(99) comments Back to story

Steve Fouga

"Confiscating guns isn't the answer"

Agreed. Thankfully, that's the one idea I haven't heard mentioned in response to the Las Vegas shooting.

Carlos Ponce

I have, also hinted at by Democratic Leaders as the "slippery slope" they wish would happen.

Steve Fouga

Maybe on the fringes, or maybe locally in strongly liberal communities. No national Democratic leader wishing to be re-elected would seriously advocate gun confiscation. Political suicide.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [ I have, also hinted at by Democratic Leaders as the "slippery slope" they wish would happen.]

Do you have a link to that allegation Carlos?

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky must have news sources that don't want you to know. Tell you what, web search Nancy Pelosi saying “So what? They're going to say, you give them bump stock, it's going to be a slippery slope. I certainly hope so." Don't expect to find it on Leftist web sites though. They want to keep their viewers ignorant.

Emile Pope

Interesting how ponce always tries to get others to prove his point. If he had proof he would present it instead of telling others to search for it...

Carlos Ponce

Emile, I could provide all the websites, proof but to what avail? If they discover the information on their own it means a lot more to them. It's a teaching technique or don't you remember the teach making such assignments. Spoon feeding Liberals is not effective. Point them in the right direction and that is more effective.

Emile Pope

Garbage. If you could provide the proof you would. Either you don't have any or your "sources" are simply ultra right wing blogs with no proof other than their opinion. It's not our job to prove your wrong positions...

Carlos Ponce

Emile, it's a teaching technique. If your teachers did not do that in your classroom that certainly explains a lot about your lack of knowledge.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [ Don't expect to find it on Leftist web sites though. They want to keep their viewers ignorant.]

In other words don't expect to find your spurious claim on any reputable news site.That should be a clue for you Carlos. It means you are about to be duped.

Carlos Ponce

Little marky, SHE SAID IT! "They’re going to say, 'You give them bump stock, it's going to be a slippery slope.' I certainly hope so," she told a reporter at a news conference.The Liberal Media likes to keep their readers, viewers ignorant. Looks like it's working.
Watch this:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/06/nancy-pelosi-hopes-ban-bump-stocks-slippery-slope-more-gun-control
That's Nancy Pelosi on the screen, not an actress

Emile Pope

It's called not having proof. It's called running your mouth but saying nothing. It's called garbage. Making a statement and trying to get others to try and prove your statement. And that is not a teaching technique. If you used this "technique" on students then they were seriously shortchanged. You send people to search for proof of their statements, not proof of yours. It's just being lazy...

Carlos Ponce

Emile, I figured Little Marky was too lazy to look it up so I provided it. Looks like someone else IS LAZY!

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [ Little marky, SHE SAID IT! "They’re going to say, 'You give them bump stock, it's going to be a slippery slope.' I certainly hope so," she told a reporter at a news conference.The Liberal Media likes to keep their readers, viewers ignorant. Looks like it's working.]

So the answer came out exactly as I predicted. You didn't find the quote on a reputable source. You had to go to Fox News to find anyone who thought the story newsworthy. Rep. Pelosi makes an obvious point, we need more regulation than just bump stocks. A better question is who supporting bump stocks. Do you support bump stocks Carlos?

Carlos Ponce

So Little Marky doesn't find Nancy Pelosi "reputable". Funny!!!!!!!!!
And you why the Lib news won't cover it. They like to keep their readers, viewers IGNORANT. You're the poster child of their indoctrination. FOX NEWS just carried her news conference. But that's Nancy Pelosi saying she wants the legislation to be a slippery slope.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [So Little Marky doesn't find Nancy Pelosi "reputable". ]

I don't find you or Fox News to be reputable sources of news.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [Emile, I figured Little Marky was too lazy to look it up so I provided it. Looks like someone else IS LAZY!]

So you are saying we shouldn't bother to source our claims because you will look it up on your own? Otherwise you, Carlos, would be lazy?

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: "I don't find you or Fox News to be reputable sources of news."
Just look at the news conference and ignore what the FOX commentators are saying. That is still Nancy Pelosi and those are still her own words.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: "So you are saying we shouldn't bother to source our claims"
Look them up all you want. Source them. I'm just tired of those who discredit a legitimate news source because of prejudice.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [Just look at the news conference and ignore what the FOX commentators are saying. That is still Nancy Pelosi and those are still her own words.]

Those commenters are what fooled you into believing a simple statement was more than it actually was. They played you Carlos. Are you an easy mark for salesmen too Carlos?

