Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Shootist Jeff

The real roadblock to stopping gun violence? The NRA or Jocal?

Recommended Posts

Hi Jocal (et elk), this is a serious thread I would like you all to consider carefully before responding. I single out Jocal only because of his repeated accusations that somehow my supposed "gun worship" is the reason we have the levels of gun violence we do (nevermind that they've actually been declining for the past decade). I've given this topic a lot of thought and have repeated attempted to (usually) respond to jocal and others here about the true root causes of violence and how we have a "violence problem", not a "gun problem". So far, to jocal in particular - it has been all "blah, blah, blah".

 

A thought occured to me however (although not entirely original to me) that the REAL impediment to dealing with the violence problem in general and the "gun violence" issue in particular - is precisely BECAUSE of people like Jocal, special ed, Dianne Feinstein, Andy Cuomo, etc. They mean well, I believe that in their heart of hearts they truly do want to stem the violence. I DO think they have a visceral reaction to guns themselves, as jocal finally admitted to in the gun nutter thread. But I think that visceral reaction comes from an altruistic place rather than just a mean place.

 

But despite that desire to do good - actually BECAUSE of it - I have strongly come to believe the anti-gun crusaders are the NUMBER ONE REASON we are in the state we are in right now when it comes to both ordinary criminal uses of guns and well as the mental sickness related gun violence. I say that, because their focus is on the implement - and no matter how they parse it - it comes back to prohibition in some form or another. Theya re SO focused on a piece of plastic and metal that they have totally lost sight of the human component. And that misdirected focus and effort - especially at the legislative level - is actually setting us back in terms of progress. We should instead be spending money, time and effort on tackling the root causes of violence - like poverty and lack of mental health facilities and access to treatment rather than wasting precious time on prohibition

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am amazed that you are still debating this subject with

Jocal.

 

IMO poverty, and mental health are the true causes of the vast majority of gun violence.

 

With that I am off to work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect the war on violence to work as spectacularly as the "war" on drugs (but especially WRT the evil weed).

 

re: Mr Jocal? I've tried to be civil as well and it's like pissing overboard to windward. You KNOW how it's going to end, yet, we engage anyway.

 

'Never wrastle with a hog in the mud; you both get dirty, and the hog likes it.'

 

On topic, certainly it hurts the chances of actual 'progress' when those who thrive upon a scapegoat go and dismiss answers that include the address of societal norms and differences in contemporary culture compared with that of periods of far less "gun" violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Previous OP]

 

Added content: As GITC and I think LenP said before in another thread - the constant attack on gun owners and enthusiasts is doing nothing but creating a backlash among us and eventually we will dig our heels in. And as a result, organization such as the NRA and the SAF are born. If we, who are doing nothing wrong, and usually everything right (CCW holders, for instance, have exceptionally low crime rates) are going to be attacked as a contributor to the problem rather than go after the real issues - then we are going to push back. And that struggle is going to do NOTHING but slow the process down and the real issues will not get addressed.

 

I think we would ALL be in total agreement that we need to try something different. I think we would all be in agreement that poverty, social isolation, lack of mental health access, breakdowns in the traditional "community" support structures, bullying, lack of parenting, the resultant crime from the war on drugs, etc. are ALL root causes of the violence we see in the US. The problem is ALL of those "fixes" are decades long fights. And a decade or a generation is too long for a politician to wait to see the fruits of his/her efforts. They want instant gratification because solving a problem in 10 years doesn't get them re-elected NOW. And the people want instant gratification because.... well they're used to it in a 24/7 world and they want that warm fuzzy NOW.

 

But the longer the pols and people like jocal fight against an inanimate object rather than the behavioral causes that allow a human being to pick up a weapon and kill another human being with it - whether its a club, a knife or a gun - the longer they will delay the solution.

 

So Jocal, sorry to single you out - but with ALL due respect and humility - YOU (and your elk) are the reason we don't have any answers to the violence problem right now. And YOU are delaying us from finding it everytime you point your finger in the wrong direction.

 

Sorry... had to hit send before I was done and didn't want to lose my work. See added content to the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jocal (et elk), this is a serious thread I would like you all to consider carefully before responding. I single out Jocal only because of his repeated accusations that somehow my supposed "gun worship" is the reason we have the levels of gun violence we do (nevermind that they've actually been declining for the past decade). I've given this topic a lot of thought and have repeated attempted to (usually) respond to jocal and others here about the true root causes of violence and how we have a "violence problem", not a "gun problem". So far, to jocal in particular - it has been all "blah, blah, blah".

 

A thought occured to me however (although not entirely original to me) that the REAL impediment to dealing with the violence problem in general and the "gun violence" issue in particular - is precisely BECAUSE of people like Jocal, special ed, Dianne Feinstein, Andy Cuomo, etc. They mean well, I believe that in their heart of hearts they truly do want to stem the violence. I DO think they have a visceral reaction to guns themselves, as jocal finally admitted to in the gun nutter thread. But I think that visceral reaction comes from an altruistic place rather than just a mean place.

 

But despite that desire to do good - actually BECAUSE of it - I have strongly come to believe the anti-gun crusaders are the NUMBER ONE REASON we are in the state we are in right now when it comes to both ordinary criminal uses of guns and well as the mental sickness related gun violence. I say that, because their focus is on the implement - and no matter how they parse it - it comes back to prohibition in some form or another. Theya re SO focused on a piece of plastic and metal that they have totally lost sight of the human component. And that misdirected focus and effort - especially at the legislative level - is actually setting us back in terms of progress. We should instead be spending money, time and effort on tackling the root causes of violence - like poverty and lack of mental health facilities and access to treatment rather than wasting precious time on prohibition

 

The true gun nutters are those who go nuts when they see a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple fact you needed to start yet another gun thread to preach your view indicates your fear that we are right. Your addiction to the muzzle has clouded your judgement.

Every time another massacre happens, a little bit of you and your argument dies.

Public opinion is not on your side. Time to take Jocals words to heart. The problem is in the mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple fact you needed to start yet another gun thread to preach your view indicates your fear that we are right. Your addiction to the muzzle has clouded your judgement.

Every time another massacre happens, a little bit of you and your argument dies.

Public opinion is not on your side. Time to take Jocals words to heart. The problem is in the mirror.

So you spent yesterday taking your firearms to your local sheriff to be destroyed?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The simple fact you needed to start yet another gun thread to preach your view indicates your fear that we are right. Your addiction to the muzzle has clouded your judgement.

Every time another massacre happens, a little bit of you and your argument dies.

Public opinion is not on your side. Time to take Jocals words to heart. The problem is in the mirror.

So you spent yesterday taking your firearms to your local sheriff to be destroyed?....

