DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:a followup thought I was going to post in another thread, but which is more pertinent here:
Last night I head the following statistic; based on the recent election results, and the gerrymandering that has long preceded them, there are currently only 37 House districts that can be considered "in play". The definition of "in play" is a district with less than a 5% margin for either party in the Presidential race. Thus, out of 435 House seats, nearly 400 are 'safe' seats. Coupled with a primary election process that gives huge overweighting to the extreme party zealots, getting the sort of wholesale defections Will mentions above is going to be extremely unlikely. It will take a well-financed national campaign to throw the bums out, and even that might find real difficulty in succeeding.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Let me take another stab at this, TC... how many politicians make it their goal to educate people about their government? Most, it seems, just benefit from the ignorance of the public. Ron Paul was unique in this way, which is why I used him as an example. So forget your women's issues, and everything else you're wrong about ( ), and just grasp what I'm trying to say about educating people about the realities of governance in America. Simply determining to vote for a different party every 4 years isn't going to do a damn thing. The answer is to become aware of the implications of what government is doing, and determine and know for ourselves in the revealing light of history, through the lens of sound reason why such is or is not conducive to liberty, security, and prosperity. And having grasped this, to persuade others and effect change (almost a dirty word anymore) to that effect.

Will Robinson wrote:A chance of winning isn't important. Taking yourself out of the R or D sheep herd is.
Winning will be defined as starting a trend of mass defection which will result in major shake up....assuming everyone remembered to give their reasons for defecting.

tunnelcat wrote:...
I'm all for voting for someone who may change the political landscape. But throwing my vote away is not something I take lightly if I'm going to do it. I'd want to make sure that enough other people were interested, who would make an actual statistical impression or difference to those already sitting on their political thrones.

tunnelcat wrote:I only play my hand on a sure bet.

tunnelcat wrote:Yes, at least Paul was honest on that point, I'll give him that. I still don't like most of his (and his son's) other political stances though rub my fur the wrong way. Hypothetically, would you vote for a maverick that like Ron Paul, even if the guy decided he was FOR banning all guns in America for example?

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I only play my hand on a sure bet.

In the context of this discussion that translates to you preferring the lesser of two evils to trying to reject evil as your only choice.
You don't seem to adopt that kind of defeatist attitude to other challenges so I wonder if you aren't too caught up in the 'game' of politics to recognize the harm it causes enabling those who have made our prosperity and general welfare nothing but a game.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I don't want to dodge your question, TC, but banning guns is unconstitutional and strikes right at the core of preservation of a free society. As a thought experiment, if it was anything else that meant that much to me without striking a blow to the foundation of the country, yes I would put him in the White House to see the country derailed from the track that it's on (ineffectual, power-hungry, increasingly centralized, war-mongering, wasteful, conflicts of interest everywhere...). If I were to step into your shoes for a moment and pretend that you are not still holding onto a false characterization of abortion, I would say that it's well worth it because a Ron Paul presidency does not hurt the abortion issue for your side any more than any other anti-abortion politician that has been in the chair, and probably a lot less due to his desire to remove the issue from the federal arena. So you put up with 4 years, get a lot of people put in their place, and then refocus in the following elections. Unfortunately you're buying a load of crap when it comes to abortion. Either that or you're just out of your mind and ultimately in favor of the procedure...

"Having a list of who has a gun is like gold - why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?”

- Walter T. Shaw, former burglar and jewel thief

Homer Simpson wrote:If Jesus had a gun, he would be alive today.

Mom hides children, shoots intruder Paul Ali Slater 5 times

LOGANVILLE, Ga. — A Georgia mother hid her two 9-year-old twins and shot an intruder, Paul Ali Slater, several times during a home invasion on Friday, according to multiple media reports.

The Loganville mother said she didn’t initially answer when someone knocked on her door around 1 p.m. Friday. When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at work, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

He then dialed 911 and his 37-year-old wife gathered their 9-year-old twins and hid them in a crawlspace inside the home.

According to the report, the intruder then forced his way into the home and started “rummaging” through the family’s belongings.

When the suspect went into the closet where the family was hiding ,the woman fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.

“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The woman fled to a neighbor’s home with her children. The woman and her two children were not injured.

The injured intruder stumbled out of the home and attempted to flee in his car. However, he crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a neighbor’s driveway, according to WSB-TV.

The suspect was arrested at the scene. He was taken to a nearby hospital and is expected to survive.

CUDA wrote:proof positive of the need for a bigger gun and a high capacity magazine.

the 38 didn't stop him and she unloaded all 6 shots into him and it didn't stop him either.

Will Robinson wrote:

CUDA wrote:proof positive of the need for a bigger gun and a high capacity magazine.

the 38 didn't stop him and she unloaded all 6 shots into him and it didn't stop him either.

Magazine capacity should be capped to equal the maximum number of months a Senator is allowed to serve.

CUDA wrote:proof positive of the need for a bigger gun and a high capacity magazine.

the 38 didn't stop him and she unloaded all 6 shots into him and it didn't stop him either.

woodchip wrote: According to slick all we need are .22 caliber size weapons to defend ourselves with:

CUDA wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

CUDA wrote:proof positive of the need for a bigger gun and a high capacity magazine.

the 38 didn't stop him and she unloaded all 6 shots into him and it didn't stop him either.

Magazine capacity should be capped to equal the maximum number of months a Senator is allowed to serve.

the Strom Thurman rule?????
you cap it at 552 rounds

46 years X 12 months

vision wrote:This celebration of violence makes the baby Jesus cry.

Spidey wrote:I hate to go the other way here, but I think incapacitating a burglar is plenty.