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [I'm just tired of those who discredit a legitimate news source because of prejudice.]

If your source was a credible news source it wouldn't be trying to sucker you into believing a humorous statement by one of their frequent targets held some dark existential meaning. Favoring sensible gun control is not the goblin the NRA and Fox have enticed you into believing Carlos.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: "Those commenters are what fooled you into believing a simple statement was more than it actually was."
If you ignore the FOX commentary, my post still stands. I get it now, you're the 4th monkey, the one who posts no evil about Liberals.

Paula Flinn

Liberals & Progressive Dems have guns, too, Carlos. My husband had about 10 of them. There are many gun "collectors" for many different reasons. No one wants to confiscate your guns. That is more scare tactic Hogwash put out by the NRA.

Carlos Ponce

Paula, talk wit your Democratic leadership.

Craig Lindberg


“No one wants to confiscate your guns. That is more scare tactic Hogwash put out by the NRA.”

Paula, for that to be a true statement, you have to define “guns” to mean all guns. There has certainly been more than one prominent politician to suggest the confiscation of “assault rifles” and semi-auto rifles.

For example, Dianne Feinstein on assault rifles: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."

Citing Australia as a “good example,” Hillary Clinton said she thinks [confiscation] of semi-auto guns is “worth considering on a national level.” Of course, she dishonestly referred to the Australia program as a “buyback” which while technically true also WAS NOT OPTIONAL, so it was in fact a de facto confiscation. Clinton also failed to note in her comments that Australia doesn’t have an equivalent of our Second Amendment.

Confiscating “assault rifles” vs. confiscating all guns is a distinction without a difference. It’s not a lack of desire to confiscate all guns that is preventing Democrats from talking about it let alone attempting to do so. It’s the political death they know they would face if they did. One needs only to look to the gun laws in Democrat controlled cities and states to see the desired end game. It’s the height of naivety to believe Democrats would stop with “assault rifles” if the politics would allow them to go farther.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [ Paula, talk wit your Democratic leadership. ]

Do you have a credible link asserting that Democratic Leaders want to confiscate your guns, Carlos? I don't think you do.

Carlos Ponce

Look it up, Iittle marky. I give you the person who said it, Nancy Pelosi and what she said. It will mean more to you if you look it up. Don't be lazy.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [ Look it up, Iittle marky. I give you the person who said it, Nancy Pelosi and what she said. It will mean more to you if you look it up. Don't be lazy. ]

So the truth is NO, you do not have a source making the claim you cited. This is an absurdity you are reading into comments that said nothing of the sort. The only people who would try to extrapolate that from her comments is a radical partisan of the NRA variety. Why do you do this to yourself Carlos?

Mark Aaron

Craig: [There has certainly been more than one prominent politician to suggest the confiscation of “assault rifles” and semi-auto rifles.For example, Dianne Feinstein on assault rifles: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."]

Do you have a link to that quote Craig?

Even assuming your claim to be true, what is so damning about wanting to get assault style weapons off the street permanently? No one who isn't fighting a war needs them. That doesn't mean the government is coming for your Grandpa's 30.06 or your son's 22.

==> "Citing Australia as a “good example,” Hillary Clinton said she thinks [confiscation] of semi-auto guns is “worth considering on a national level.”"

Australia doesn't have mass shootings anymore. They had the good sense to remove high-capacity rapid-fire firearms from the general public. It was a public safety issue. Since it has remained in effect for decades and has worked well it is reasonable to assume Australians are happy with the law. Americans by a large majority already support gun control. America would be a fool not to put the issue on the table.

==> [ Clinton also failed to note in her comments that Australia doesn’t have an equivalent of our Second Amendment. ]

A ban and buyback of high-capacity rapid-fire firearms can easily pass Scalia's 2nd Amendment test in Heller v. D.C.

==> [Confiscating “assault rifles” vs. confiscating all guns is a distinction without a difference.]

Then you aren't paying attention. High-capacity rapid-fire v. Traditional.

==> [It’s not a lack of desire to confiscate all guns that is preventing Democrats from talking about it let alone attempting to do so.]

No one wants to confiscate all guns. That is just a silly strawman.

[ It’s the political death they know they would face if they did. One needs only to look to the gun laws in Democrat controlled cities and states to see the desired end game. ]

Kick that strawman's kiester.

==> [It’s the height of naivety to believe Democrats would stop with “assault rifles” if the politics would allow them to go farther.]