 

Spatial doesn't believe half the shit he says, and the rest of the time it is just a coincidence he believes it. He says stuff for effect, to get a reaction. Sometimes it is calling cruisers drunk perverts and other times it is labeling gun owners as baby killers. If he can get one person to call him an offensive name he is ... duh, winning! The less logical and more emotional he is, the more likely he gets to "win".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prohibition will never happen but reasonable regulation that I have repeatedly laid out (quite reasonably) must be implemented. No doubt the roadblock in that regard is the nutty NRA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it is calling cruisers drunk perverts and other times it is labeling gun owners as baby killers. If he can get one person to call him an offensive name he is ... duh, winning!

Some cruisers are drunk perverts and some gun owners are baby killers. If I can get you to call me names, it just proves to the viewers we are Duh, winning! You are scared.

 

You guys need to face reality. Your fight is not with me or Jocal or the lizard, its with John Q Public. Every incident eats away at your arguments. Every incident turns the public against your cause. Fewer and fewer Americans support you. How many more incidents will it take before public outrage really takes its toll on your rights?

 

You need to change the trend. Your arguments are not the way to do it. You need to be proactive, not reactive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you spent yesterday taking your firearms to your local sheriff to be destroyed?....

Nope, too windy to fly so spent the day repairing the field fence on the back of the property. There was a very large buck mule deer laying under a pine tree near where I needed to splice the fence. 4 pointer. That's 8 points to you easterners. Probably 400lbs. Well he was watching over the dozen does in his harum munching on my field grass. I didn't go grab the shotgun or rifle, just a long staff and walked up to him. He stood, turned toward me and lowered his rack towards my chest.

Ho! Ha ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust! Sproing!

Me being skilled in ninja and Jedi fighting skills, quickly convinced him that I was not a competitor to deal with and collected his flock and moved to the neighbors property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sometimes it is calling cruisers drunk perverts and other times it is labeling gun owners as baby killers. If he can get one person to call him an offensive name he is ... duh, winning!

Some cruisers are drunk perverts and some gun owners are baby killers. If I can get you to call me names, it just proves to the viewers we are Duh, winning! You are scared.

 

You guys need to face reality. Your fight is not with me or Jocal or the lizard, its with John Q Public. Every incident eats away at your arguments. Every incident turns the public against your cause. Fewer and fewer Americans support you. How many more incidents will it take before public outrage really takes its toll on your rights?

 

You need to change the trend. Your arguments are not the way to do it. You need to be proactive, not reactive.

Proactive to do what, exactly??? I know you're trolling and I don't expect a real answer, but I figured I'd throw that out there anyway.

 

Oh, and while I'm asking questions ill never get a straight answer to, what exactly is "your side". What are you trying to achieve specifics.ly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you spent yesterday taking your firearms to your local sheriff to be destroyed?....

Nope, too windy to fly so spent the day repairing the field fence on the back of the property. There was a very large buck mule deer laying under a pine tree near where I needed to splice the fence. 4 pointer. That's 8 points to you easterners. Probably 400lbs. Well he was watching over the dozen does in his harum munching on my field grass. I didn't go grab the shotgun or rifle, just a long staff and walked up to him. He stood, turned toward me and lowered his rack towards my chest.

Ho! Ha ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust! Sproing!

Me being skilled in ninja and Jedi fighting skills, quickly convinced him that I was not a competitor to deal with and collected his flock and moved to the neighbors property.

 

Didn't your mother teach you not to play with your food

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could discuss this stuff 'til the cows come home. In fact, I plan to.

 

But let's try raising the bar with some ground rules for this thread, of benefit to both sides.

  • No mindless abuse.
  • No misogeny here (a request from my wife of 30 years, who has taken objection to my participation in certain vocabulary).
  • Tom Ray to avoid vacuous pedantry.
  • Lastly, I propose that we embrace the intent behind this quality woman's words (she is pro-gun, and has co-authored with Alan Gura, the very devil himself IMO).

 

Real historical writers probe factual uncertainties, but they do not invent convenient facts and they do not ignore inconvenient facts. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

"http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/disarming-history"

 

 

Your elk's perspective is of value to me. But my willingness and courage to articulate here the anti-gun voice of the gun-injured works in reverse. Mainstrem views in the U.S. will carry the day in the end, and the fact is that the (your) gun-lobby-driven spiel is an imbalanced, extremist viewpoint.

Lastly, allow me to point out that any appeal to the boys to ostracize me is conformity, not anarchy. Just sayin'...

Just for giggles, Jeff, you first. Please enumerate your differences with the NRA, and I will follow with my list of what I consider to be their egregious and recent legacy.

My name, in case you missed it, is Joseph C. Calhoun. I'll be around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't your mother teach you not to play with your food

Daddy was a butcher by trade. During hunting season, he'd bring in extra coin by cutting game for lazy hunters. He'd bring me and my brothers along to help. Got pretty damn good at skinning a buck before I was 10. The hunters would always offer meat in trade. Too lean, too gamey, survival/peasant food as dad would call it. But I've had my fair share of game, but can't say as I prefer it over beef, pork or buffalo. Dad also moonlighted at the local dog track. Cut steaks for the fancy restaurant at the track. We'd get all the tips and scraps from the prime cuts. Now that's good eating, even if every meal was a kabob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could discuss this stuff 'til the cows come home. In fact, I plan to.

 

But let's try raising the bar with some ground rules for this thread, of benefit to both sides.

  • No mindless abuse.
  • No misogeny here (a request from my wife of 30 years, who has taken objection to my participation in certain vocabulary).
  • Tom Ray to avoid vacuous pedantry.
  • Lastly, I propose that we embrace the intent behind this quality woman's words (she is pro-gun, and has co-authored with Alan Gura, the very devil himself IMO).

 

Real historical writers probe factual uncertainties, but they do not invent convenient facts and they do not ignore inconvenient facts. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

"http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/disarming-history"

 

 

Your elk's perspective is of value to me. But my willingness and courage to articulate here the anti-gun voice of the gun-injured works in reverse. Mainstrem views in the U.S. will carry the day in the end, and the fact is that the (your) gun-lobby-driven spiel is an imbalanced, extremist viewpoint.

Lastly, allow me to point out that any appeal to the boys to ostracize me is conformity, not anarchy. Just sayin'...

Just for giggles, Jeff, you first. Please enumerate your differences with the NRA, and I will follow with my list of what I consider to be their egregious and recent legacy.

My name, in case you missed it, is Joseph C. Calhoun. I'll be around.

 

So Jeff says what is bad about the NRA, and then you tell him the parts he missed. That sounds just like a perfectly balanced discussion on the matter.... or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Didn't your mother teach you not to play with your food

Daddy was a butcher by trade. During hunting season, he'd bring in extra coin by cutting game for lazy hunters. He'd bring me and my brothers along to help. Got pretty damn good at skinning a buck before I was 10. The hunters would always offer meat in trade. Too lean, too gamey, survival/peasant food as dad would call it. But I've had my fair share of game, but can't say as I prefer it over beef, pork or buffalo. Dad also moonlighted at the local dog track. Cut steaks for the fancy restaurant at the track. We'd get all the tips and scraps from the prime cuts. Now that's good eating, even if every meal was a kabob.