Spidey wrote:I hate to go the other way here, but I think incapacitating a burglar is plenty.

callmeslick wrote:still waiting for Woody to grow a pair and address his bald-faced lie above........

callmeslick wrote:Given that all States have an organized police force and national Guard units, where does the need even exist for this Amendment?

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Wow. Slick went from "Nobody's trying to take your guns away" to calling for disarmament in... a month? 2 months? You're a damn liar, Slick.

I referred to 'nobody' in government. That had no bearing on what I feel. I still hate the idea of forced disarmament, and know full well that won't happen. I am arguing that we have, as a society, lost the credibility to deserve free gun rights.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:still waiting for Woody to grow a pair and address his bald-faced lie above........

I think maybe Woody is actually being generous in saying you would let us keep .22's
You have said a lot of conflicting things but one reoccurring one is that the 2nd amendment right is moot.

callmeslick wrote:Given that all States have an organized police force and national Guard units, where does the need even exist for this Amendment?

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Wow. Slick went from "Nobody's trying to take your guns away" to calling for disarmament in... a month? 2 months? You're a damn liar, Slick.

I referred to 'nobody' in government. That had no bearing on what I feel. I still hate the idea of forced disarmament, and know full well that won't happen. I am arguing that we have, as a society, lost the credibility to deserve free gun rights.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:still waiting for Woody to grow a pair and address his bald-faced lie above........

I think maybe Woody is actually being generous in saying you would let us keep .22's
You have said a lot of conflicting things but one reoccurring one is that the 2nd amendment right is moot.

actually, I've gone to great lengths to specify that the only reason to think so is an unreasonable attitude by gun supporters. I have stated that I am both a gun owner(shotguns) and find possession of weapons(properly secured) for self defense perfectly reasonable. At NO TIME have I ever stated that .22 cal weapons are all anyone should own for self defense. At NO time have I railed against high caliber weapons, although I feel the shotgun is the average homeowners best choice for home protection.

callmeslick wrote:Given that all States have an organized police force and national Guard units, where does the need even exist for this Amendment?

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Wow. Slick went from "Nobody's trying to take your guns away" to calling for disarmament in... a month? 2 months? You're a damn liar, Slick.

I referred to 'nobody' in government. That had no bearing on what I feel. I still hate the idea of forced disarmament, and know full well that won't happen. I am arguing that we have, as a society, lost the credibility to deserve free gun rights.

note, that the first quote poses a question for which I expected a RATIONAL answer(I could give one, if asked).

callmeslick wrote: The second was a statement in response to irrational ideas around the need for automatic weapons and the overall approach to a range of societal problems leading to massive upticks in violence.

callmeslick wrote:Oh, and for the record, anyone who has read my posts KNOWS by this point that Woody is a cowardly liar, willing to sacrifice the truth to make a cheesy internet point.

Will Robinson wrote:The 2nd amendment was specifically authored to ensure that government wasn't the only entity allowed to be armed, that individual citizens would also have that right!!

So your request for a rational answer needs to be rational itself to deserve a like response.

There is no obligation on the part of an American citizen to show a need for his rights, regardless of what another person deems to be a rational need or not!

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The 2nd amendment was specifically authored to ensure that government wasn't the only entity allowed to be armed, that individual citizens would also have that right!!

no, it was not. Your rationale was used by several prominent figures to further justify the Amendment, but that was clearly(simply reading the wording in plain English) not the specified reasoning whatsoever.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:There is no obligation on the part of an American citizen to show a need for his rights, regardless of what another person deems to be a rational need or not!

of course there is. A society which abdicates personal and collective responsibility doesn't deserve overreaching 'rights'.

"A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason . . . [t]he right‘s existence is all the reason he needs."
~ Judge Benson Everett Legg 3/2/2012 Woolard v. Sheridan

callmeslick wrote:still waiting for Woody to grow a pair and address his bald-faced lie above........

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:still waiting for Woody to grow a pair and address his bald-faced lie above........

Actually I was being kind. What you really want is for the 2nd amendment to be repealed and no one to be able to protect them selves. You already stated how anyone who chooses to carry a firearm is both fearful and a coward and how good looks and charm will save you from a bad guy. You live in a fantasy world slick. Carrying a cell phone on your hip is not the personal protection you think it is.

Spidey wrote:I must be seeing things, because I could have sworn I seen you use the words repeal and 2nd amendment in the same sentence.

“... helped to build. Come on, folks, can't we all come up with something better than this? If not, then truly, it IS time to take a serious look at repeal of the 2nd Amendment.”

“... to forge a political coalition, and, at the same time, demonstrate that the Constitution was a flexible document, able to be amended. If we could repeal prohibition for the public good, the Second is fair game, IMO, if we cannot, as a society, fix an admittedly complex issue that has become ever ...”

So what's the name of the dance you are doing.

Vice President Biden suggested Wednesday that the White House could take unilateral action on gun control, as he kicked off a round of meetings aimed at finding ways to curb gun violence.

But the vice president hinted Wednesday that executive action -- action by the president in which Congress would not have a say -- would indeed be involved

CUDA wrote:

Vice President Biden suggested Wednesday that the White House could take unilateral action on gun control, as he kicked off a round of meetings aimed at finding ways to curb gun violence.

But the vice president hinted Wednesday that executive action -- action by the president in which Congress would not have a say -- would indeed be involved

HRM. Executive fiat to circumvent the 2nd amendment

/me wonders out loud. Is that Legal??? is that right????

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01 ... z2HVdBhwnE

callmeslick wrote:..
On the other hand, the current court make-up has never faced the questions around the Second, so it might be interesting if they use the more recent (Burger court forward) view or the more historic(and restrictive) view of that Amendment. ...

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.
The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.