Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA legislator thinks it was totally awesome that Aurora murderer had 100-round magazine (422 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And this embarassed Coloradan... (18+ / 0-)

    ...would think it even more awesome if we'd just skip the arguments about magazine sizes, let alone the gun-fetishist minutiae over semi-automatic vs. fully-automatic weapons.

    Instead, focus on the real issue: Any firearm that can fire more than one shot without reloading is a "rapid-fire" weapon and has no business among the general public.

    "If you are still playing for Team Republican and want to have any honor whatsoever, you need to leave the Republican Party now, apologize to America, and work to remove it from our political system." - Brad DeLong

    by radabush on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:25:27 AM PST

    •  Good luck with that. There is this thing (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, DavidMS, ER Doc, FrankRose, gerrilea

      called the Second Amendment.

      Any firearm that can fire more than one shot without reloading is a "rapid-fire" weapon and has no business among the general public.
      You will never ever see the day when this is the law.

      “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

      by SpamNunn on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:57:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Times change. So can the Constitution (16+ / 0-)
        You will never ever see the day when this is the law.
        As was once said about slavery, women's suffrage, etc...

        "If you are still playing for Team Republican and want to have any honor whatsoever, you need to leave the Republican Party now, apologize to America, and work to remove it from our political system." - Brad DeLong

        by radabush on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:01:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Civil "rights" are "only suggestions," mostly ... (6+ / 0-)

          When the Legislature fears sedition and insurrection ...
          we get "Alien and Sedition" acts, the Smith Act, the Walters McCaren act ... and the heavyweight champion of "head down, mouth shut and papers in order"...  the Patriot Act, under which people can be tried in absentia and sentenced to death.  Even the notorious Star Chamber could not do THAT !

          But those 1st 4th and 5th Amendment rights being trampled,  are not "repealed" exactly, they are just being  "limited as to time, place, and method" with the full approval of the SCOTUS ...

          Contrast that to the semi-sacred nature of the word "infringed" in the 2nd Amendment.  It's the ONLY right that CANNOT be modified, ameliorated, changed or transduced in any way shape or form ... EVERYONE (in the NRA)  SAYS SO !!!  So there !

          Only the 2nd Amendment is, unlike all other Amendments,  ABSOLUTE and inviolate.

          That is because Government itself  (as created by the Consititution) is nodamgood, and nottobeetrusted.

          Therefore, there cannot even be  meaningful REGISTRATION of weapons -- beyond recording initial retail purchases, by hand  in a "bound book" -- to which Government inspectors are allowed access only ONCE a year.  

          That's because
          Don't Touch My Junk, Dude.
          WE WANTS IT PRECIOUS !!!
          And you're not going to take it away.
          MINE !!!!

          FREEEEEE-dumb !

        •  The elimination of slavery & the creation of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CarlosJ

          women's suffrage were expansions of liberty.

          Infringing on the 2nd Amendment is a contraction of liberty.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 01:52:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What about supporting recall electinos backed (3+ / 0-)

            by anti-gay, anti-abortion groups such as the Kochs and the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

            You seem to be perfectly fine with those groups taking away "innocent American's rights" but when it comes to common sense regulation of the 2A, that's where you draw the line?

            So, you're God and get to pick which rights can be infringed and which cannot? And to boot, it seems you are a closet right winger.

            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

            by We Shall Overcome on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 02:58:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What are you babbling about? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CarlosJ

              I didn't support the recall elections.
              The people of Colorado did.

              So, you're God and get to pick which rights can be infringed and which cannot?
              No. That's why I'm not pushing to infringe on anybody's rights.
              I leave such nonsense to the GOP and you.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:33:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your presense on this blog is supportive of the (1+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero
                Hidden by:
                CarlosJ

                Koch bros agenda - period, end of story.

                You are more aligned with anti-abortion, anti-equality minded people, than most Dems.

                That's clear from reading a year's worth of your comments.

                Where is this significant bloc of Dems you think support your views? I don't think one exists.

                "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                by We Shall Overcome on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:39:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not the one that gave the Koch bros their (0+ / 0-)

                  opportunity.
                  You did.
                  You are the best asset they have.

                  Where is this significant bloc of Dems you think support your views?
                  They were at the recall elections where 20-30% of registered Democrats voted for the recall.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:46:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You didn't open the door, but you sure did (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero

                    swing it wide open and encourage people to run through it.

                    The people who opened it did so for a principled reason.

                    You're continued precense on this blog can only be to discourage Dems in teh run up to the November elections.