 

Not gamey at all if you handle it correctly, and any red meat that has less fat content than boneless skinless tasteless chicken breast is good in my book. Once my wife got a look at the macro nutrients for venison and got a taste of it, she became a big proponent of me hunting. I hope to never buy beef again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Venison tenderloin is awesome! Brown quickly in a very hot fry pan, then put in 400 degree oven with onions and red wine for no more than 10 minutes!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I could discuss this stuff 'til the cows come home. In fact, I plan to.

 

But let's try raising the bar with some ground rules for this thread, of benefit to both sides.

  • No mindless abuse.
  • No misogeny here (a request from my wife of 30 years, who has taken objection to my participation in certain vocabulary).
  • Tom Ray to avoid vacuous pedantry.

..

 

I get my own rule? Fuck off and show us your wife's tits! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Venison tenderloin is awesome! Brown quickly in a very hot fry pan, then put in 400 degree oven with onions and red wine for no more than 10 minutes!!

 

That sounds good. Here is my wife's recipe for dinner last night.

 

seco de venison or Venison in cilantro sauce

 

Ingredients :

 

2.4 lb (1 k) venison stew meat , cut into pieces

1/3 cup vegetable oil

1 cup onion finely chopped

½ cup blended garlic

 

1 cup cilantro leaves, blended with very little water

¾ cup beer (beef stock or dry white wine may be used instead)

1 cup green peas

1.2 lb ( ½ k) potatoes (yellow potatoes if possible) cooked, peeled and halved

Salt

Pepper

Ground cumin

 

Preparation:

 

Heat oil in a skillet or a medium size saucepan and brown meat pieces. Remove meat and reserve.

Add onion to the same skillet and cook until tender.

Add blended garlic and ground cumin and mix well. Return meat to saucepan and season to taste.

Add beer or wine and the blended cilantro leaves, stir and cover saucepan.

 

Cook over low heat until meat is tender. Stir in green peas and cooked potatoes.

Serve with white cooked rice.

 

6 servings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found game meat edible if you marinate the shit out of it. But then you are really tasting marinade. You could do the same with tofu.

Which is why I don't hunt. My ethics would require I eat everything I kill and I don't like the taste. So I don't hunt.


Fat is what gives beef its flavor. Buffalo is often too lean for my taste.

 

Don't get me started on game bird. Nastiest stuff ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chirp chirp.

Sounds to me like the nutterz are disengaging on this skirmish. Smart.

Unstable dude is able to get an assault weapon and enter a public place. Five 30 round magazines in his belt. Wearing a bullet proof vest. Has anti-goverment notes.

Seems like a perfect storm.

Attacks the safest place you would think you could be.

Remember how the Sandy Hook apologists said the nutter chose the school because it was a gun free zone? I do.

So should we make airports gun enabled zones?

Should we allow law abiding citizens to conceal carry past the TSA checkpoint? Would that have made a difference?

Or should we focus on violent video games?

 

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that a thick layer of bernaise sauce helps with low fat meats.

 

Bacon is another good answer.

 

But I agree with Ed about the need for more fat in most wild meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that a thick layer of bernaise sauce helps with low fat meats.

 

Bacon is another good answer.

 

But I agree with Ed about the need for more fat in most wild meat.

Those who claim that game is superior to domestic slaughter are really just living in denial.

But lets talk about guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that a thick layer of bernaise sauce helps with low fat meats.

 

Bacon is another good answer.

 

But I agree with Ed about the need for more fat in most wild meat.

Fixed that for you.

 

Recently I took some dry cured bacon, cut lardons from it, and larded up a sirloin roast with it. Salt, pepper, and rosemary and into the oven. Awesome, particularly the lardons that stuck out and got a bit charred.

 

Never understood the "bury it in other flavors" approach to game. Someone posted a recipe for backstrap on here a while back that made me think they didn't really care for the meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who claim that game is superior to domestic slaughter are really just living in denial.

But lets talk about guns.

Not really comparable. Deer tastes good. So does a ribeye from a beeve that spent its last few weeks standing in a shit swamp gorging itself on GMO corn. But they're different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Those who claim that game is superior to domestic slaughter are really just living in denial.

But lets talk about guns.

Not really comparable. Deer tastes good. So does a ribeye from a beeve that spent its last few weeks standing in a shit swamp gorging itself on GMO corn. But they're different.

I've had some good grass fed plains venison. But it stood side by side to the free range cattle.

How do you feel about a guy who shot up an airport with an assault weapon wearing a bullet proof vest and having 5 30 round clips on his belt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Those who claim that game is superior to domestic slaughter are really just living in denial.

But lets talk about guns.

Not really comparable. Deer tastes good. So does a ribeye from a beeve that spent its last few weeks standing in a shit swamp gorging itself on GMO corn. But they're different.

 

 

I've had some good grass fed plains venison. But it stood side by side to the free range cattle.

How do you feel about a guy who shot up an airport with an assault weapon wearing a bullet proof vest and having 5 30 round clips on his belt?

 

 

I'm against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Those who claim that game is superior to domestic slaughter are really just living in denial.

But lets talk about guns.

Not really comparable. Deer tastes good. So does a ribeye from a beeve that spent its last few weeks standing in a shit swamp gorging itself on GMO corn. But they're different.

 

I've had some good grass fed plains venison. But it stood side by side to the free range cattle.

How do you feel about a guy who shot up an airport with an assault weapon wearing a bullet proof vest and having 5 30 round clips on his belt?

 

I'm against it.

Adding fat to game meat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those who claim that game is superior to domestic slaughter are really just living in denial.

But lets talk about guns.

Not really comparable. Deer tastes good. So does a ribeye from a beeve that spent its last few weeks standing in a shit swamp gorging itself on GMO corn. But they're different.

 

 

I've had some good grass fed plains venison. But it stood side by side to the free range cattle.

How do you feel about a guy who shot up an airport with an assault weapon wearing a bullet proof vest and having 5 30 round clips on his belt?

 

 

I'm against it.

 

 

Adding fat to game meat?

 

 

Yes. Also against people shooting up airports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Also against people shooting up airports.

That will continue to happen. Until we do something about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. Also against people shooting up airports.

That will continue to happen. Until we do something about it.

When & where did last ones occur?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes. Also against people shooting up airports.

That will continue to happen. Until we do something about it.

When & where did last ones occur?.....

Its the new thing. Expect more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I expect un-more. Unless executed by foreigners. I.e. the Tally Banners, Al Kaydduh, the Tamils or the Nigerian Scamalots. But no Americans are gonna try and pull a stunt like this ill equipped, ill planning stupid twat of cowardly proportions did. Just ain't gonna happen. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, where have we heard this before?....

 

The Bergen Record quoted witnesses describing a lone gunman dressed in black and talking to himself as he fired shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes. Also against people shooting up airports.

That will continue to happen. Until we do something about it.

What should we do then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes. Also against people shooting up airports.

That will continue to happen. Until we do something about it.

