give it away. Also the fact that he was a life-long libertarian, and that he never saw fit to try to shoehorn this work into his mainline Future History like he did nearly every other story he ever wrote. And finally - what really exposes it - just think of how his self-acknowledged alter-ego (and literal Mother fucker) Lazarus Long would have thought of & treated Johnny Rico. It's not likely Johnny would have survived the encounter.

I guess it's really no surprise that less-than-thoughtful people either don't recognize the blatant & over-the-top fascism, or do recognize & acknowledge it - AND LIKE IT! And neither group can see the satire.

[PavePusher]

75. I have to ask, does anyone else share your opinion?

Any published literature review? Because that's the first time I've ever come across such an analysis of that book, and frankly, I just don't see it. I'd be fascinated to read more like that.

P.S. Do you have any military experience?

[Johnny Rico]

56. Freedom is a liberal value, yes? I'm in favor of more of it.

[baldguy]

59. Responsibility is a liberal value, too. It's sickeningly fascinating how RW extremists always avoid it.

You want the freedom to own a gun, and the power to kill. Yet you offer no reason why you should be trusted with that power. And even tough you benefit from the lax laws which allow this "freedom" - same as mass murderers like James Holmes, you are too cowardly to accept responsibility for the many murders that are the direct result of them.

[baldguy]

67. No comments if favor of responsibility from you?

You do know the meaning of the word, don't you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/responsibility

[RegieRocker]

2. Militias are well regulated

more nonsense

[Zoeisright]

11. LOL!!

Uh huh. Pull the other one.

[hack89]

3. "Well Regulated" meaning "well equipped and trained"? Sure. nt

[HopeHoops]

5. I own guns, but I don't keep them loaded. The handguns are in a safe.

The shotgun is available and it's two-cartridge clip is loaded, but the clip isn't in the gun. If I need it, I can always pop in the clip and throw the bolt.

There's nothing "well regulated" about whack jobs with semi or fully automatic weapons shooting up innocent people. I don't remember reading anything about that in the 2nd Amendment.

[slackmaster]

7. Mine are sufficiently regulated. I don't need any help from you or anyone else.

At this moment they are all unloaded, clean, lubricated, and securely locked up.

[TahitiNut]

8. As a long-time proponent of Universal National Service ...

... I believe we'd be FAR better off if EVERYONE had military Basic Training followed by 2-3 years of National Service in the military, the Public Health Service, VISTA, Americorps, or the Peace Corps. I'd make gun ownership contingent upon honorable completion of this Universal (male, female, gay, straight, EVERYONE) National Service and then comprised our "well-regulated militia" available in national emergencies. This, imho, is the "skin in the game" essential for a democracy and government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people.

(Spare me the nonsensical crap about "involuntary servitude" and such, please.)

[permatex]

12. Stop it willya

you're making waaaaaaaaaaay to much sense,

[sarisataka]

15. But, but, but...

that would spread knowledge and teach responsibility while improving the country and giving youths some self discipline.

Wait, those are good things, right?

[Johnny Rico]

30. A quote:

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!

---Robert A. Heinlein

[baldguy]

49. There's a fine liberal thinker, there.

[Johnny Rico]

55. Freedom is a liberal value, yes?

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Heinlein's was well known as a LIBERTARIAN

[baldguy]

63. Responsibility is a liberal value, too.

Libertarians like Heinlein want to benefits of free society without being bother with the RESPONSIBILITY to maintain it: paying taxes, public service, respecting & obeying the laws of the land, and ensuring the less fortunate among us can live in dignity. Libertarians are parasites.

[PavePusher]

76. I'm pretty sure that if you've read any Heinlein...

(and after that analysis, I can't believe you have) you didn't understand a word of it.

Sheesh.

I'll refer you and nadin to the following, written by a guy with some pretty good liberal chops:

http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/articles/rahrahrah.html

Note what he says about libertarianism.

