Second Amendment

Talk about anything and everything.

Moderators: wallace044, rtn393, Irv, cru77jones

Re: Second Amendment

Postby cragganmor » February 24, 2016, 6:53 pm

the gop believes strongly in market forces. if you want clean water, you pay for it. if you want clean air, you pay for it. if you want to be safe (or feel that way), you pay for it. everything is a product and without monetization, nothing has value. that is the world that they want.

their answer to guns are more guns. it's like saying the answer to arson is the unfettered right to burn the arsonist's house down, makes no sense. how does that fit in with the preamble to the constitution " in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility.."?

the 2nd amendment is not a trump card that beats all of the other rights; it must exist with balance and harmony with the entire bill of rights. but you can't tell that to the nra or any of their wingnuts. to them, the gun is the freedom that enables all of the other rights. last time i checked syria, mogadishu et al. are pretty freakin' bad on their human rights. that's where we are headed under the neo-faschists.
User avatar
cragganmor
 
Joined: December 7, 2003, 8:35 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Second Amendment

Postby dcapodic » February 25, 2016, 10:33 am

cragganmor wrote:the gop believes strongly in market forces. if you want clean water, you pay for it. if you want clean air, you pay for it. if you want to be safe (or feel that way), you pay for it. everything is a product and without monetization, nothing has value. that is the world that they want.

their answer to guns are more guns. it's like saying the answer to arson is the unfettered right to burn the arsonist's house down, makes no sense. how does that fit in with the preamble to the constitution " in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility.."?

the 2nd amendment is not a trump card that beats all of the other rights; it must exist with balance and harmony with the entire bill of rights. but you can't tell that to the nra or any of their wingnuts. to them, the gun is the freedom that enables all of the other rights. last time i checked syria, mogadishu et al. are pretty freakin' bad on their human rights. that's where we are headed under the neo-faschists.


The difficult thing is to step away from the hyperbole and deal with reality. Let me express it this way, if you look grandly at the political nature of our citizenry, perhaps we are 1 percent ultra right conservative, 1 percent ultra left liberal/progressive and the other 98 percent of us fall somewhere in between. However, we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and attention dealing with and fighting off the beliefs of these extremists on both sides.

It is probably time to stop feeling as though we need to pander to the "neofacists" and whatever you would like to call the extreme left, "neomarxists" perhaps?!?

So much name calling, so many memes and so little progress. We need to find a way to break away from the media, social and otherwise, and deal with real issues not ones being thrown out there to muddy up the waters. Of course, this calls for the middle 98 percent of us to spend some time, effort and generally give a crap to what is happening to us, or maybe better out, realize what is happening to us by not caring.

Common sense gun laws, these are in place in a lot f places and seem not to help a whole hell of a lot. Take off the sheets neomarxists and get to the core, you want to take guns away. If they just said that it could be dealt with openly and in a general forum. It is what most liberal/progressives REALLY want, just admit it so it can be dealt with. By shielding this and going under the guise of, well we just want to make common sense changes it just gives the NRA the power and support it needs to keep fighting off the things that actually do make sense.

Take off the gloves and have it out. If they did, they would find there is a lot of support for no guns at all out there. At least it would be open and honest and not all of this hidden agenda crap that seems to want to prevail today. Make people take a stand and choose their side of the discussion.

Don't be so afraid of losing the debate that you cloud the issues to the point where nothing gets done. Get it all out in the open and let it happen. That will earn respect and followers not this hidden agenda stuff that is about as hidden as the 2 year old that puts their hands over their eyes when playing peek-a-boo and thinks no one can see them.