What should we do then?

 

Something, obviously.

 

If you want to know more specifically, just go visit the California banning ordinary rifles thread. They are following a time-proven formula: you register the guns, assuring gun owners that this is for theft protection. Then you declare the guns illegal, but grandfather in existing gun owners to keep them calm. You ban transfers of the grandfathered-in guns so that they are confiscated upon the death of the owner. Then you wait. In Washington DC, this exact process was used and they wound up with only a handful of surviving legal gun owners prior to the Heller case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Yes. Also against people shooting up airports.

That will continue to happen. Until we do something about it.

What should we do then?

 

Something, obviously.

 

If you want to know more specifically, just go visit the California banning ordinary rifles thread. They are following a time-proven formula: you register the guns, assuring gun owners that this is for theft protection. Then you declare the guns illegal, but grandfather in existing gun owners to keep them calm. You ban transfers of the grandfathered-in guns so that they are confiscated upon the death of the owner. Then you wait. In Washington DC, this exact process was used and they wound up with only a handful of surviving legal gun owners prior to the Heller case.

 

 

But didn't kali have registration for ALL guns already? That seems to be special's pet project which hasn't really born any fruit at all in terms of stopping gun crime there. Also, gun nutterz like gaytor continually call for a tax on ammo. Doesn't CA do that already too? How is that gang problem in S LA and Oakland working out? Ammo tax slowing them down at all?

 

But its certainly a good thing that registration would never lead to confiscation, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know the chain of custody of the assault rifle?

 

1). I'm betting that the shooter acquired the salt rifle in a perfectly legal manner.

 

2). I'm betting that the shooter acquired the salt rifle in a highly illegal manner.

 

 

3). Which of the above would bother you the most?......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do we know the chain of custody of the assault rifle?

 

1). I'm betting that the shooter acquired the salt rifle in a perfectly legal manner.

 

2). I'm betting that the shooter acquired the salt rifle in a highly illegal manner.

 

 

3). Which of the above would bother you the most?......

I think the person enabling the shooter needs to be held accountable. When we start doing that, it will very difficult for shooters to get their weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least you've finally changed course and are now placing the blame on people. ....instead of the object.

 

Nice, I love watching evolution in progress.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know the chain of custody of the assault rifle?

I've already answered your question, troll. Since Kali already registration, you tell me.

 

And if he did buy it perfectly legally at a CA gun store - who are you going to hold responsible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do we know the chain of custody of the assault rifle?

I've already answered your question, troll. Since Kali already registration, you tell me.

 

And if he did buy it perfectly legally at a CA gun store - who are you going to hold responsible?

If you knew the gun you sold could be traced back to you, would be careful who you sold it to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it, I'm changing your stage name. From here on in you will be called Speculative Ed.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Do we know the chain of custody of the assault rifle?

I've already answered your question, troll. Since Kali already registration, you tell me.

 

And if he did buy it perfectly legally at a CA gun store - who are you going to hold responsible?

If you knew the gun you sold could be traced back to you, would be careful who you sold it to?

I'm sure the gun store was very careful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Do we know the chain of custody of the assault rifle?

I've already answered your question, troll. Since Kali already registration, you tell me.

 

And if he did buy it perfectly legally at a CA gun store - who are you going to hold responsible?

If you knew the gun you sold could be traced back to you, would be careful who you sold it to?

I'm sure the gun store was very careful

So you know he bought it in a cali gun store?

 

That's it, I'm changing your stage name. From here on in you will be called Speculative Ed.....

No more speculative than team gun saying a registration will lead to confiscation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If folks here are truly interested in having a meaningful discussion about guns and violence in American society I think the first step is to define the terms so everybody is clear about what the argument is about. I think the terms violence and society are pretty well understood and all sides are in agreement with the use of these words. There are two terms that I believe need more clarification to keep the discussion meaningful. First, exactly what kind of guns are we talking about and the vague term "assault rifle or weapon". I am all for banning the term "assault rifle/weapon" on the grounds that it is vague and inflammatory. I would stipulate that a semi-automatic weapon is any gun that uses gas pressure to load another bullet in the chamber to be fired with another pull of the trigger. I believe the names of other guns are adequate for the discussion The next term that begs clarification is the phrase "mentally ill". We often hear pro gun folks say that more controls, treatment and identification of mentally ill people are needed to prevent them from obtaining guns and causing mayhem. Well that sounds good but for the sake of this discussion, what exactly is mental illness. Until recently homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Millions of people in the US take medication for depression, a common mental illness. Personality disorders are fairly common, cause many problems and are difficult to treat. Are these people considered mentally ill? By the strict definition, no, but many people would say they are. Then there is that very small percentage of people that are psychotic, that have lost contact with reality and are in the layman's term, fucking nuts. These categories cover a large amount of people and until some common ground is reached and everyone can accept which mentally ill people can or cannot have guns, the discussion will be useless. The last thorny issue is the definition of the wording in the 2nd amendment. People on both sides of the argument believe their definition of the phrase "A well regulated militia" is the correct one. Until both sides agree to an acceptable reading of the 2nd amendment, the argument will continue to go in circles. It would be also nice to keep the argument focused, impersonal and rational but the given this is Sailing Anarchy I am no too confident that is possible. However if people here can start by defining exactly what they are arguing about by agreeing on the definition of terms, well after that anything is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If folks here are truly interested in having a meaningful discussion about guns and violence in American society I think the first step is to define the terms so everybody is clear about what the argument is about. I think the terms violence and society are pretty well understood and all sides are in agreement with the use of these words. There are two terms that I believe need more clarification to keep the discussion meaningful. First, exactly what kind of guns are we talking about and the vague term "assault rifle or weapon". I am all for banning the term "assault rifle/weapon" on the grounds that it is vague and inflammatory. I would stipulate that a semi-automatic weapon is any gun that uses gas pressure to load another bullet in the chamber to be fired with another pull of the trigger. I believe the names of other guns are adequate for the discussion The next term that begs clarification is the phrase "mentally ill". We often hear pro gun folks say that more controls, treatment and identification of mentally ill people are needed to prevent them from obtaining guns and causing mayhem. Well that sounds good but for the sake of this discussion, what exactly is mental illness. Until recently homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Millions of people in the US take medication for depression, a common mental illness. Personality disorders are fairly common, cause many problems and are difficult to treat. Are these people considered mentally ill? By the strict definition, no, but many people would say they are. Then there is that very small percentage of people that are psychotic, that have lost contact with reality and are in the layman's term, fucking nuts. These categories cover a large amount of people and until some common ground is reached and everyone can accept which mentally ill people can or cannot have guns, the discussion will be useless. The last thorny issue is the definition of the wording in the 2nd amendment. People on both sides of the argument believe their definition of the phrase "A well regulated militia" is the correct one. Until both sides agree to an acceptable reading of the 2nd amendment, the argument will continue to go in circles. It would be also nice to keep the argument focused, impersonal and rational but the given this is Sailing Anarchy I am no too confident that is possible. However if people here can start by defining exactly what they are arguing about by agreeing on the definition of terms, well after that anything is possible.

