Sad when the Onion is this right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe the plumber is neither Joe nor a plumber nor a wonk. He's Sam the unlicensed contractor and moron.

The Onion is right.

He is also a union member.

He also owes Obama for bailing out the company that gave him his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported. The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support. I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons). Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope. It is mind boggling.

What's the big deal? Get the votes to change the constitution and get rid of the 2nd amendment or open back up the mental institutions where all the mentally unstable and "homeless" (Aka crazy) people used to be committed


Problem solved. Stop whining , you sound crazy enough to put on your own cannot by a gun list.

[Anonymous]

Buy. Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported. The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support. I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons). Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope. It is mind boggling.

What's the big deal? Get the votes to change the constitution and get rid of the 2nd amendment or open back up the mental institutions where all the mentally unstable and "homeless" (Aka crazy) people used to be committed


Problem solved. Stop whining , you sound crazy enough to put on your own cannot by a gun list.

Nothing in that post sounds crazy, and the fact that you think it does only serves to demonstrate how twisted YOU - and selfish - you are. Your rights don't trump everyone else's, and expecting Congress to respect the will of the people is the height of rationality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported. The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support. I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons). Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope. It is mind boggling.

What's the big deal? Get the votes to change the constitution and get rid of the 2nd amendment or open back up the mental institutions where all the mentally unstable and "homeless" (Aka crazy) people used to be committed


Problem solved. Stop whining , you sound crazy enough to put on your own cannot by a gun list.

We don't need to repeal the second amendment in order to do this. Even Scalia said as much in Heller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported. The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support. I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons). Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope. It is mind boggling.

What's the big deal? Get the votes to change the constitution and get rid of the 2nd amendment or open back up the mental institutions where all the mentally unstable and "homeless" (Aka crazy) people used to be committed


Problem solved. Stop whining , you sound crazy enough to put on your own cannot by a gun list.

Nothing in that post sounds crazy, and the fact that you think it does only serves to demonstrate how twisted YOU - and selfish - you are. Your rights don't trump everyone else's, and expecting Congress to respect the will of the people is the height of rationality.

They most certainly do. The constitution protects individual rights from the majority or the government. That's the whole point and genius of the founders intent. What if their is a vote that all men can rape any women and it wins? Get it?

[Anonymous]

^^^ the majority votes against gay marriage .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported. The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support. I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons). Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope. It is mind boggling.

What's the big deal? Get the votes to change the constitution and get rid of the 2nd amendment or open back up the mental institutions where all the mentally unstable and "homeless" (Aka crazy) people used to be committed


Problem solved. Stop whining , you sound crazy enough to put on your own cannot by a gun list.

Nothing in that post sounds crazy, and the fact that you think it does only serves to demonstrate how twisted YOU - and selfish - you are. Your rights don't trump everyone else's, and expecting Congress to respect the will of the people is the height of rationality.

They most certainly do. The constitution protects individual rights from the majority or the government. That's the whole point and genius of the founders intent. What if their is a vote that all men can rape any women and it wins? Get it?

Actually that's incorrect. In order to infringe in a Constitutional right the government has to meet a much higher burden in order to demonstrate that there is a compelling need for the infringement and that it is infringing on the Constitutional right in the most limited way possible in order to achieve that compelling interest.

For example, we have certain restrictions of the right to freedom of speech based on those kinds of balancing tests.

No individual right under the Constitution is absolute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported. The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support. I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons). Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope. It is mind boggling.

+1000

An overwhelming majority of the American populace supports expanded, universal background checks to eliminate the loopholes by which tens of millions of guns change hands each year. Studies show that 80% of prison inmates who used guns to commit crimes purchased them via such loopholes.

This is something that the American People demands, but that the fringe lunatics running the NRA oppose. Enough of this shit. The NRA needs to be muzzled. The NRA needs to be made to go sit down and shut the fuck up and stop subverting the majority will of the American People.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought he stabbed and hatcheted 3 people and ran over others in his car.

Gun violence has dropped substantially over the last 20 years.
What's the push to take gun rights away from law abiding citizens? It's good for smart, tough and healthy citizens to be armed in case the government ever decides to go too far .

You think if the government "decides to go too far" and has the support of the military that you're gonna go all "Wolverines" on them, hide in the mountains and commit acts of sabotage until the civilian population comes to its senses and rallies to your side?

Right now you and all your "patriot" buddies are outgunned by the military and the police. The military and the police have weapons that are inaccessible to civilians, air power and armored vehicles, not to mention training and practice. The idea that "armed patriots" are a check on government excess in the modern era is a macho masturbatory fantasy to pump up your own self-importance.

Where you're correct is stating that gun violence has dropped substantially, which significantly decreases the value of the other argument that gun rights supporters use, which is that you need the gun for "home protection."

Even with the decrease in gun violence in this country, we're still #28 in the world for gun homicides according to the UN's annual survey, and the top 27 (as well as a bunch of the ones below us) are not places we usually compare ourselves to.

The essence of your point is the same as Joe the Plumber's - "I'm sorry for your dead kid, but my right to have a gun is more important."

Feel free to put that bumper sticker on your car.

You are completely wrong about the "outgunned" part; whether you find the following facts frightening or not, there are far more armed non-military people in the US than there are active or even reserve military.

(from some extremist blog a few years back that was making the rounds on the 'net): "The world's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 armed hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted with rifles in the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million armed hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more. All armed. All familiar with remote portions of their states. All equipped and able to survive in the wilderness if need be."


True - the military has more firepower - but how do you propose they deploy it? Drop nukes protesting Americans to quell unrest? You have vastly over-simplified the issue and underestimated the potential mayhem from mass civil unrest.

But that depends on all (or even a reasonable fraction):

(a) Deciding that the government has gone "too far" for a given value of "too far" (where "too far" would be action despite the multiple layers of distribution of government power - i.e., the separation of powers at the Federal level, the competing state government structures, etc.) AND
(b) Choosing to engage in some level of militarized disobedience AND
(c) Having some kind of organization that enables them to coordinate their actions without those communications channels being monitored/disrupted and the activities stopped before they start AND
(d) Being able to overcome the leadership conflicts associated with multiple independent groups attempting to engage in coordinated action AND
(e) Being able to overcome both the training and logistical advantages enjoyed by the government forces AND
(f) Being able to keep the civilian population on their side.

And that's just some of the difference. If there were a full scale armed rebellion by a coordinated group of armed civilians, that could cause problems, but at the end of the day it's just not realistic, and to claim that people need the right to bear arms as a check on government power is a theoretical argument to support the position of people who like to think of themselves as upholding some ideal of "patriotism" that has been spoon fed to them by the marketing department of the NRA and its member companies.

More than half the military and police sympathize with the NRA and would join the opposition if the government pushed too far outside the constitution.

Actually that is not true at all. Look at a lot of the recent carry laws popping up. In EVERY case, the police were AGAINST the laws. Spin it any way that you want, but the police do NOT want average citizens walking around armed to the teeth.

[Anonymous]

The problem is CA la allowed a known mentally ill nan to obtain firearms. They were all legally purchased.

His parents and therapist failed the public. No surprise there

http://www.ibtimes.com/california-police-lacked-probable-cause-confiscate-shooter-elliot-rodgers-handguns-1590687

[Anonymous]

Those numbers pale in comparison to the 2.4 million defensive gun uses(DGUs) every single year in the US.

And violent crime has declined dramatically over the past 25 years.

[Anonymous]

"For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those numbers pale in comparison to the 2.4 million defensive gun uses(DGUs) every single year in the US.

And violent crime has declined dramatically over the past 25 years.

Can you please source the bolded?