They manufacture high-capacity rapid-fire pistols. You don't need them either.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: “Do you have a link to that quote Craig?”

==> Is it really so hard to highlight the words and search? Here I’ll help you out anyway. You can watch the words coming straight out of her mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

Mark writes: “No one who isn't fighting a war needs them.” and “They manufacture high-capacity rapid-fire pistols. You don't need them either.”

==> Who do you think you are to tell another law-abiding citizen what rights the need and don’t need? Maybe we need less free speech too? Do we need video games and movies that glorify gun violence? How about less religion? Do we need Islam? Maybe less protests? Maybe CK didn’t really need to protest? Who made you the arbiter of need. If need comes into play, it isn’t a right. It’s a privilege. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for something to be a right.

Mark writes: “A ban and buyback of high-capacity rapid-fire firearms can easily pass Scalia's 2nd Amendment test in Heller v. D.C.”

==> Do you have a link for that Mark?

Mark writes: “Then you aren't paying attention. High-capacity rapid-fire v. Traditional. “ and “No one wants to confiscate all guns. That is just a silly strawman.”

==> Of course you pulled the first quote out of context and not only is the second not a strawman, saying that no one wants to confiscate all guns is just a bald faced lie. https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them?utm_content=buffer41236&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

You like to call people delusional, well you are delusional if you don’t believe that there are MANY on the left that want to ban all guns regardless of what they say publicly.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: “Americans by a large majority already support gun control.”

==> So, if you’re ready for the tyranny of the majority to start wiping out rights and privileges, where are you going to draw the line? Earlier today, I saw a recent poll that found 62% of Americans believe speaking English should be a factor in deciding who is allowed to immigrate to the US. You ready to sign up for everything a majority of Americans support? http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015d-c4ac-dd39-a75d-cfbfbc3e0002 49% say the protesting players are doing the wrong thing to express their political opinion when they kneel during the National Anthem. If that crosses 50% should we put an end to it by law? http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/politics/national-anthem-nfl-cnn-poll/index.html

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Who do you think you are to tell another law-abiding citizen what rights the need and don’t need?]

Are you saying you don't believe citizens have a right to voice an opinion now Craig?

==> [ Maybe we need less free speech too?]

According to Carlos that is true. I don't agree.

==> [ Maybe less protests?]

Again, talk to Carlos.

==> Do you have a link for that Mark?

It hasn't been tested yet, but a reading of Scalia's finding says to me that a ban on high-capacity rapid-fire weapons is permissible:

" Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

==> [saying that no one wants to confiscate all guns is just a bald faced lie]

Just because you find one fringe writer who says that doesn't mean anything. Show me a few known politicians unequivocally saying that and we can talk. Otherwise it is just sophistry, a strawman.

==> [ You like to call people delusional, well you are delusional if you don’t believe that there are MANY on the left that want to ban all guns regardless of what they say publicly. ]

Are you channeling Madame Cleo now Craig? You can read minds?

Carlos Ponce

I wonder which monkey Little Marky represents?
The one who sees no evil about Liberals,
The one who hears no evil about Liberals, or the one who
speaks no evil about Liberals.
Could be all of the above.

Craig Lindberg

Craig: [ Who do you think you are to tell another law-abiding citizen what rights the need and don’t need?]

To which Predictable Dishonest Mark writes: Are you saying you don't believe citizens have a right to voice an opinion now Craig?

You know good and well I didn’t say anything of the sort but as always you chose to misrepresent what other people write when you can’t challenge the content. I didn’t in any way question your right to have an opinion. I questioned the content of your opinion. That’s called debate.

You wrote: “No one who isn't fighting a war needs them.” and “They manufacture high-capacity rapid-fire pistols. You don't need them either.”

I simply asked who you think you are to be the one who gets to decide what rights people need and don’t need. Who is anyone to decide that? That’s why they are called rights and not privileges. I also correctly pointed out that you would wet you panties if someone suggested that they had a right to decide how much free speech, protest, or religion you needed which of course you also tried to misrepresent.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: "According to Carlos that is true. I don't agree."
Little Marky, you are lying about what I actually posted. Hiding behind an avatar that proclaims "FACTS" doesn't make it so.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [ I wonder which monkey Little Marky represents? ]

What grade did you say you taught Carlos, 5th?

Craig Lindberg

Craig: [saying that no one wants to confiscate all guns is just a bald faced lie]

Predictable Mark: [Just because you find one fringe writer who says that doesn't mean anything. Show me a few known politicians unequivocally saying that and we can talk. Otherwise it is just sophistry, a strawman.]