 

 

Take it to Thoughtful Post Anarchy.

 

Whatever the preamble may mean, can we all agree that all 9 Supreme Court justices agreed that the second amendment protects an individual right that can be enforced by individuals? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" seems pretty clear and straightforward. It does bring up the question: which people? There are various prohibited people beyond the mentally ill, whoever they are. Felons and children, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a need to categorize firearms in any more detail than just a weapon that fires a projectile with an explosive charge.

Regulate them all. It complies with the 2nd amendment as written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did "regulated" mean to those who wrote the document? That is key to uderstanding what it says and what it doesn't say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did "regulated" mean to those who wrote the document? That is key to uderstanding what it says and what it doesn't say.

I think it meant that communities would form militias who would muster at armories to protect the free state.

This was preferable to having a standing army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, you seem to be blaming the gun problem on those who are pointing out the gun problem.

I am an adamant example, yes, but just an adamant messenger, if you will. This isn't about me or my elk, Mister.

It's about the damage occurring with the presence of guns in American life, as demonstrated by numerous gun studies.

 

I have presented the work of the finest learned minds, who have studied the problem and it's outcome for thirty years. Webster, Hemenway, Wintemute, Diaz, Kellerman (whose figures met favorable peer acceptance after being re-worked, Tom ), others, and the yeoman work of S.F.'s Violence Policy Center. The work of these men drew few comments among gun thread regulars, stirred little thought. But the components for any combination of solutions may have already been presented in full text on these boards.

 

The rejection of their conclusions here has been at a flip and shallow level because you guys are busy chanting gun lobby slogans at the mental level of bumper stickers. Thus my comment that you don't want intelligent discussion, just guns, now to include battlefield-bred weapons on the open market.

 

Now Jeff, you get mighty pissy when I point out how you appear to be joined at the hip with the NRA, its legislation, and its vocabulary. You want to claim you are distinct from the NRA, Okay then, just summarize for us your differences with them. Are you afraid of the NRA or concerned with your PA rep or something? Because this is my fourth request, and the second in this thread, for you to show us the separation, if any.

 

 

 

 

 

If folks here are truly interested in having a meaningful discussion about guns and violence in American society I think the first step is to define the terms so everybody is clear about what the argument is about. I think the terms violence and society are pretty well understood and all sides are in agreement with the use of these words. There are two terms that I believe need more clarification to keep the discussion meaningful. First, exactly what kind of guns are we talking about and the vague term "assault rifle or weapon". I am all for banning the term "assault rifle/weapon" on the grounds that it is vague and inflammatory. I would stipulate that a semi-automatic weapon is any gun that uses gas pressure to load another bullet in the chamber to be fired with another pull of the trigger. I believe the names of other guns are adequate for the discussion The next term that begs clarification is the phrase "mentally ill". We often hear pro gun folks say that more controls, treatment and identification of mentally ill people are needed to prevent them from obtaining guns and causing mayhem. Well that sounds good but for the sake of this discussion, what exactly is mental illness. Until recently homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Millions of people in the US take medication for depression, a common mental illness. Personality disorders are fairly common, cause many problems and are difficult to treat. Are these people considered mentally ill? By the strict definition, no, but many people would say they are. Then there is that very small percentage of people that are psychotic, that have lost contact with reality and are in the layman's term, fucking nuts. These categories cover a large amount of people and until some common ground is reached and everyone can accept which mentally ill people can or cannot have guns, the discussion will be useless. The last thorny issue is the definition of the wording in the 2nd amendment. People on both sides of the argument believe their definition of the phrase "A well regulated militia" is the correct one. Until both sides agree to an acceptable reading of the 2nd amendment, the argument will continue to go in circles. It would be also nice to keep the argument focused, impersonal and rational but the given this is Sailing Anarchy I am no too confident that is possible. However if people here can start by defining exactly what they are arguing about by agreeing on the definition of terms, well after that anything is possible.

 

Take it to Thoughtful Post Anarchy.

 

Whatever the preamble may mean, can we all agree that all 9 Supreme Court justices agreed that the second amendment protects an individual right that can be enforced by individuals? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" seems pretty clear and straightforward. It does bring up the question: which people? There are various prohibited people beyond the mentally ill, whoever they are. Felons and children, for example.

Hi, SoakEd.

 

Whoops, I find a a disingenuous Tom statement here, bolded above. The actual Heller decision tally was 5-4, not 9-0.

 

Tom, here you are directly avoiding not one but TWO learned writings I presented late last week, speaking to not just the core of Scalia's work, but it's arbitrary use of dictionaries, to his selective "textualism", and to flip-flops in his "originalism". His scholars were just paid students of Law Review publication staffs; their work was not of the status to receive timely peer review, or ANY peer review. Which stinks. His 154 page majority opinion on Heller appears to be heavily flawed by his personal opinions, by influence with his personal friends Alan Gura (who kept his office at the SAF building in Redmond, WA, by the way), by his Cato Institute buddy Robert Levy, and by the passion he puts into his longtime sport of turkey shooting,

 

Do you have any content (not sarcasm, not word-games) to address or discuss this? I am interested.

The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia

BY RICHARD A. POSNER (note: a conservative 7th Circuit appeals court judge)

 

Pasted from <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/magazine/books-and-arts/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism>

 

Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts

By Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner

(Thomson/West, 567 pp., $49.95)

 

Scalia and Garner ridicule a decision by the Supreme Court of Kansas (State ex rel. Miller v. Claiborne) that held that cockfighting did not violate the state’s law against cruelty to animals. They say that the court, in defiance of the dictionary, “perversely held that roosters are not ‘animals.’” When I read this, I found it hard to believe that a court would hold that roosters are not animals, so I looked up the case. I discovered that the court had not held that roosters are not animals. It was then that I started reading the other cases cited by Scalia and Garner.

 

 

JUDGES LIKE TO SAY that all they do when they interpret a constitutional or statutory provision is apply, to the facts of the particular case, law that has been given to them. They do not make law: that is the job of legislators, and for the authors and ratifiers of constitutions. They are not Apollo; they are his oracle. They are passive interpreters. Their role is semantic.

 

The passive view of the judicial role is aggressively defended in a new book by Justice Antonin Scalia and the legal lexicographer Bryan Garner. They advocate what is best described as textual originalism, because they want judges to “look for meaning in the governing text, ascribe to that text the meaning that it has borne from its inception, and reject judicial speculation about both the drafters’ extra-textually derived purposes and the desirability of the fair reading’s anticipated consequences.” This austere interpretive method leads to a heavy emphasis on dictionary meanings, in disregard of a wise warning issued by Judge Frank Easterbrook, who though himself a self-declared textualist advises that “the choice among meanings [of words in statutes] must have a footing more solid than a dictionary—which is a museum of words, an historical catalog rather than a means to decode the work of legislatures.”