[baldguy]

77. Why is it that RWers must always appeal to some authority?

Are you not capable of reading, thinking about what you've read & forming your own opinion? The first person who'd insist on rational adults having the need for this ability is RAH. And a close second would be Spider Robinson: "I do not worship Robert Heinlein. I do not agree with everything he says. There are a number of his opinions concerning which I have serious reservations..." Looking at this (and the fact that Robinson says virtually nothing about libertarianism there) it's obvious you didn't even bother to read the passage you've linked to.

So, go ahead, be the kind of rational & capable adult that RAH championed: think for yourself.

[PavePusher]

78. I am thinking for myself.

That upsets you because I come to different conclusions than you do.

And yeah, frequently I do research by reading things from people who actually know something about the subject.

Spider Robinson: Liberal, check. Published author, check. Rational thinker, check. Well versed on Heinlein, check. History of literary review, check. Credible source, check.

Huh. I wonder where I screwed up that vexes you so.

Have great day!

Edit: P.S. I didn't "appeal to authority". I appealed to knowledge and information. Something else that seems to vex you. Weird, that.

[baldguy]

81. You're not appealing to authority...

but you feel the need to rattle off a half-dozen reasons why Robinson is an authority.

And you're the one who brought in his speech about the literary debt SF authors owe to RAH into a discussion about gun control.

[baldguy]

68. No comments if favor of responsibility from you?

You do know the meaning of the word, don't you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/responsibility

[thucythucy]

79. Did Heinlein oppose conscription

during World War II?

[stevebreeze]

13. There is no good rational choice here.

I want some guns regulated but certainly not all. There can be simple rational distinctions between guns that are useful for hunting or even defense of your home. Then there are guns that shot far deadly concealable to be of any use except to kill people at a bar fight or stick up the local convenience store.

[spin]

38. Your post is confusing ...

as you stated:

"Then there are guns that shot far deadly concealable to be of any use except to kill people at a bar fight or stick up the local convenience store."

I assume you are saying that some handguns are far too small and compact and consequently can be easily concealed and used to kill innocent people.

It is true that criminals often use such firearms but it is also true that many citizens are licensed to carry concealed weapons in our nation. In Florida, for example, over 800,000 people living in the state have a concealed weapons permit. Many chose to carry small, light and compact handguns as in the heat of Florida where a jacket is usually worn only on a few days in the colder winter months, these weapons are easier to conceal. Florida law requires your legal weapon to be concealed except for a brief inadvertent flash such as when a person was walking in a parking lot and a gust of wind lifted his jacket.

I personally carry a 5 shot S&W .38 caliber snub nosed revolver in my pants pocket. In the 15 years or so that I have carried it, not one person that I walked past or talked to on the street knew that I was armed. That includes police officers that I had conversations with.

If I planned to get into a bar fight or stick up a store, I would carry a larger handgun that holds far more rounds. Since I have absolutely no intention to ever do something as stupid as that and since I carry this weapon because of the extremely unlikely possibility that I would have reason to use it to saved my life or my health, I wish to carry the smallest and lightest handgun that I can find that will be an adequate self defense weapon.

[ileus]

14. ban all death spewers and killer clips.

Well at least that's how I voted.

[Egalitarian Thug]

42. Yes please. I want to make enough money to get away from people like you,

and your plan will make that much easier. At the 10,000% markup I could easily get selling to those you hope to disarm would finance my retirement in a sane place where firearms are not viewed by a third of the population as some kind of evil incarnate.

[G_j]

47. there is another country

where guns are more popular? Where is that?

[baldguy]

50. Somalia

[Egalitarian Thug]

58. Not more popular, merely not worth disrupting society over.

I'll happily trade my infrequent trips to the rifle range for living in a sane society that recognizes that its people are its priority and have to be cared for.

As long as you don't use it, I couldn't care less that you have it.

[petronius]

21. I choose 'Other', but only because I decline to address another

DUer as a 'motherfucker'...

