Skip to main content

View Diary: White House task force reviewing gun violence options pushes to meet end of month deadline (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Think a little harder (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And -- please -- read the Heller decision.

    What you'll learn is that even this rather extreme (from a pro-gun perspective) court affirmed that limits on gun ownership are appropriate and constitutional.

    In other words, laws limiting gun ownership do not infringe on constitutional rights.  Got that?  Do not infringe.

    You can stamp your feet and shake your fists and do whatever you do when you are frustrated, but those are the facts, pal.  

    And your little bullshit comment about "perceived security" is just another self-delusion on your part.

    My security is fine.  I'm not concerned.  I'll be fine.  Really.

    My concern is for those who have to live with, or consort with, idiots who have bought into the whole "guns protect my safety" bullshit.

    •  I have. I suggest you read a dictionary. (0+ / 0-)

      "Rights--Noun--. 1) plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts or under an agreement (contract)."
      You want to infringe on things which are currently 'protected by the government and the courts'; Hence, you want to infringe on rights.

      "Liberty--NOUN: 1)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
          2) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
          3) A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights."

      You want to infringe on current liberties.

      Neither your motive nor your means change the fact that you want to infringe on liberties and rights that innocent Americans currently have.

      "I'm not concerned"
      Good. Then try NOT infringing on innocent Americans rights & liberties.

      ......And I don't have to 'stomp my feet'. I can vote. So can the 47% of households that have a gun in the home. (But where can insulting & marginalizing 47% of the population go wrong, amirite?)

       How well do you think that taking rights & liberties from innocent Americans is going to work in Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Penn, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Florida?
      Maybe you should try to put in the 48 oz drink ban while you are at it. Couldn't make it fail more spectacularly.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:10:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You want to posture and yell "Liberties!"

        I get it.

        You're not serious.

        You're not willing to accept what even the most gun-friendly court in quite a long time has determined: that the second amendment is not unlimited and that some restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional.


        In that choice, you are placing yourself securely into the spot in which many gun owners reside.  In other words, you're deluding yourself.  You're lying to yourself that the second amendment conveys rights that the Supreme Court has determined it does not.

        And -- even better -- you're still talking about 48-ounce drinks. Please look up the definition of analogy.  I don't have the patience to explain it any further.

        As for your recalcitrance: I don't know why I bother with you imbeciles.  Your ignorance and resistance to facts and evidence are impressive. I'm reminded of a barnacle. Or lichen. Or a xenolith imbedded into a rock of which it cannot begin to conceive.

        In other words, if you choose to be this ignorant, I can't help you.

        But you'd best not believe the lies you're telling yourself. Reality has a way of lapping people who cling to moronic beliefs.

        •  I most certainly am. (0+ / 0-)

          I was serious when the right-wing pushed for warrantless wiretaps & I am now.

          I have voted strait Dem, except for Nader in 2000.
          But I will not support nor vote for anyone that infringes on any American liberties.

          Yes, if only I was intelligent enough to use a 48 oz soda ban to really drive my point home.

          "resistance to facts"
          So says the person whom is currently doing his damnedest to argue with the dictionary.

          "Reality has a way of lapping people who cling to moronic beliefs"
          The race will be on the next election. I have no doubt that there will be 'morons getting lapped'.
          Be sure to take a sip out of your 47 oz soda when they pass by.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:40:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good grief (0+ / 0-)

            You're not only stupid; you're somewhat obsessive.

            Tell you what: you're safe drinking all the 48 or 64 ounce colas you want.  I won't pry them away from your cold hands. I could not care less

            But those guns over which you salivate?  Fuck 'em. Some of them are done.  Over. Gun ownership can be limited under the Constitution.

            And it will.

            It's just a matter of time.

            And don't look for sympathy for your stupid Nader vote in 2000.  The torture of the 2000s and the invasion of Iraq will forever stain your hands. I don't care if you were in a "safe" state or not.  You contributed if only in spirit. You were an idiot then and you're an idiot now.

            If you were hoping to ingratiate yourself to me or anyone else, you failed.

            Just as your flawed understanding of the second amendment has failed.

            Run along now and misjudge something else. I need to get some sleep so I can work tomorrow.  

            Without a weapon in sight.  Or out of sight.

            Amazing, isn't it?

            You should try it sometime. It's not nearly as scary as you may think.

            •  Thanks for your reasoned assessment of my (0+ / 0-)

              intelligence. I will be sure to carefully file it under 'Things I don't give a shit about'.

              "you're safe drinking all the 48 oz colas you want"
              No shit. Thanks for this insightful update.

              "guns over which you salivate"
              There are no guns I 'salivate' over.
              There are rights and liberties I 'vote' for.

              "sympathy for your stupid Nader vote"
              Yes, sympathy is what I was going for.
              'Reading comprehension'--Apparently, not your strong point.

              "torture for the 2000s and the invasion of Iraq will forever stain your hands."
              1)Perfectly rational response. Not batshit at all. But thanks for letting us know that 'voting' is also a liberty you loathe.
              2) The votes that will be lost as a result of the policy you are espousing will cost more votes than Nader ever did. Thus, I assume you will take full responsibility for the next decade after the electoral debacle this will cause.

              "Run along now"
              I'd rather not. Watching your meltdown is fascinating.

              "It's not nearly as scary as you may think"
              The only thing I find 'scary' is Americans willing to give their rights away for perceived security.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:25:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Oh yes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            And this?

            So says the person whom is currently doing his damnedest to argue with the dictionary.
            First of all, it's who.

            Second of all, I'm not arguing with the dictionary. I'm arguing with you.

            You seem to be espousing the opinion that gun control is both unconstitutional and an infringement of rights.

            I'm pointing out that both of those views are wrong.  

            Please read the Heller majority opinion.  Please reflect on how conservative and gun-friendly this Supreme Court is. Keep in mind future Supreme Courts will likely be less so.

            And even this conservative, gun-friendly court has said the second amendment is not unlimited.  Gun control is most assuredly not unconstitutional.  It is both constitutional and necessary.  The details need to be worked out, but there is no legitimate question about that.

            If you think otherwise, you're irrational.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (31)
  • Elections (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site