 

(snippage)

Scalia and Garner reject (before they later accept) Easterbrook’s warning. Does an ordinance that says that “no person may bring a vehicle into the park” apply to an ambulance that enters the park to save a person’s life? For Scalia and Garner, the answer is yes. After all, an ambulance is a vehicle—any dictionary will tell you that. If the authors of the ordinance wanted to make an exception for ambulances, they should have said so. And perverse results are a small price to pay for the objectivity that textual originalism offers (new dictionaries for new texts, old dictionaries for old ones). But Scalia and Garner later retreat in the ambulance case, and their retreat is consistent with a pattern of equivocation exhibited throughout their book.

 

A legislature is thwarted when a judge refuses to apply its handiwork to an unforeseen situation that is encompassed by the statute’s aim but is not a good fit with its text. Ignoring the limitations of foresight, and also the fact that a statute is a collective product that often leaves many questions of interpretation to be answered by the courts because the legislators cannot agree on the answers, the textual originalist demands that the legislature think through myriad hypothetical scenarios and provide for all of them explicitly rather than rely on courts to be sensible. In this way, textualism hobbles legislation

 

(snipped) Judges are not competent historians...

Scalia is a pertinacious critic of the use of legislative history to illuminate statutory meaning; and one reason for his criticism is that a legislature is a hydra-headed body whose members may not share a common view of the interpretive issues likely to be engendered by a statute that they are considering enacting. But when he looks for the original meaning of eighteenth-century constitutional provisions—as he did in his opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that an ordinance forbidding people to own handguns even for the defense of their homes violated the Second Amendment—Scalia is doing legislative history.

 

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III has argued that because the historical analysis in Heller is (from the standpoint of advocates of a constitutional right to own handguns for personal self-defense) at best inconclusive, judicial self-restraint dictated that the District of Columbia’s ordinance not be invalidated. His argument derives new support from a surprising source: Judge Easterbrook’s foreword to Scalia and Garner’s book. The foreword lauds the book to the skies, but toward the end it strikes the following subversive note: “Words don’t have intrinsic meanings; the significance of an expression depends on how the interpretive community alive at the time of the text’s adoption under-stood those words. The older the text, the more distant that interpretive community from our own. At some point the difference becomes so great that the meaning is no longer recoverable reliably.” When that happens, Easterbrook continues, the courts should “declare that meaning has been lost, so that the living political community must choose.” The “living political community” in Heller consisted of the elected officials, and the electorate, of the District of Columbia.

 

Easterbrook goes on: “When the original meaning is lost in the passage of time…the justification for judges’ having the last word evaporates.” This is a version of the doctrine of judicial self-restraint, which Scalia and Garner endorse by saying that a statute’s unconstitutionality must be “clearly shown”—which it was not in Heller.

 

(Snipped) Heller probably is the best-known and the most heavily criticized of Justice Scalia’s opinions. Reading Law is Scalia’s response to the criticism. It is unconvincing.

 

(Snipped)

SCALIA AND GARNER contend that textual originalism was the dominant American method of judicial interpretation until the middle of the twentieth century. The only evidence they provide, however, consists of quotations from judges and jurists, such as William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote before 1950. Yet none of those illuminati, while respectful of statutory and constitutional text, as any responsible lawyer would be, was a textual originalist. All were, famously, “loose constructionists.”

 

(Snipped here is an unflattering protextual Blackstone passage in full context)

The fact that loose constructionists sometimes publicly endorse textualism is evidence only that judges are, for strategic reasons, often not candid.

 

(Snipped) It is a singular embarrassment for textual originalists that the most esteemed judicial opinion in American history, Brown v. Board of Education, is nonoriginalist. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the provision that states not deny to any person the “equal protection of the laws” meant that states—the former states of the Confederacy being the particular concern, of course—must not deny legal protection to the newly freed slaves (and to blacks more generally). In particular, states could not, without facing legal consequences, turn a blind eye to the Ku Klux Klan’s campaign of intimidation of blacks and carpetbaggers. Had the provision been thought, in 1868, to forbid racial segregation of public schools, it would not have been ratified. Yet Scalia and Garner claim that “recent research persuasively establishes that [the ruling in Brown that separate but equal is not equal] was the original understanding of the post-Civil War Amendments,” citing for this proposition a single law review article published seventeen years ago. They do not mention the powerful criticism of that article by Michael Klarman, a leading legal historian—which the author of the article they cite, Michael McConnell, is not, although he is a distinguished constitutional law professor and a former federal judge. And, ironically, McConnell based his analysis on the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which should be anathema to Scalia.

 

Similarly, the book’s defense of the Heller decision fails to mention that most professional historians reject the historical analysis in Scalia’s opinion. Reading Law quotes approvingly Joseph Story’s analysis of preambles—“the preamble of a statute is a key to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statute”—but fails to apply the analysis to the preamble of the Second Amendment, which reads: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.”

 

The preamble implies that the Second Amendment (which creates a right “to keep and bear arms”) is not about personal self-defense, but about forbidding the federal government to disarm state militias. Contra Story, Justice Scalia treated the preamble dismissively in his opinion in Heller.

 

OMITTING CONTRARY evidence turns out to be Scalia and Garner’s favorite rhetorical device. Repeatedly they cite cases (both state and federal) as exemplars either of textual originalism or of a disreputable rejection of it, while ignoring critical passages that show the judges neither ignoring text nor tethered to textual originalism. Thus they applaud White City Shopping Center, LP v. PR Restaurants, LLC, a decision that held that the word “sandwiches” in a lease did not include burritos, tacos, or quesadillas, because Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “sandwich” as “two thin pieces of bread, usually buttered, with a thin layer (as of meat, cheese, or savory mixture) spread between them.” Scalia and Garner stop there, as if that dictionary reference were the court’s entire decision, thus confirming the use of the dictionary as a guide to the meaning of legal documents. But the court had not stopped with the dictionary.

 

(Snipped)

A sandwich does not have to have two slices of bread; it can have more than two (a club sandwich) and it can have just one (an open-faced sandwich). The slices of bread do not have to be thin, and the layer between them does not have to be thin either. The slices do not have to be slices of bread: a hamburger is regarded as a sandwich, and also a hot dog—and some people regard tacos and burritos as sandwiches, and a quesadilla is even more sandwich-like. Dictionaries are mazes in which judges are soon lost. A dictionary-centered textualism is hopeless.

 

(Snipped) A problem that undermines their entire approach is the authors’ lack of a consistent commitment to textual originalism. They endorse fifty-seven “canons of construction,” or interpretive principles, and in their variety and frequent ambiguity these “canons” provide them with all the room needed to generate the outcome that favors Justice Scalia’s strongly felt views on such matters as abortion, homosexuality, illegal immigration, states’ rights, the death penalty, and guns.