Mark, “no one” means no one. Just one person wanting to ban all guns disproves the claim. I was right in what I wrote; it’s that simple. I’m sorry you have trouble with the math 1>0. As for there being others wanting to ban guns, common sense says it’s a virtual certainty. Are you really claiming that groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence wouldn’t advocate banning all guns if it could be done legally and at no political cost to them? Are you really claiming that pushing for gun laws hasn’t come at the cost of numerous Democratic seats in congress?

Here is a May 2017 quote from Politico that would be prophetic of the Democrat’s post Las Vegas reaction if not so blindingly obvious: “The progressive hope in Thursday’s special election to represent Montana’s at-large House district can be seen in an ad caressing a gun he lovingly calls “this old rifle.” In another spot, Democratic nominee Rob Quist pulls a shiny bullet from his barn coat pocket, locks and loads, and fires at a TV airing a spot questioning his Second Amendment bona fides. “I’ll protect your right to bear arms,” Quist pledges, “because it’s my right, too.”

None of this is subtle, but Quist’s break with the Democratic Party platform hasn’t produced a peep from the activist left; the gun issue wasn’t even raised before MoveOn.org decided to endorse him. Are progressives knowingly practicing hard-headed electoral pragmatism? Or, as is more likely, are they ducking a divisive and frustrating issue for as long as possible, until another horrific mass shooting produces a fresh wave of outrage?”

They go on to say: “Democrats have been squeamish about gun control ever since they felt the backlash to President Bill Clinton’s enactment of a ban on assault weapons and “Brady Law” background checks, which shouldered some blame for the Democratic loss of Congress in 1994.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/24/democrats-guns-rob-quist-215186

Are you also claiming that what people “want” is always perfectly in line with what they “say?” Since you want to limit the discussion to “known politicians,” you are now implicitly claiming that politicians never lie and that they always tell us exactly what they want – particularly when what they want could cost them their political power? Because no Democrat is openly calling for an outright gun ban there must not be any that want it? Is that really what you’re really saying???

Mark Aaron

Craig: [I didn’t in any way question your right to have an opinion. I questioned the content of your opinion. That’s called debate. . . . I simply asked who you think you are to be the one who gets to decide what rights people need and don’t need. Who is anyone to decide that? ]

We the people get to decide, equally.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [So, if you’re ready for the tyranny of the majority to start wiping out rights and privileges, where are you going to draw the line? ~~ If that crosses 50% should we put an end to it by law?]

That's not the way it works. We elect what we hope are sensible representatives and they hopefully decide what is in the best interests of the people.There are occasional hiccups, but the system can and does generally work well. The legislature should draw the line where they believe the line needs to be to insure domestic tranquility and the general welfare of the people.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky, I taught 5 to 12th graders. You remind me of a remedial 5th grader.

Craig Lindberg

Predictable Uninformed Mark writes: [We the people get to decide, equally.]

No, actually we don’t. That’s why they are called rights and not privileges. You would embarrass yourself a lot less if you would learn the difference. Let’s frame the problem with your mistaken belief in a context you will understand. Instead of 2A rights, let’s talk about 1A rights to free speech and protest. Both individual rights under the Constitution. Nothing in the constitution suggests that one is more important than the other. Are you really saying that if a majority of people want to place limits on the right to free speech and protest that you would be OK with that? Heck you wet you panties whenever someone pointed out that CK had no right vis-à-vis his employer to protest at work, now you’re saying that if a majority of people think such a protest should be against the law, that’s how it should work? How about religion? If a majority want to ban Islam, that’s OK? Because this is exactly what you’re saying can be done if the whim of the majority can limit the individual rights under the 2A.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: [That's not the way it works.]

If you know that, why do you keep pretending like it is?

Mark Aaron

Craig: [Just one person wanting to ban all guns disproves the claim. I was right in what I wrote; it’s that simple.]

So you wanted to use sophistry to deceive. Thanks for the clarification.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [ Little Marky, I taught 5 to 12th graders. You remind me of a remedial 5th grader.]

So ridicule and name calling were common tactics you used on those children?

Mark Aaron

Craig: [Heck you wet you panties whenever someone pointed out that CK had no right vis-à-vis his employer to protest at work, now you’re saying that if a majority of people think such a protest should be against the law, that’s how it should work?]

You are confused. Carlos is the one that thinks protesting against Israel should be against the law.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: " So ridicule and name calling were common tactics you used on those children?" No, little Marky.You started with the ridicule and name xcalling. I just responded in kind. You can dish it out but YOU SURE CAN'T TAKE IT.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: "Carlos is the one that thinks protesting against Israel should be against the law."
No, Little Marky, that is not what I posted nor what the LAW says. You can protest ALL YOU WANT. But then the LAW says the company cannot enter into a contract with the state entity.

Craig Lindberg

Mark - the undisputed heavyweight sophistry champion of the world - accuses me of sophistry for demolishing his patently asinine claim with direct and indisputable evidence.

Now that's funny!

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [ Little Marky posts: " So ridicule and name calling were common tactics you used on those children?" No, little Marky.You started with the ridicule and name xcalling. I just responded in kind. You can dish it out but YOU SURE CAN'T TAKE IT.]

To be fair you fired the first shot when you questioned my military service on my first post here. However you are right and I apologize for how far I took it. I have made a concerted effort to dial it back and I hope you will do the same.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [ You can protest ALL YOU WANT. But then the LAW says the company cannot enter into a contract with the state entity.]

And you were okay with the state refusing to help hurricane victims if the victims protested against Israel.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Mark - the undisputed heavyweight sophistry champion of the world - accuses me of sophistry for demolishing his patently asinine claim with direct and indisputable evidence. ]

Your claim was deceitful, Craig. No one of consequence has called for the complete banning of all firearms. Claims can be literally true, but still deceitful. Here you lie by omission.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: "To be fair you fired the first shot when you questioned my military service on my first post here. However you are right and I apologize for how far I took it. I have made a concerted effort to dial it back and I hope you will do the same."
Look at the original posts. All I asked you to do was verify your "war veteran" status since there are many "war veterans" in this country who fought in the uniform of a different country. But I did thank you for your service. If you were hyper-sensitive to that question you need to clarify by saying you are an "AMERICAN war veteran" or a US war veteran" in the future.
But to be honest, look at your remarks PRIOR to that post. "fired the first shot" ????? - No. Your posts were mean spirited prior to that. Check your initial posts.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky, all ask is for people to OBEY THE LAW as written. ACLU is trying to remove an anti-hate law. Based on your previous posts one would think you'd be all for anti-hate laws. BDS is hate.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [Look at the original posts. All I asked you to do was verify your "war veteran" status since there are many "war veterans" in this country who fought in the uniform of a different country. But I did thank you for your service. If you were hyper-sensitive to that question you need to clarify by saying you are an "AMERICAN war veteran" or a US war veteran" in the future.]

I wasn't the only one who took it as an insult, another poster also noted it. You know what you did.

==> [But to be honest, look at your remarks PRIOR to that post. "fired the first shot" ????? - No. Your posts were mean spirited prior to that. Check your initial posts.]

Check the dates and times. That was my first post ever on GCDN.

Do we really need to keep arguing about this Carlos? I'm making a good faith effort. Can't you do the same?

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: "That was my first post ever on GCDN." Not really. Look up the topics under "statues".

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [Little Marky, all ask is for people to OBEY THE LAW as written. ACLU is trying to remove an anti-hate law. Based on your previous posts one would think you'd be all for anti-hate laws. BDS is hate.]

I don't know that BDS is hate, Carlos. What direct evidence do you have?

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [Little Marky posts: "That was my first post ever on GCDN." Not really. Look up the topics under "statues". ]

Okay Carlos, I take your word for it. You have my apology again.

Craig Lindberg

Our very own Predictable Mark has now endorsed the idea...

Mark Aaron

Paula: " No one wants to confiscate your guns."
Carlos: "Paula, talk wit your Democratic leadership."
Craig: [ Our very own Predictable Mark has now endorsed the idea...]

I'm not a Democratic leader.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: "I'm not a Democratic leader."
But you DO remind us of Nancy Pelosi!

Craig Lindberg

I know it hard to tell with the what this forum posts responses to comments, by my reply was to Steve Fouga's original comment and is of course correct..

Mark Aaron

PJ: [ it would be difficult to keep a rifle or shotgun on a bedside table.]

So stand it up in the corner or buy a cheap rack.

PD Hyatt

Where people keep guns and why is not really any of your concern nor do we need a liberals advice on where to keep them handy in our home.... The sign at my house lets people know that I do not call 911 first.... They will be called after the fact!

Mark Aaron

Paul: [ The sign at my house lets people know that I do not call 911 first.... They will be called after the fact! ]

So even if the police could do a far safer job your first choice is to attempt to kill anyone you think might be dangerous around you? Have you been trained to qualify targets?

Craig Lindberg

Mark, when you figure out how to get the police to your house fast enough to stop a crime in progress, please let us know. As for qualifying targets, if someone is in your house at night, they have pre-qualified themselves.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: "your first choice is to attempt to kill anyone you think might be dangerous around you".
Apparently Little Marky never heard of Castle defense of habitation rules. It's the LAW.
http://www.castle-law-in-texas.com/castle_law_in_texas.html

Mark Aaron

Craig: [Mark, when you figure out how to get the police to your house fast enough to stop a crime in progress, please let us know.]

Dial 911, when the operator answers ask for the police.

==> [ As for qualifying targets, if someone is in your house at night, they have pre-qualified themselves.]

Children live at homes, and sometimes come in at unexpected hours, unannounced. Sometimes they even sneak in late.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [ Apparently Little Marky never heard of Castle defense of habitation rules. It's the LAW. ]

Are you looking forward to killing someone Carlos? Think it might be fun?

Craig Lindberg

Carlos: [ Apparently Little Marky never heard of Castle defense of habitation rules. It's the LAW. ]

Predictable Mark: [Are you looking forward to killing someone Carlos? Think it might be fun?]

Mark you do know that anyone with any common sense sees a sophomoric response like this as the functional equivalent of you admitting defeat, right?

Carlos Ponce

[thumbup]Craig[thumbup]
I don't want to kill but when it comes down to protecting me and mine I will do what I must. Only an idiot will say killing someone is "fun". But look at who first posted that nonsense.[rolleyes]

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [Only an idiot will say killing someone is "fun". But look at who first posted that nonsense. ]

Better yet, look at who wants it as a first response.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky, you're the only one who thinks it would be fun.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: [Dial 911, when the operator answers ask for the police] [Better yet, look at who wants it as a first response.]

==> Come on. This is all a joke right? You don’t believe this stuff – you’re just trying to stir things up. Nobody could be this naïve – or dumb for that matter.

Bad guy breaks into your house. You call 911. I’m sure it will make you feel better knowing that the police are on their way as the bag guy rapes and murders your wife. Heck maybe the will still be there standing over your dead bodies when the police arrive not that your corpse will care.

If someone comes in your house in the middle of the night with a gun, why would you assume anything except the worst? Why would you give that person any opportunity to harm you or your family if you could end that possibility right then and there? Or maybe in your liberal fantasy world, you think that person has a right to be in your house in the middle of the night with a gun? Or that you have an obligation to try to find a solution that doesn’t involve the possibility of killing the bad guy?

Mark Aaron

Craig: [If someone comes in your house in the middle of the night with a gun, why would you assume anything except the worst?]

How many times has that happened to you?

Craig Lindberg

A comment to the effect that ‘someone only needs a gun during hunting season’ is as arrogant as it is short sighted. Not only does the commenter think they have the right to dictate to others when, where, and by what means others have a right to defend themselves, they are oblivious to the irony of using the protections of the 1A to demand stripping protections safeguarded by the 2A.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Not only does the commenter think they have the right to dictate to others when, where, and by what means others have a right to defend themselves]

It's right there in the Preamble to the Constitution: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare" ...a.k.a. Public safety. It trumps your inconvenience.

Craig Lindberg

Good old Predictable Mark - always there to put his ignorance of the Constitution on full display. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the general welfare clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3][4]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause

Quite the contrary to Mark's absurd claim that his FEAR trumps everyone else's RIGHTS, the founders added the 2A precisely to protect the virtues set forth in the preamble.

If you ever needed to know anything about Mark, he puts it on full display in this comment when he describes RIGHTS that he doesn't agree with as an "inconvenience."

It's hypocrisy of the highest order. I've said it once and I'll say it again, if liberals read the 2A the same way they read the 1A, they would be forced to conclude that EVERYONE IS REQUIRED TO OWN A GUN.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Quite the contrary to Mark's absurd claim that his FEAR trumps everyone else's RIGHTS, the founders added the 2A precisely to protect the virtues set forth in the preamble.]

The 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to pacify slave owning states who didn't want their slave-chasing posses disarmed by Northern abolitionists.

Your interpretation of the 2nd came into fashion in the 1980's when the NRA deceptively used it to turn itself into a powerful far right political machine.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: "The 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to pacify slave owning states who didn't want their slave-chasing posses disarmed by Northern abolitionists.

Your interpretation of the 2nd came into fashion in the 1980's when the NRA deceptively used it to turn itself into a powerful far right political machine."

==> Like I’ve said before and you have proven once again, you are the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever come across. I also don’t think I’ve ever met a person with a bigger gap between what they think they know and what they actually know.

Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii

Mark Aaron

Craig: [Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. ]

I really didn't find anything to disagree with in the article you cited. The problem is with your biased/conned view of what they are saying. That begins with your definition of terms. To bear arms is to serve in the militia or military. An individual can not "bear arms" by himself.

If you care to learn please read this thoughtful amicus brief. For a quick overview start at page 11.

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_290_PetitionerAmCu3LinguisticsEnglishProfsnew.authcheckdam.pdf

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: [I really didn't find anything to disagree with in the article you cited.]

==> So you admit you were being disingenuous when your wrote: “ The 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to pacify slave owning states who didn't want their slave-chasing posses disarmed by Northern abolitionists.” Clearly what you are now saying you agree to has absolutely zero in common with your pervious BS claim.

Mark writes: [The problem is with your biased/conned view of what they are saying. That begins with your definition of terms. To bear arms is to serve in the militia or military. An individual can not "bear arms" by himself.]

Craig Lindberg

==> An individual cannot "bear arms" by himself? Maybe a leftist English professor can can tie himself up in linguistic knots and convince himself of that, but it doesn’t pass any test of common sense nor did the Supreme Court agree, so I’m not sure what you think you are proving with the disregarded brief?

The Constitution gives the federal government near total control over the military. I can’t wait to hear your explanation why the founders would think they needed an amendment to create a collective right to arm the military?

And why is the 2A the only place in the Constitution where is discusses regulation without precisely specifying what is being regulated and who is doing the regulation? The only answer that makes sense is that “regulated” has a different meaning in the 2A.

And why would they put it in the #2 spot of a list of otherwise all individual rights? Do you really think they were that sloppy and haphazard?

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: [If you care to learn please read this thoughtful amicus brief. For a quick overview]

==> If I care to learn something? Yes, let’s listen to Mark on the meaning of the language of the 2A. Mark, the guy who has proven over and over to be completely ignorant with respect to the Constitution and our rights. That makes sense /sarc.

The brief may be interesting reading but it was rejected by the SC who decided exactly the opposite of their conclusion. What is it you want me to learn? I’m already well aware of the flawed reasoning in that brief. You talk about biased thinking – that brief is a classic example of biased thinking. It has more holes and omissions than swiss cheese – many of which I’ve already pointed out in these pages.

Learn something? I learned weeks ago that you don’t know squat about the Constitution or the differences between a right and a privilege.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Clearly what you are now saying you agree to has absolutely zero in common with your pervious BS claim.]

Where does it differ in your opinion.

==> An individual cannot "bear arms" by himself? Maybe a leftist English professor can can tie himself up in linguistic knots and convince himself of that, but it doesn’t pass any test of common sense nor did the Supreme Court agree

From Aymette v State (1840)

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.

==> [ I can’t wait to hear your explanation why the founders would think they needed an amendment to create a collective right to arm the military?]

More specifically, the militia. I have already explained this to you. "The 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to pacify slave owning states who didn't want their slave-chasing posses disarmed by Northern abolitionists."

==> [ And why is the 2A the only place in the Constitution where is discusses regulation without precisely specifying what is being regulated and who is doing the regulation?]

See: Terms of Art. That is why you sometimes need professional help to decipher documents.

Craig Lindberg

Mark, you continue to outdo yourself when it comes to pathetically weak and disingenuous attempts to defend your wholly wrong positions. So now you want me to agree with you rather than the Supreme Court based on a Tennessee case citing the Kentucky constitution? You do know that the people who wrote the Tennessee and Kentucky constitutions are not the same people who wrote the US Constitution, right? You also know the use of the language is different, right?

The US Constitution does not say: ” "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law."

When the court wrote Here we know that the phrase has a military sense,” “Here” refers to the Tennessee constitution and only the Tennessee constitution. Clearly the context of the sentence is VERY different from the context of the 2A. So what if it’s used in the military sense there. That in no way implies it always has to be used in the military sense, and there is no compelling evidence I know of that suggests that it is used in the military sense in the US Constitution. Quite the contrary, as I demonstrated elsewhere in this thread, such an interpretation makes no sense whatsoever. The constitution gives the federal government near complete control over the military. There simply would be no need for the founders to give soldiers the right to keep and bear arms. Military personnel generally can’t carry arms on base. If your interpretation is correct, wouldn’t that be directly unconstitutional?

In the face of direct evidence to the contrary, you continue to make the ludicrous claim that the 2A is related to slavery (you do love your race cards don’t you). BTW – where is your link from a credible source? Why does that requirement only apply to things you disagree with?

As for terms of art, I’m, well aware of the concept. I even have a couple patents. I’ve also provided you with multiple sources from folks like George Washington in other comment threads which document the actual common meaning and use of “regulated” at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. You and the other gun grabbers can continue to pretend that at the time the Constitution was written the meaning was the same as is common today, and maybe it will even make you feel better, but you will continue to lose in court because you are wrong.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Clearly the context of the sentence is VERY different from the context of the 2A. So what if it’s used in the military sense there. That in no way implies it always has to be used in the military sense, and there is no compelling evidence I know of that suggests that it is used in the military sense in the US Constitution.]

_In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158._

United States v. Miller (1939)

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ The constitution gives the federal government near complete control over the military. There simply would be no need for the founders to give soldiers the right to keep and bear arms. Military personnel generally can’t carry arms on base. If your interpretation is correct, wouldn’t that be directly unconstitutional? ]

_The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States._

United States v. Cruikshank (1874)

Craig Lindberg

Mark, you simply don't have the knowledge to engage in Constitutional discussion; your citations are not on point.

PD Hyatt

I find it amazing that so many are so blind to the truth. Even the lame stream media that they love so much has stated what Mr. Ponce has said. The truth is out there IF people want to see it, but so many have been blinded to the truth and that they do not want to know it either....

Mark Aaron

Paul: [ The truth is out there IF people want to see it, but so many have been blinded to the truth and that they do not want to know it either....]

Is it possible this could also apply to you Paul?

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky, Paul bases his posts on actual facts and history. On the other hand, you have an avatar reading "FACTS" but all you post is Liberal revisionism. So sad you actually believe them to be "FACTS".[sad]

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [Little Marky, Paul bases his posts on actual facts and history. On the other hand, you have an avatar reading "FACTS" but all you post is Liberal revisionism. So sad you actually believe them to be "FACTS".]

What news sources would you define as objective Carlos?

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: " What news sources would you define as objective Carlos?"
Definitely NOT CNN, NYT, WAPO, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [ Little Marky posts: " What news sources would you define as objective Carlos?" Definitely NOT CNN, NYT, WAPO, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.]

Fine, who then?

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky, you wouldn't like the ones I choose. You get confused between the content of the 700 Club and CBN News. EWTN also presents news. Secular news sources you disdain include FOX which doesn't follow the Liberal mantra of obfuscation and distortion of the news. Politico and Huffington are mostly useless although occasionally an article of truth appears.

Steve Fouga

"Secular news sources you disdain include FOX which doesn't follow the Liberal mantra of obfuscation and distortion of the news."

FOX is far beyond obfuscation and distortion; they're a straight-up propaganda outlet, like Sputnik or RT. [wink]

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [Little Marky, you wouldn't like the ones I choose.]

The fact that you are so often hoodwinked by sensationalized and shallow accusations/excuses that I have long suspected that you are relying on sources with a hard right basis.

==> [You get confused between the content of the 700 Club and CBN News. EWTN also presents news. Secular news sources you disdain include FOX which doesn't follow the Liberal mantra of obfuscation and distortion of the news].

EWTN wasn't near as bad as I expected. Pretty good, actually. But CBN and Fox are stinkpots. Any news from them is tainted with hyper-partisanship.

==> [Politico and Huffington are mostly useless although occasionally an article of truth appears.]

Politico is a decent source, a lot like The Hill. Both are middle-of-the-road objective sources. Huffington Posts leans left, but they do quality journalism. Real Clear Politics is their center left equivalent.

Carlos Ponce

Politico is mostly tabloid Leftist journalism. Treat each article with care knowing this. "Hoodwinked" and "duped" is a PERFECT description for Little Marky Aaron if you consider it legit. It keeps its readers IGNORANT and clueless.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [Politico is mostly tabloid Leftist journalism.]

Politico is pretty centrist, it just seems left coming from that odious CBN you use. Try Real Clear Politics. It has your rightwing red-meat, but it is reasonably journalistic. CBN are hate mongers, You can do better.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.