Go for the brass ring and if you lose, the compromise would probably be the common sense changes that you say are all you want anyway.
- Thanasis Antetokounmpo spelled backwards is Opmnuokotetna (which is Swahili for Hand Sanitizer). Mr. Glass, circa 2014
User avatar
dcapodic
 
Joined: February 4, 2007, 10:38 pm

Re: Second Amendment

Postby cragganmor » February 25, 2016, 10:16 pm

taking guns away? only the folks who believe in black helicopters truly buy into that..

umberto eco once wrote a pretty good check list of what is fascist, not name calling but naming what it is http://tinyurl.com/h36nc7h :
- strength: facists love big displays of power, a fetish for weapons, tough talk
- anti-intellectualism: a rejection of serious thinking or introspection, as if it is a form of emasculation or degeneration
- eternal war: there is always a threat to be physically conquered, a justification for violence
- conspiracy: any form of dissent is treason, serious threats emanate from outsiders or foreigners, always a secret plot in motion, often an international one
- reactionary: modernity is something to be rejected as alien; enlightenment is seen as depravity
- humiliation: there is some shame inflicted on society, another justification to lash out at ones enemies

sound familiar? the supposed u.n. plot to take away guns and enslave the world, america is weak/let's make america great again, the war on immigrants, rejection of equal rights, the adoration of guns in this country, just about anything out of donald trump's mouth qualifies. eco had the definition of fascism down pretty good, so it's a carefully assembled term, not sloppy thinking at all.

nice to call someone a marxist but are there any true marxist states left in the world? that's really outdated vocabulary. just about all of the former communist states are now pretty much dictatorships. the most pure communist state is probably north korea and absolutely nobody wants to emulate them. what most people want is common sense gun reform; make sure that people have protection for their homes but not enough to wage a war or launch a killing spree, make sure that guns are used responsibly. are the bundys acting responsibly in nevada and oregon? what about sandy hook? those acts are indefensible, unless you are the nra.

no hidden agenda, i am airing the facts. people have a right to walk down the street without getting shot. do you think it is acceptable to have innocent people shot, is that a measure of a fair and just society? since 9/11 well under 4,000 americans died from terrorism but in the same time span we lost over 400,000 to gun violence. i think we all agree that terrorism is horrible, but gun violence results in over 100X more fatalities, so who is exaggerating? the facts are the facts. should we accept this much loss of life and liberty to have unfettered and unregulated observance of the 2nd amendment? you would need 80 madison square gardens to fit all of those dead...
User avatar
cragganmor
 
Joined: December 7, 2003, 8:35 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Second Amendment

Postby dcapodic » February 26, 2016, 7:58 am

I don't have a lot of time this morn so let me just jot down a few thoughts off the top of my head....first off Umberto Eco is a fiction writer who went on to spout a lot of his thoughts as a philosopher. With respect, his thoughts are just that, his thoughts. How are they all of a sudden a bible for the definition of a facist?!? the article you quote is one person of whom I did not check the background, attempting to delve into the true and updated meanings of another person's opinions. Certianly you may consider these things as an information source but as gospel....to be honest, I found this article one step short of a "crazed rant".

Secondly, i just used the term neomarxist to try and find the opposite term for neofacist. I certainly did not call anyone that with the possible exception of the 1 percent extreme left that I referred to so unless someone falls into that group they should not be too concerned with that reference. I actually have no ideological prejudices toward any particular party as I have always felt that the best answers lay someone in between the extremists that tend to dominate the descriptions of these parties. Let me use Bernie Sanders as an example....people like to refer to him as a democratic Socialist. Why this term?You can go to websites that will give you the jargon but realistically, in the US we have a 2 party dominant system and if you truly want to be taken seriously, you have to align to one of these parties. However, Sanders has no issue with being labelled a Socialist and although I do not agree with many of his proposals, I REALLY respect the fact that he is not hiding who he is.

It was pretty obvious who that article was referring to but I chose not to address that because it takes away from the true topic of the thread, the second amendment and the current move surrounding it. All I can say is that I am very close to one of the cores of the current anti-gun lobby. If you have followed my posts over the years, you wold probably know why. These are strong, decent people and I feel their pain as much as an outsider can. Not a day goes by that I do not relive a portion of it and I am not the kind of person to say that lightly. As to the facts, you mention some. They are statistical in nature and could be taken at face value or picked apart as many have done. You probably realize, as many don't that a great deal of those gun deaths that you mention are gang related, "street" shootings. but does that fact really matter? I am not one to judge that and only mention it as an example of how statistical evidence can be used, again a fact that seems obvious but is not to many. Another fact....of all of the shootings that do get the high publicity, which are the minority numbers of those you quote, the "mass killings", which ones would "common sense gun laws" have prevented. Certainly not the one that was close to me and the one that drives a lot of my friends and neighbors. These things are for the most part done with legally purchased guns, even by the requested "new" standards and would not have been effected. Yet, these are the ones that are used as examples of why we need changes.

Fact, many states have adopted the new laws already. In fact, Chicago as a city has the new common sense gun laws and also the highest rate of gun deaths. California has tougher restrictions than even the new laws suggest yet there was just the San Bernadino shooting. I could go on but I ONLY mention this stuff as it is the evidence used by the anti-gun lobby, including our POTUS as to why we need tougher restrictions.

Understand now what I am saying. I am absolutely, 100 percent behind the new "common sense gun law" changes. Let's put them in tomorrow. But i am also not a fool to be led around by the nose and think that wow, if we do that it will be all rainbows and unicorns. Not much will change. I do buy into and hope that if it saves 1 life, then it is worth it. But the very statistics that are used by the anti-gun folks are the ones that tell me that not much will change.

....and yes, I do believe that in their heart of hearts most strong anti-gun advocates want to repeal or someone undermine the second amendment to have private gun ownership taken away. But, to be frank, in your last post it is you that went off the deep end proposing "plots" and secret plans. Perhaps it was led by my not being specific enough when I referred to hidden agendas. I was not referring to any kind of fiction book material stuff but a simple fear that anti-gun people have and that many of them truly just want to do away with guns altogether. Anything past that is just rambling by the extreme 1 percenters on both sides.

Like Bernie, let the anti-gun folks go after what they truly want so the REAL debate can be had and let the chips fall where they may. Not all of this political garbage and misleading statistics, false memes, etc.

As to your fear of Trump, I won't touch that. But, you do realize that Trump is just a moderate democrat, who like Bernie Sanders realizes he needs to identify with one of the two predominant parties to be accepted, knew their was weakness in the republican party and being a smart man took his chances there and is just making that pay off, right?!? Look at his real beliefs and his history, not the planned tactics of his rants and you will find a democrat, albeit a moderate one, in conservative clothing.
- Thanasis Antetokounmpo spelled backwards is Opmnuokotetna (which is Swahili for Hand Sanitizer). Mr. Glass, circa 2014
User avatar
dcapodic
 
Joined: February 4, 2007, 10:38 pm

Re: Second Amendment

Postby cragganmor » February 27, 2016, 11:14 am

eco was a well-respected novelist, philosopher and linguist. he pretty much nailed all of the characteristics of a fascism and they do apply quite well to the conservative movement here and around the world. the reason why i bring him up is that the current environment of gun rights in this country is a vital cog to the rise of fascism - the erosion of democracy, and isn't that what the function of the constitution, as the legal document that defines democracy?

the problem as i have stated before is that there is so much focus on the 2nd amendment in isolation, gun rights advocates lose sight of the real goal - a better democracy where people live in liberty AND safety. 400K gun deaths since 9/11 is not safety.

i think you give short shrift to reform. there was once a time where car fatalities were just accepted as a fact of life, but between product lawsuits, MADD and political change, they are a fraction of what they were in the 60's. the nra and most gun advocates vehemently fight against any of that. separate the product from the liberty itself; even scalia, the arch conservative wrote opinion of dc vs. heller, regulation was not an infringement on liberty.
User avatar
cragganmor
 
Joined: December 7, 2003, 8:35 pm
Location: New York City

Previous

Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests