Can you stupid liberals go back to pretending to defend us from made up problems like global warming and let the men of this country defend our wives, children, parents, neighbors and fellow students from homicidal maniacs?
No man I know would prefer to be powerless to defend another human being in danger, no man I know would cede that the defense should come from a government agent instead of himself. (perhaps wives will start asking beauraucrats to open pickle jars for them as well)
And no one who has even a faint grasp of our Bill of Rights and Constitution thinks that guns are going to be taken away from the citizens of this country. While the courts may be willing participants in any and all restrictions against gun owners (while allowing absolutely no restrictions on killing babies) the general population understands that gun ownership puts personal defense, as well as defense of those around you, in the hands of the individual.
This is not only common sense it is actually a matter of law. Courts have rules that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."
And as much as you want to sissify future generations in the re-education camps with "no dodgeball" and "conflict resolution" that refuses to acknowledge that force is sometimes neccessary you can't take away what God has given us: the urge to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
You can't take away the biological fascination that young boys have with guns. Without congnitively realizing it, they know that the gun represents power. Obviously with power comes responsibility but having fewer than 16 bullets in my clip does not make me more or less responsible.
If the best you can offer us is grief counselors and candlelight vigils after the fact then just get out of the way because real Americans, individuals, are here to make sure that their loved ones aren't left childless/fatherless/windowed.
40 comments:
Thanks Daniel, for this issue is a bigger one than most conservatives will let on. The feminization of society, aided by liberal courts and prescription drugs. Notice how the shooter was on anti-depressants, much like the shooters in Columbine?
I heard a caller on lars today that said people like this "need" these drugs. And lars made a good point; How did civilization survive for thousands of years without them, and now we CAN'T function without them?
Liberals make a number of legitimate points about the prevalence of firearms in American society, the ease with which they are acquired, and will inevitably call for tighter gun control laws, but that is, in my view, white noise that misses the point. Say what you like about the morality or constitutional legitimacy of abortion, but reproductive rights have one thing in common with Second Amendment rights: both are here to stay in the United States, period. So, liberals: Get over it. Move on.
By the same token, it’s time for conservatives to look in the mirror and face some tough realities.
The glorification of guns is bound up with gung-ho, can-do, all-American individualism, both of which are ingrained in the bedrock of conservatism. And yet, what has that got us?
The U.S. may be the most technologically and economically advanced nation on the planet, but we also have a staggering level of inequality and stratification and all the ugly baggage that goes along with it. Has the idealized version of the heroic American male toting a big gun been able to solve that problem? Has the prevalence of weaponry in American life provided an antidote? No.
Without regard to Republicans, Democrats, or even the Second Amendment, it’s time to ask: Why does there appear to be a commensurate relationship between the ever-rising level of economic and social inequality and cultural malaise in the United States and the fact that this country, more than any other industrialized nation, seems to produce a disproportionate share of psychotic killing sprees like the one that happened this week? Yes, these episodes may be rare in the sense that plane crashes are rare, given how many planes take off and land every day, but no one can deny the obvious fact of escalation -- both in the frequency of the events, and their scope.
It’s a gross over-simplification of things to huff and puff that there are too many guns in society (or too few, or not enough “strong“ men, or too many “liberal” courts, etc.) as a means of explaining it. Let’s face it: there is something deeply, deeply wrong out there. We’d better get serious and figure out what it is.
This should have been phrased as "You protect us from Global Warming, we'll 'protect' the women and children."
Most young boys outgrow their fascination with guns, usually when their own "gun" becomes operational.
But some boys are so insecure about the operation of their own shooter that they have to carry around a gun to show what a "man" they are.
These men tend to also be so insecure about their manliness that they have to oppose attempts to give women equal rights in society.
Political correctness does "sissify" our society.
I was just wondering what the Founding Fathers had to say about personal possesion of firearms...look what I found..
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms... The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
Proposal of the Virginia Constitution, June 1776
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms...
Samuel Adams, United States Congress
1779
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty teeth.
George Washington, First President
A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes - we need them every hour.
George Washington, First President
Speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun.
Patrick Henry
During Virginia's ratification convention, 1788
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk
Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
Patrick Henry
Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836
There is more, so much more, but I don't think I need to go on. George, Patrick, Thomas....where are you when we need you?