 

(snipped)

They assert that what they call “fair reading” requires “an ability to comprehend the purpose of the text, which is a vital part of its context,” and though they add that “the purpose is to be gathered only from the text itself, consistently with the other aspects of its context,” they also say that “a sign at the entrance to a butcher shop reading ‘No dogs or other animals’ does not mean that only canines, or only four-legged animals, or only domestic animals are excluded.” That is certainly right, but it is not right by virtue of anything textual. It is right by virtue of the principle that meaning includes what “would come into the reasonable person’s mind,” or what we know an author has “in mind” in writing something. On such grounds (which surprisingly the authors embrace as well) a sign that says “No dogs, cats, and other animals allowed” must be read to include totally unrelated animals (contrary to the principle of eiusdem generis—the “canon,” which they also approve, that a last general term in a series is assumed to be of the same type as the earlier, specific terms) because “no one would think that only domestic pets were excluded, and that farm animals or wild animals were welcome.” Right again! But right because textualism is wrong. Similarly, although a human being is an animal, a sign forbidding animals in a restaurant should not be interpreted to ban humans from the restaurant. It is the purpose of the sign, not anything in the sign, that tells you what meaning to attach to the word “animals” among its possible meanings.

 

(Snipped) (Notice how common law floats in and out of their analysis, unpredictably.)

 

(Snipped)

Scalia and Garner defend the canon of construction that counsels judges to avoid interpreting a statute in a way that will render it unconstitutional, declaring that this canon is good “judicial policy.” Judicial policy is the antithesis of textual originalism. They note that “many established principles of interpretation are less plausibly based on a reasonable assessment of meaning than on grounds of policy adopted by the courts”—and they applaud those principles, too. They approve the principle that statutes dealing with the same subject should “if possible be interpreted harmoniously,” a principle they deem “based upon a realistic assessment of what the legislature ought to have meant,” which in turn derives from the “sound principles…that the body of the law should make sense, and…that it is the responsibility of the courts, within the permissible meanings of the text, to make it so” (emphasis added). In other words, judges should be realistic, should impose right reason on legislators, should in short clean up after the legislators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Jeff, you get mighty pissy when I point out how you appear to be joined at the hip with the NRA, its legislation, and its vocabulary. You want to claim you are distinct from the NRA, Okay then, just summarize for us your differences with them. Are you afraid of the NRA or concerned with your PA rep or something? Because this is my fourth request, and the second in this thread, for you to show us the separation, if any.

 

 

 

Jocal.... search is your friend. I have numerous posts here that answers your question. And I think I even recently linked a few of my post for you to peruse regarding the NRA in response to one of your requests. I'm not going to hold your hand on this nor am I going to spend the time if you don't even bother to read what I write. There are numerous, numerous instances where I have supported expanded background checks, been open to discussion on registration, been in favor of studies on gun use and violence and been critical of the NRA's tactics. Its really not that hard to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J is open to discussions on background checks and registration but when it threatens his precious, he shuts them down and changes topics or calls you names. So he really isn't open to discussions that are uncomfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for banning the term "assault rifle/weapon" on the grounds that it is vague and inflammatory. I would stipulate that a semi-automatic weapon is any gun that uses gas pressure to load another bullet in the chamber to be fired with another pull of the trigger.

 

Good luck with that. We've tried that here for years and the libruls are a scairt of evil black guns. Makes their legs all a-tingly, and not in a good way. I think the bayonet lugs in particular are what send them over the edge. The thought that you could shoot AND stab someone at the same time must just make their brains melt.

 

The last thorny issue is the definition of the wording in the 2nd amendment. People on both sides of the argument believe their definition of the phrase "A well regulated militia" is the correct one. Until both sides agree to an acceptable reading of the 2nd amendment, the argument will continue to go in circles. It would be also nice to keep the argument focused, impersonal and rational but the given this is Sailing Anarchy I am no too confident that is possible. However if people here can start by defining exactly what they are arguing about by agreeing on the definition of terms, well after that anything is possible.

 

As Tom said, that is settled law. The comma between "free state" and "the right of the people" is perhaps the most important comma in the entire document.

 

But don't take MY word (or Tom's word or the Supreme Court's word for it)..... see what the actual guys who wrote the fracking Constitution said about the subject. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

 

Seems THEY pretty clearly thought it was an individual right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally figured it out----JokeAwf is actually Sarah Brady's secret lover---and CraigyPoos' instituionalilized crazy-ass dad. Makes perfect sense once you connect the unicorn dots...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally figured it out----JokeAwf is actually Sarah Brady's secret lover---and CraigyPoos' instituionalilized crazy-ass dad. Makes perfect sense once you connect the unicorn dots...

Do you now understand why we can't take gun nuts seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have presented the work of the finest learned minds, who have studied the problem and it's outcome for thirty years. Webster, Hemenway, Wintemute, Diaz, Kellerman (whose figures met favorable peer acceptance after being re-worked, Tom ), others, and the yeoman work of S.F.'s Violence Policy Center. The work of these men drew few comments among gun thread regulars, stirred little thought. But the components for any combination of solutions may have already been presented in full text on these boards.

 

 

 

I'm curious jocal..... what do all these learned minds say is the solution to the gun problem? Can you summarize their recommendations into a brief and concise statement? Maybe even a paragraph of 500 words or less..... in your own words please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I'm not a gun nut, I couldn't give a shit about what or who you 'progressive' trolling pussys take seriously. .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally figured it out----JokeAwf is actually Sarah Brady's secret lover---and CraigyPoos' instituionalilized crazy-ass dad. Makes perfect sense once you connect the unicorn dots...

 

Sadly jocal is more credible than specious ed. As misguided as he may be, Jocal is actually looking for answers. Specious ed is just trolling.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have presented the work of the finest learned minds, who have studied the problem and it's outcome for thirty years. Webster, Hemenway, Wintemute, Diaz, Kellerman (whose figures met favorable peer acceptance after being re-worked, Tom ), others, and the yeoman work of S.F.'s Violence Policy Center. The work of these men drew few comments among gun thread regulars, stirred little thought. But the components for any combination of solutions may have already been presented in full text on these boards.

 

 

 

I'm curious jocal..... what do all these learned minds say is the solution to the gun problem? Can you summarize their recommendations into a brief and concise statement? Maybe even a paragraph of 500 words or less..... in your own words please.

Please don't call him jocal, you might get a warning point. Like I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph Calhoun any better?....

How many warning points to you have? I have one. From K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Joseph Calhoun any better?....

How many warning points to you have? I have one. From K.
You were obviously stoned out of your gourd this morning when he posted his entire real name.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... Kellerman (whose figures met favorable peer acceptance after being re-worked, Tom )...

 

 

 

Whatever the preamble may mean, can we all agree that all 9 Supreme Court justices agreed that the second amendment protects an individual right that can be enforced by individuals? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" seems pretty clear and straightforward. It does bring up the question: which people? There are various prohibited people beyond the mentally ill, whoever they are. Felons and children, for example.

Hi, SoakEd.

 

Whoops, I find a a disingenuous Tom statement here, bolded above. The actual Heller decision tally was 5-4, not 9-0.

 

Kellerman did finally get a right answer to the question he asked, but as I have pointed out, the question he asked deliberately excludes most defensive gun uses, so drawing conclusions about defensive gun use from them is, well, disingenuous.

 

My statement above was not. Justice Breyer, joined by Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens said this:

 

In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.

 

Justice Stevens, joined by Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg, said this:

 

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

 

Do I really need to quote from the majority, or can we all agree that all 9 Supreme Court justices agreed that the second amendment protects an individual right that can be enforced by individuals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, now you're just being mean.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, now you're just being mean.....

 

 

Nah, it would be mean to transplant a reply to the actual Heller thread. I haven't been that mean.

 

Yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

What did "regulated" mean to those who wrote the document? That is key to uderstanding what it says and what it doesn't say.

I think it meant that communities would form militias who would muster at armories to protect the free state.

This was preferable to having a standing army.

I'm not aware of any past definition of the word "regulated" that means all of that. While that theory fits something, somewhere, it fails to answer my specific question.

 

What did "regulated" mean to those who wrote the document? Did it mean, "trained and equipped?" Did it mean "properly sighted in?" Did it in 1767 mean, "legislated and controlled by the state"?

 

What did the term mean back then?

 

 

I don't see a need to categorize firearms in any more detail than just a weapon that fires a projectile with an explosive charge.

Regulate them all. It complies with the 2nd amendment as written.

The key to understanding a long-standing law is to understand and agree upon what was being said, in the parlance of the time (as opposed to conforming to a present-day matter of convenience).

 

If, after defining what was said in past-day parlance, it is found the provision is out-dated or no longer serves the public good, you can argue to legally abolish or superceed it with another. THAT is what makes the Big C a "living document", not the dishonest re-defining of words to fit a particular mindset.

 

How was "regulated" being used by the authors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What did "regulated" mean to those who wrote the document? That is key to uderstanding what it says and what it doesn't say.

I think it meant that communities would form militias who would muster at armories to protect the free state.

This was preferable to having a standing army.

I'm not aware of any past definition of the word "regulated" that means all of that. While that answer fits something, somewhere, it fails to answer the question.

 

What did "regulated" mean to those who wrote the document? Did it mean, "trained and equipped?" Did it mean "properly sighted in?" Did it in 1767 mean, "legislated and controlled by the state"?

 

What did the term mean back then?

 

It meant people who needed a right to bear arms and were approved for it by the government could pick up government-owned guns from armories, of course. Or something.

 

 

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out "that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom," and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: "Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty."

In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character, and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.

"The American Colonies In The 17th Century," Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England --

In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [p180] cooperate in the work of defence.

The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.

A year later [1632] it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony [Massachusetts].

Also,

Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a "good fixed musket," not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784, provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should "contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, . . ." Also,

That every noncommissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm,

etc.

By an Act passed April 4, 1786, the New York Legislature directed:

That every able-bodied Male Person, being [p181] a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are hereinafter excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. . . . That every Citizen so enrolled and notified shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . .

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785, (12 Hening's Statutes) declared,

The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia, and directed that "All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years," with certain exceptions, "shall be inrolled or formed into companies." "There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months."

Also that

Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: . . . every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good [p182] powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges, and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I do get it. I'd like Ed to tell is what he thinks the authors meant by their carefully-chosen language, words, and sentence structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I do get it. I'd like Ed to tell is what he thinks the authors meant by their carefully-chosen language, words, and sentence structure.

Why? You won't agree with it. Let's just savor the words they agreed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

... Kellerman (whose figures met favorable peer acceptance after being re-worked, Tom )...

 

 

 

Whatever the preamble may mean, can we all agree that all 9 Supreme Court justices agreed that the second amendment protects an individual right that can be enforced by individuals? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" seems pretty clear and straightforward. It does bring up the question: which people? There are various prohibited people beyond the mentally ill, whoever they are. Felons and children, for example.

Hi, SoakEd.

 

Whoops, I find a a disingenuous Tom statement here, bolded above. The actual Heller decision tally was 5-4, not 9-0.

 

Kellerman did finally get a right answer to the question he asked, but as I have pointed out, the question he asked deliberately excludes most defensive gun uses, so drawing conclusions about defensive gun use from them is, well, disingenuous.

 

My statement above was not. Justice Breyer, joined by Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens said this:

 

>>In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.

 

Justice Stevens, joined by Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg, said this:

 

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

 

Do I really need to quote from the majority, or can we all agree that all 9 Supreme Court justices agreed that the second amendment protects an individual right that can be enforced by individuals?

 

 

Gotcha Tom, and thanks.

I am already on record as supporting you, and the nine justices, as far as this bit goes.

 

My problem begins with where your elk immediately take this.

Castle Doctrine = Shoot First. It becomes a short leap to...

Stand Your Ground = Shoot Anywhere.

 

It's not the guns, it's the guys bearing them including the SA Gun Club, which is the problem.

And here's an example for ya...

 

 

 

 

 

 

ModernSportingRifle_zps928fe049.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh, I do get it. I'd like Ed to tell is what he thinks the authors meant by their carefully-chosen language, words, and sentence structure.

Why? You won't agree with it. Let's just savor the words they agreed to.

 

 

Translation: You haven't the intellectual honesty to say what the authors of the Constitution meant by the term "regulated" back in the day when they wrote it. As a matter of fact, we can't "savor" the words they agreed to, without agreeing to the meaning that they agreed to at the time.

 

Anyone with any sort of backbone would answer the question without worring if the other guy will agree with it or not. Further translation: You know your argument doesn't hold water if the original language is adhered to in it's proper context of the day.

 

 

Chicken shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

Venison tenderloin is awesome! Brown quickly in a very hot fry pan, then put in 400 degree oven with onions and red wine for no more than 10 minutes!!

 

That sounds good. Here is my wife's recipe for dinner last night.

 

seco de venison or Venison in cilantro sauce

 

Ingredients :

 

2.4 lb (1 k) venison stew meat , cut into pieces

1/3 cup vegetable oil

1 cup onion finely chopped

½ cup blended garlic

 

1 cup cilantro leaves, blended with very little water

¾ cup beer (beef stock or dry white wine may be used instead)

1 cup green peas

1.2 lb ( ½ k) potatoes (yellow potatoes if possible) cooked, peeled and halved

Salt

Pepper

Ground cumin

 

Preparation:

 

Heat oil in a skillet or a medium size saucepan and brown meat pieces. Remove meat and reserve.

Add onion to the same skillet and cook until tender.

Add blended garlic and ground cumin and mix well. Return meat to saucepan and season to taste.

Add beer or wine and the blended cilantro leaves, stir and cover saucepan.

 

Cook over low heat until meat is tender. Stir in green peas and cooked potatoes.

Serve with white cooked rice.

 

6 servings

 

Some of the best venison I've ever had was cooked with butter in a frypan on a stove next to a reservoir. Tenderloin. Love it. Need to hunt for the kids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites