Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

She's not talking about political ideology...she's talking about paranoia
and the belief that killing is cool.

Him or me??
I have none of the symptoms of paranoia.
I never have.

As for killing, in my vu,
it depends on who is getting killed and for what reason.

David

2 Replies

@dlowan,

David is one of the simple-minded who believe that leftwing=satanic, and rightwing=saintly.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

David is one of the simple-minded who believe that leftwing=satanic, and rightwing=saintly.

I support the Constitution, as amended.
I love its libertarian principles. I take a pure, orthodox vu.
Therefore, I dislike deviations therefrom, and that makes me rightwing.
(In the French Estates-General, the conservatives sat on the right.)
I don't believe in any satan.

David

0 Replies

You're also completely incapable of seeing that your view of what is "orthodox" is conditioned by your political prejudices. You are completely unable to see that you might be wrong, and someone who is not a conservative might be right. For example, the preamble states that the constitution is promulgated to, among other objects, " . . . promote the general Welfare . . . " I suspect, though, that what you call your orthodox view does not admit that social welfare falls under that rubric. For example, health care reform . . .

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

dlowan wrote:
She's not talking about political ideology...she's talking about paranoia
and the belief that killing is cool.
Him or me??
I have none of the symptoms of paranoia.
I never have.

As for killing, in my vu,
it depends on who is getting killed and for what reason.

David

You.

Yes...that's what all primitive Manicheans believe.

That's what you and Che share.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You're also completely incapable of seeing that your view of what is "orthodox" is conditioned by your political prejudices.

Well, its true that I don 't see that.
Is it different with u ?

Setanta wrote:

You are completely unable to see that you might be wrong,

It is theoretically possible.

Setanta wrote:

and someone who is not a conservative might be right. For example, the preamble states that the constitution is promulgated to, among other objects, " . . . promote the general Welfare . . . " I suspect, though, that what you call your orthodox view does not admit that social welfare falls under that rubric. For example, health care reform . . .

Well, we know that OBVIOUSLY that is rong.
The American Revolution was a libertarian revolution.
IF your vu of the "general welfare" clause were applied,
then it 'd be a government of unlimited jurisdiction
like that of Saddam or Stalin. Obama coud simply
declare that it was clearly in the "general welfare"
that he remain incumbent for ever; end elections,
as against the "general welfare": wasteful of public resources.
He coud rule with unlimited power and claim that
as his constitutional support. YOUR interpretation,
woud effectively repeal the rest of the Constitution.

Q.E.D.: that notion is looney-tune nutz.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

QED is right . . . you've just demonstrated that you only see "orthodoxy" if it agrees with your political prejudices.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

dlowan wrote:
She's not talking about political ideology...she's talking about paranoia
and the belief that killing is cool.
Him or me??
I have none of the symptoms of paranoia.
I never have.

As for killing, in my vu,
it depends on who is getting killed and for what reason.

David

dlowan wrote:

You.

Yes...that's what all primitive Manicheans believe.

That's what you and Che share.

Well, if a fox or wolf is about to chomp
down on u, bunny, u gotta DO what u gotta do,
and u better do it pretty fast.

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

QED is right . . . you've just demonstrated that you only see "orthodoxy" if it agrees with your political prejudices.

Do u consider my historical awareness to be "prejudices" ??
I 'm very aware of the 9th & 10th Amendments.
If James Madison were in this conversation,
do u think he 'd agree with me, or with u ??

David

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

What a remarkably rude thing to say to a widow.

Joe(incalculable social density)Nation

Joe (Sometimes it pays to actually think before firing off a post) Nation

What is "rude" about it.

Do you think the widow doesn't wish her husband had had a loaded weapon and killed the lunatic before he could shoot him?

I understand her aversion to guns, but it's truly remarkable to think or suggest that she would prefer her husband dead to his killing a mad assailant with one.

I'm not suggesting that she should have reacted to her tragedy by promoting gun ownership, but if she loved her husband (and there is no reason to think she did not) she would be delighted to reach back through time and give him a means to ensure he would have left that train alive.

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

Man, you need to go back to your clown icon. I saw the dog, read the post and almost fell off my chair since it is so similar to one used by a regular liberal poster.

In any case, I don't think I would lose any sleep if this bill became law, but I think we have to acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment didn't give us the right to bear arms so that we could shoot targets, turkeys, or muggers. The Framers just came off of a revolution that would never have succeeded if the American colonists had been stripped of their arms.

Once you fight in one revolution, it's not very tough to imagine it could be necessary to do so again sometime in the future.

The Framers wanted the populace to have a fighting chance of overthrowing a tyrant.

Given that a modern American tyrant is going to have a hell of a lot more firepower than did King George, if we have any chance of overthrowing him or her, we will need a lot more than single shot weapons.

The Framers didn't have to imagine multi-shot or automatic weapons. They wrote the 2nd Amendment thinking the populace needs the means to overthrow a tyrant. Given what a modern tyrant has available, I bet the framers would be all in favor of citizens owning tanks and bazookas.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

dlowan wrote:
She's not talking about political ideology...she's talking about paranoia
and the belief that killing is cool.
Him or me??

you

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

but since we haven't yet figured out how to travel back through time, and there is really nothing that is going to bring her husband back, even a great big gun, it is an incredibly insensitive thing to say to someone who is grieving for a loved one.

end of stupid story...

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds...

I mean, that's really ******* brilliant, make the next Charles Manson limit his hobbies to ten people a day...

There were signs of this one all over the map, other kids in classrooms wanting to sit near the door so they could be first out when the shooting finally started, multiple warnings to local police and officials...

I mean, the whole system broke down here, either that or due to the efforts of liberals over a long period of time, there no longer WAS a system...

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The Framers didn't have to imagine multi-shot or automatic weapons. They wrote the 2nd Amendment thinking the populace needs the means to overthrow a tyrant. Given what a modern tyrant has available, I bet the framers would be all in favor of citizens owning tanks and bazookas.

They would not likely be in favor of citizens owning anthrax or nuclear weapons. My own rule of thumb would be that if Al Quaeda can own it without inciting Uncle Sam to action, we should be able to own it.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I 've heard he 's one of yours, not ours.

ehBeth wrote:

he's a gun-toter. he's yours.

he has issues with modern American government. he has language issues.
he is completely yours.

From The New York Times, Jan. 8, 2011

“As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,”
the former classmate, Caitie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter feeds Saturday.
“I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive.”

“He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me
she was ‘stupid & unintelligent,’ ” she wrote.

He 's YOURS, Beth; he 's all YOURS. Enjoy him.

David

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Well we disagree

End of story

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Joe Nation wrote:

What a remarkably rude thing to say to a widow.

Joe(incalculable social density)Nation

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Joe (Sometimes it pays to actually think before firing off a post) Nation

What is "rude" about it.

I don 't believe that Joe Nation ever got back to us, on this point.
I am genuinely curious to know his reasoning.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Do you think the widow doesn't wish her husband had had a loaded weapon
and killed the lunatic before he could shoot him?

I understand that thay were in divorce proceedings at the time of his death,
which cut short the process.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I understand her aversion to guns, but it's truly remarkable to think or suggest
that she would prefer her husband dead to his killing a mad assailant with one.

She was socially shocked by my expressed wishes to offer emergency equipment
for the rescue of her husband.

When I said that I wish that I coud have given him a loaded gun,
I saw her face turn very abruptly
to her left and remain there for a while.
This occurred at an anti-self defense speech
that she was giving, during Q & A.

From her near 100% female audience,
a great and sudden moan was forthcoming
when I uttered my retrospective desire
to save him from the killer.
She and thay preferred that he perish (as he did)
rather than that he be armed in his own defense,
when his life depended on it.
I think that is definitive.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I'm not suggesting that she should have reacted to her tragedy by promoting gun ownership, but if she loved her husband (and there is no reason to think she did not) [Thay were in divorce proceedings.] she would be delighted to reach back through time and give him a means to ensure he would have left that train alive.

0 Replies

She likes a 30 round mag in her AK

http://i895.photobucket.com/albums/ac160/The_H2O_MAN/T56SHTF/3904501891_ce90b1da99_b-1.jpg

I like 10 & 30 round mags and 75 & 100 round drums in my AKM

http://i895.photobucket.com/albums/ac160/The_H2O_MAN/T56SHTF/T56SHTF-07-2010002.jpg

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

but since we haven't yet figured out how to travel back through time, and there is really nothing that is going to bring her husband back, even a great big gun, it is an incredibly insensitive thing to say to someone who is grieving for a loved one.

end of stupid story...

Rocky, will u reveal HOW it was "insensitive"? (incredible or not)
I 'd like to know your reasoning in the matter.

David

0 Replies

Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know