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United
There's a massive disconnect between the citation of this reason for bearing arms and the state of affairs today. The last quarter century has seen a steady erosion of civil liberties as spelled out by the Bill of Rights, with the last four presidents eviscerating the document -- and the current White House occupant in particular going after it with unabashed zeal. A "goddamned piece of paper," he called it.
Have men with their guns prevented that? The most vocal "men with guns" I know of have cheered it in the name of the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror" ... unless it's their precious Second Amendment that's under fire. It's all hypocrisy, empty rhetoric, and idiotic chest-beating.
What kind of cold-blooded freak are you? Those who participate in candlelight vigils after their friends have been slaughtered need to "get out of the way" to clear a path for the real Americans?
That's over the line, pal. WAY over the line. Not just a couple of toes, either, you POLE-VAULTED over it. Show some fucking decency and respect, for Christ's sake.
Gee, wasn't it mostly the men of this country who selected the homicidal maniac residing in the White House.
Or do you not count the 600,000+ Iraqis killed as a result of Bush's war?
And now the anti-gun nuts are going to come out of the woodwork yelling for more gun control laws. There are more than 20,000 such laws already on the books and most are either not being enforced or are being ignored. We don't need any more. To yell for more such laws is nothing more than feel-good efforts by the libs to further erode our Constitutional rights to their liking.
When I was a kid growing up in north central Montana, a lot of us carried either a .22 rifle or .30-.30 Winchester in our cars and pickups. And a lot of us also carried either a pocket knife or sheath-knife on our belts, even in school. No one got hurt. And we weren't kicked out of school by some "politically-correct" administrator for having them.
One would hope that the administration of VaTech is rethinking their position on not allowing concealed-carry permitted students to have their weapons on campus, even thoughthe State allows it, like Oregon law does. If they had allowed their permitted students their weapons, possibly not as many would have been killed the other day. But we will never know, will we?
Count me as one who thinks the existing laws should be enforced, and perhaps, in some instances, tightened.
For example, it seems to me that if you're convicted of any kind of weapons offense, you should be prohibited from having a concealed weapons permit for a very long time--perhaps ten years.
The one law that I think could be beneficial to be added is to add identifiers to every bullet.
We have a generation of Girlyboys for certain!
I have not heard where anybody had even tossed a chair at the shooter much less charged the bastard.
Hope we have a Hero story to come out of VT son.
Don't spose we will see that with all the Homo professors teaching Pink.
Sugar, Spice and everything Nice.
THe 600,000+ Iraqis are being killed by homicidal maniacs known as terrorists, not us. Idiot.
Apparently the previous poster is under the impression that our bombs and our guns are not killing anyone in Iraq. An interesting viewpoint.
Before the war, those opposed to it predicted that the country would likely descend into chaos, while those who supported the war said it would be a cakewalk.
It's clear who was right.
Apparently students did what they could in the situation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18german.html?hp
Now, stop libeling those who have suffered enough, and get a clue. Blaming the victims of this is about as low as you can go.
Lars' point is idiotic.
Humans have survived for millenia without:
Cars
Guns
Airplanes
Telephones of any sort
Television
Radio
Computers
Electricity
Ibuprofen
Acetameniphen
Beta-blockers
Anti-cancer drugs
etc.
Now, I think ant-depressants are over-prescribed, and a serious look at the side effects needs to happen. But it's a silly argument to say "humans have survived without them for a long time, so we don't need them."
...I think ant-depressants are over-prescribed...
What's wrong with the goddamned ants. Why are THEY depressed? Their progeny will rule the world after it all goes to hell.
Gosh Anon 1:28, I TOTALLY know what you're saying. It's not a bonafide American experience unless we get a "hero story" out of it showing us a manly man being a big man! This thing is gonnna make one hell of a movie!
Note: For the right-wing ignoramuses who post on this site, the above comment is intended to be SARCASM directed at the lunatic remark by Anon 1:28.
By the way, Daniel: Nice dig you got in there on the pussies behind the candlelight vigil. Oh, I realize you didn't directly insult them; you just implied that the vigil was "offered" by your favorite bogeyman, the Anti-American Left-Wing Conspiracy. But I like the way you sort of just sweep everyone together, thus unleashing a bit of your rhetorical venom at thousands of young people you don't even know who have just been through the most horrifying experience of their lives. Very classy. Very cool.
The last quarter century has seen a steady erosion of civil liberties as spelled out by the Bill of Rights, with the last four presidents eviscerating the document -- and the current White House occupant in particular going after it with unabashed zeal. A "goddamned piece of paper," he called it.
Hey Anonymouse: Great claim. Back it up. Oh? What's a back up? Here's a hint: Olbermann ain't.
Say Anon 5:58
Here is a tip!
When they stand you up against the wall and you cover your eyes, make sure you cry for Mommy real loud so you won't know when you are next.
Fuck you.
Once more, the lefty feel-good schmucks have prevented society from intervening in the plans of an easy-to-profile killer. Years of documented warnings to politically correct bureaucrats yielded....nothing but death. Could informing his family have helped? Possibly, but politically correct non-disclosure rules kept those closest to him in the dark. And speaking of profiling, even Larry King (among a number of other lefties) wondered aloud at the absence of profiling. Funny, but I haven't heard him or any other anti-American liberal call for profiling to stop another 9/11. They'd still rather strip-search Granny at the airport, than hurt the feelings of an actual terrorist. Are you libs schizophrenic, or just remarkably stupid? Please put the drugs down, and leave the thinking to adults.....didn't think so.
Now that the tough-guys of the 81st Chairborne have posted on here about the dearth of manliness nowadays, I'm sure they're all heading down to the recruitment offices first thing tomorrow morning, with the intention of volunteering for Iraq duty.
Every time some crazy bastard kills innocent people, the cazy lefties want to take guns away from those of us who did not do it.
Explain how that helps anything....sheesh.
Ill tell you where the next lunatic mass murderer is going to come from.
He's going to be a lot like Cho - A crazed, angry at the world person who has begun to become aware of his own total irrelevance.
His name will be "anonymous" and he will be one who can somehow turn any conversation towards his pathological hatred of Bush.
I post here anonymously because I've already dealt with threats from right-wing bloggers when I've not.
I figure that it's a safe bet that those who believe that violence solves problems will be willing to use violence against the "problem" of people having a different viewpoint.
Furthermore, several posters on this blog seem to have only a tentative grasp at reality--for example, calling a 200-year-old Supreme Court decision "novel", and only 100 years old.
anon 5:03
Obviously you, along with the caller to lars, don't understand the difference between a luxury and a necessity. I NEED Food and water. I don't NEED a car, plane, television, computer, microwave, etc. I like to have them though, but if push came to shove I could survive without them. Can't live without food & water.
Anon 10.33
You are right about the 100/200 thing, sorry for the error. 2007 – 1803 = 204, not 100. Always bad to go from memory as I thought it was late 19th cent not early. Always bad to rely solely on ones memory.
Im also sorry you do not understand the use of the word novel in the context I used it. It is, in fact, fairly common usage of the word so I am somewhat surprised you seem to think it so odd as to suppose mental deraignment on my part.
Interestingly though, you do prove my point in some ways. It would seem you are yet another angry left-winger unable to refute arguments instead turning to anger, insult and hatred.
In the end it would be nice if Cho caused some introspection on the lefts part as Timothy McVeigh did on the rights. Sadly, this is probably never going to happen. The left are utopians with themselves as arbiters and thus incapable of error. Cho alone was responsible for his actions, but the lefts constant “hate the rich” drone surely fed the fire within him.
If the "men" can quite murdering and raping innocent civilians in Iraq and Afganistan.
speaking of "made-up" problems--Saddaam with weapons of mass distraction and working with Al Queda. Jeez Inbred, you are going to have to do better than that.
Hmmm, when liberals talk about evening out the huge income disparities in this country, it's seen on the right as "hating the rich."
But when the right talks about "Hollywood elites", or public workers being "overpaid", they can't see that they're engaging in worse than most liberals do.
a) I believe Daniel was looking at the vigil(s) full of people who knew noone involved, have no connection to the campus, and are basically vigil junkies... going to stand somewhere and sing their songs and hold their candle, no matter what the reason. Yes, the people truly affected by this tragedy have every right to hold whatever ceremony feels appropriate... it's the others.
b) A responsible citizen should be able to own whatever he or she wants and can afford. It's one of the perks of being a free adult. Then again, I guess that perk is being eroded from every direction... Since laws are being passed by those who don't believe that citizens are responsible or capable of making correct decisions for themselves. Seatbelt laws, smoking laws, gun laws, land use laws, you name it, it's getting limited. There is inherent danger in living free... a bear in the zoo has a lot longer life expectancy than one in the wild... and too many people seem to want to turn the country into a people zoo.
I prefer being a free-range human, thank you.
In no sense of the word is judicial review novel. It was firmly established in U.S. law over 200 years ago. Many of the early Americans were accustomed to laws being voided because they didn't fit with the constitution, because that already was happening while they were still colonies.
Besides, the Constitution says, in numerous places, "Congress shall make no law..." Who do you propose to judge when they've overstepped the bounds set by the Constitution?
Give it up man. In the context I used it the word novel is certainly appropriate.
Other examples - Galileo had the novel idea that the earth revolved around the Sun. The founders had the novel idea that rights descended from God, not the King.
In addition, if you are unfamiliar with the significance of Marbury within the context of judicial review, it is not my job to educate you. Marbury represented a sea change and if you are unfamiliar with that fact I suggest you acquaint yourself with it before attempting to converse about it.
I see no point in drawing something out to ludicrous lengths simply because you are unaware of a common usage of a word or significant legal precedent. I rarely use personal invective but at this point I can only conclude that you are either completely uneducated or an idiot.
To quote r huse:
Ill clear it up for you - Essentially what I said was the view that the Supremes are there to decide constitutional issues is novel. It started with the Marbury decision about 100 years ago. This established the process of judicial review. In other words, it is not etched in stone that the Supremes are there to test constitutionality of congressionally passed law.
It's one thing to say that an idea was novel at the time (though that's not even correct--it was already happening in England), and another to say that it's novel now, which is what you stated.
Sure, it's not etched in stone, but it's firmly established practice in the U.S., and was established early on in our country's history.
To state that judicial review is a novel idea in this country is ludicrous. It's not going away any time soon.
I believe Daniel was looking at the vigil(s) full of people who knew none involved
It's nice that you "believe" that. If true, it would have been nicer to see Daniel say so, but he didn't say so. As always, Daniel lets us know who he is and what's important to him not only by what he says, but by what he doesn't say.
In any event, who the hell is Daniel Miglavs to accuse "stupid liberals" of organizing vigils, regardless of whether those participating knew anyone who was shot? How does he that churches weren't behind some? Or that some may have had people participating who had been affected by another mass shooting? Who is he to accuse people he doesn't know of being "vigil junkies"?
He should have left it alone.
Anon 4.33
Well, that last try looks like a do over to me.
>the view that the Supremes are there to decide constitutional issues is novel. It started with the Marbury decision about 100 years ago.
One last time - read what you quote from me.
Most people now, in the present, seem to think the Supremes were set up from the founding to decide constitutional issues. The Supremes seized this power with Marbury, however, for the general populace to forget this and think that the Supremes were set up from the founding to decide constitutionality took time to develop. That view, to which I refer, is novel. In addition, the fact that Marbury was essentially a new decree by government makes the use of the word novel especially apt since it has been used to refer to new additions to law since Roman times. It is most commonly associated with the emperor Justinian.
As for judicial review not going away any time soon, you might be right. However given that congress could readily legislate judicial review away, it is hardly etched in stone. Hopefully this fact is not a novel one to you.
Cheers
At this point in our nation's history, the idea of eliminating judicial review is a novel idea, and conservatives would oppose it as much as liberals, since they've pushed to have laws overturned by the courts as much as liberals.
Don't like laws that take property without compensation? Too bad, we've taken away judicial review, so the law stays.
Don't like laws that restrict gun ownership? Too bad, we've taken away judicial review, so the law stands.
Don't like federal laws that restrict intrastate commerce? Too bad, we've taken away judicial review, so the law stands.
Though the term "judicial review" isn't used in the Constitution, the principle is present in Article III:
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority
Dan, if your penis worked, you wouldn't need a "gun" to make up for it.
Post a Comment