                    What's done is done - why else would you be here bashing Dems prior to an election?

                    That's been your M.O. at DKos.

                    Please, write a diary about what your doing here, make your points so we can all know more about exactly what that is.

                    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                    by We Shall Overcome on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:54:18 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's right. I didn't open the door. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      CarlosJ

                      You did.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:59:36 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What's you're point here? Are you trying to (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coquiero

                        persuade people to see things your way, or are you only here to harass people?

                        Honest question.

                        Because, your commenting is a lousy way to try to persuade people to see things your way.

                        Why not write a diary and share your thoughts - long form.

                        That's a much more effective way to try persuade people to see things your way.

                        Make your case, because I don't see you winning over a lot of people in the comments.

                        "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                        by We Shall Overcome on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 06:07:03 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

      •  The whole RKBA position has been created by (4+ / 0-)

        Supreme Court interpretations that are different from the plain language of the 2nd Amendment. Other interpretations are possible with different judges.

        •  How do you explain the 43 State Constitutions (5+ / 0-)

          that protect the individual ownership of firearms?

          These things don't/didn't occur in a vacuum.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:31:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  great point (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, FrankRose, CarlosJ

            People with experience often talk about things in a quite different way to those without experience.

            For me, society is made up of individuals and each individual decides to spend his time in a way that suits his personal goals

            The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

            by GideonAB on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:48:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  LOL! That cuts against your argument. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero

            If there are 43 state constitutions that explicitly protect the individual ownership of firearms, then it would have been a simple thing to write that into the U.S. Constitution.  So since that language isn't in the federal constitution, we can therefore infer that those who wrote it didn't intend any such thing.

            So be a bit more careful about your arguments.  Their legal effects may surprise you.

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:19:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  My guess is that within 25 years we'll see the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          Supreme Court reverse some of the decisions made by Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy in Heller (5-4), McDonald (5-4), etc. (If not, I suspect we'll see a sharp increase in serious gun incidents and tensions over them.) It would hardly be the first time that SCOTUS has done an about-face, even against a much bigger majority of opinion. Viz. the 7-1 ruling in Plessey v. Ferguson (that upheld mandatory racial segregation in public facilities), the 7-2 ruling in Dred Scott (that held African-Americans could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue), etc.

          Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger agrees with you about the plain language of 2A, as diaried by Navy Vet Terp last year:

          The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. -- Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.
          The current Supreme Court is the most right-wing in 100 years, as even conservative judges like Judge Richard Posner agree. For those not familiar with him, Posner is often described as the most influential conservative judge outside the Supreme Court.
          Posner doesn’t think the Second Amendment has anything to do with an individual’s right to bear arms, a basis of the decision for which Scalia wrote the majority opinion. “That didn’t slow down Scalia,” Posner [said], "He loves guns."
          This is part of the story that most of us over 40 are familiar with. The US reactionary conservative movement has packed the courts with right-wing judges, trained (brain-washed?) in right-wing ideology at Koch-funded places like George Mason University's "law and economics" boot-camps and drawing on right-wing think-tanks funded by the usual suspects (Coors, Koch, Scaife, Bradley, Olin, Castle Rock, etc.).

          My worry is that the younger generation is not aware of the root sources of the right-wing rulings, junk science and sound-bites they draw on and regurgitate.

      •  SpamNunn says (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber
        You will never ever see the day when this is the law.
        Such a law would not deny a persons right to bear arms , so your comment is bull shit

        Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

        by Patango on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:53:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Read the Court cases on what the word "infringe" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          means.

          Your reasoning and knowledge of the applicable law is what is bovine scat.  

          “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

          by SpamNunn on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:59:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Especially when existing precedent (0+ / 0-)

          Specifically, the 1934 National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968 already introduce significant restrictions on types of firearms available.

          "If you are still playing for Team Republican and want to have any honor whatsoever, you need to leave the Republican Party now, apologize to America, and work to remove it from our political system." - Brad DeLong

          by radabush on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 01:29:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The NFA is no longer the law and the GCA of 68 (0+ / 0-)

            reasonably restricts ownership by certain persons, i.e convicted felons.  It does not limit how many bullets you can buy.  

            Neither does what you say they do.

            “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

            by SpamNunn on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:28:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  No it isn't "rapid-fire". (0+ / 0-)

      If you want to redefine words and phrases for yourself thats fine but those definition exist only within your skull.

      You're attempting to engage in solopsisms which is an irrational view and not at all reality-based.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site