[sellitman]

54. Missed the sarcasm tag I guess

[Llewlladdwr]

29. It's my belief that any honest reading of the 2nd Amendment renders ALL Federal firearm regulations

unconstitutional. The Amendment clearly states that "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Those are the actual words used. No where in the Amendment are the words "This only applies if you are in the Militia", or any variation thereof.

[AndyA]

31. Any honest reading of the Second Amendment wouldn't ignore the first part of the sentence.

If the ending of the sentence was independent of the beginning, it wouldn't come after a comma.

[Llewlladdwr]

32. So explain it to me then.

Please show me the relevant text stating that membership in a militia is required in order for a person to be able to exercise their right to own arms.

You can't. The rules of English grammar don't allow for such an interpretation. If you're honest, that is...

[Hoyt]

34. There ya go, just ignore that phrase and arm up.

[Llewlladdwr]

35. I'm not ignoring it at all.

I just don't see how you get from "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." to "You must be a member of the Militia in order for the following text to apply to you...". Can you lead me through the logical steps in making this interpretation?

[Hoyt]

36. Read Stevens' Dissent in Heller, you'll understand. Won't admit it though.

[Llewlladdwr]

37. So, you can't explain it then? NT

[Llewlladdwr]

45. Okay, I've read the dissent.

And yes, I found it unpersuasive. Mostly based on Stevens failure to even address the final clause of the amendment. To me the words "...shall not be infringed." pretty clearly mean that the Federal government has no authority to restrict the people's access to arms.

[AndyA]

39. Why is a well-regulated Militia even mentioned?

If the intent were for everyone to have any type of arm they wanted, regardless, that's what it would have said, but it doesn't say that.

Seems to me the Second Amendment recognizes the need for citizens to have arms as part of a well-regulated Militia in order to secure a free State, so folks in the Militia have a right to bear arms and that right can't be taken away from them.

Ignoring the first part of the sentence isn't honest. It's there for a reason.

Why would the words regarding the Militia be there if they weren't a preface to the right to bear arms? The entire statement is the Second Amendment, not just the parts people want to slice and dice out to justify their belief. The relevant text is right there for you to read.

[Llewlladdwr]

44. The Militia is mentioned because the neccessity for one is the reason the right of the people to

keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And the amendment clearly does state that anyone can have any type of arm they wish, what else could "...shall not be infringed..."mean?

[Shankapotomus]

51. Outlaw guns but substitute

a proven non lethal defensive weapon. A defensive weapon that can stop an attacker every time it's used needs to be researched by our top engineers and invented to settle this debate.

That way the gun maniacs can't claim they don't have their defense weapon and the anti gun crowd gets the gun deaths brought down.

[TroglodyteScholar]

52. Yep. I'm a strong 2nd amendment supporter.

Can't wait for the day that the courts also support it...AS WRITTEN.

[Taverner]

60. What, you want to start a posse?

That's what it was intended for

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Won't be popular, I know

But since our friends love their AR-15...sure, no selector switch, all you get is single shot...it will take some changes in how it works, but won't affect round

That gets away from cosmetics and actually adressed how it works

Personally, we need licensing requirements...

And we need changes in our culture...one I want to see, won't happen, americans are squeamish and privacy laws...I want gory photos in the paper. Only way to counter some of hollywood's portrayal.

[rrneck]

64. How should we make it harder? nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Make it as hard as getting a license to practice medicine.

And, teach the applicants about Hippocrates and his oath: Primum non nocere - First, do no harm

[TheKentuckian]

66. Maybe so. That means you go on to the next segment

That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. No abridged means M1-Abrams, Apache, stingers, full automatics, maybe a cruise missile as an individual or a group of individuals.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged means goodbye all restrictions on keeping and bearing. Also, keep in mind that the militia doesn't report to anyone as there are no such strings in place and willfully so and that the militia has nothing to do with the Army or Navy (ie the military, including the National Guard) which were authorized in the original Constitution.

[GoneOffShore]

72. Well done - Thank you.

[closeupready]

74. Other - trashing gun thread #522.

nt

[gopiscrap]

80. Out law guns completely!!!!!!!!!!!!