Comments on: Found it on Facebook: Analogizing guns and cars

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:13:35 +0000

Democrats often tout international coverage as reasons why we should emulate such things. But they were never particularly interested in Europe or women’s rights in Afghanistan. It just served as a unique backdrop for their own domestic power grabs in the US.

When we consider different cultures and how they make things work, we actually use independent thinking and not cult like dogma, which is very significant in the process methodology.

Australis and other gun control prohibitionists wish us to emulate them, because they, the UK, and China have such a great restraint on violence. You “only get to be stabbed” they say.

Somehow, I’m not particularly convinced that we should follow their way or the US government’s way. We have our own personal Way, which is not what other people want us to do specifically. The Swiss has been neutral partially because it’s hard to take them over, and they don’t go out of their way to force other people to emulate them in word or deed. They just serve a banking service and purpose, which is useful to everyone.

That’s not how the UN and the US Democrats rule, though.

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:54:21 +0000

Re JKB #7 and Wolf #9,

It’s useful to every so often take another look at this excellent video concerning the Swiss. It’s only about 3 minutes in length and well worth the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g

By: Wolf Howling

Wolf Howling — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:56:27 +0000

The 2nd Amendment didn’t create a right ti keep and bear arms, it is, per Heller, a right that pre-existed the Constitution. The Constitution merely told the government to keep their hands off. That being the case, I look forward to much more litigation in the future, assuming the make up of the court doesnt change in the next four years. I can’t see an assault weapons ban passing muster (pun intended), nor, for that matter, “may issue” concealed carry permit laws. True, the Court in Heller said it would respect some regulation, but if the ability to “keep and bear arms” is a right that resides in the individual, not the state, than any attempt to place a burden on the individual like states put on car ownership and driving should easily be held unconstitutional.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 05:04:29 +0000

Have the kiddies be trained by actual competent groups, namely private organizations like Front sight.

They’ll get the job done. The government knows how to do this because it’s how national defense is handled. They just won’t do it, because they know how effective it would be.

By: JKB

JKB — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 00:01:38 +0000

Well, I wasn’t considering the “Well-regulated militia” so much as gun safety. We have a right to keep and bear arms. An argument can be made that people should be familiar with gun safety even though they have the right to firearms. So, it makes sense to train all children and immigrants in gun safety. Not to qualify in marksmanship or anything but just to have the familiarity and training. It wouldn’t be constitutional to impose a passing requirement judged by a government employee or their surrogate but only provide the instruction in a non-graded format. The same way we teach children how to stay out of the street and how to safely cross. They don’t have to pass a government test to be a pedestrian.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:21:10 +0000

Mike is correct in the long term concerning Leftist strategy and tactics. But it would solve the immediate problem. Solving the immediate problem, will, at least in the short term, remove the demagogue’s weapon from the Leftist propaganda initiatives.

But it’s far better to destroy the Left’s power base than worry about political policies. But if you don’t want to or can’t touch the Left’s power base, then being on the attack and forcing the Left to defend and adapt to us, is far better than reacting to Leftist propaganda and political attacks about the US Constitution cloaked in the form of public demagoguery.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:14:59 +0000

Only if they were swimming pools for rich Democrats perhaps. The point of all this is to simply convince the American people that guns are bad, thus leading to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment should either be gotten rid or merely ignored. They will mostly go with ignore in practical reality, since getting rid of Amendments actually requires some kind of legitimate voting… where the price to buy those votes are worth more than 5 million per head in Chicago districts so are thus not economical to do often. It’s easy to fake up votes in Chicago districts… not so easy to fake up votes in Congress, where you actually have to bribe or blackmail each vote and everyone else knows about it.

When the voters are convinced, they are convinced to accept the fake election results more readily. Not necessarily due to the Left wanting to convince people so that they can vote to Amend the Constitution, but more of a way to prime the pump for the real operations (Like Fast and Furious).

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:36:19 +0000

I don’t know, a well-regulated militia (requirement to demonstrate proficiency) is a double-edged sword that could be used to REMOVE guns from hands of the citizenry. All they’d have to do is continually tighten the requirements. Suppose you had to assemble your weapon, load the magazine, chamber a round, and then run one mile with it in under eight minutes, then, from a kneeling position, and fire ten rounds and lethally hit, at a range of 80 to 100 yards, four out of five non-essential government employee paper silhouette targets?

Then the following year, it would be at a range of 100 to 120 yards. The following year, the ten-round magazine would be replaced by eight. And if that didn’t work, the silhouettes would be replaced by those of essential government employees, which everyone knows are a much more difficult target.

By: cerumendoc

cerumendoc — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:43:03 +0000

To add to JKB’s comments; this is what ‘well regulated’ actually meant to the Founding Fathers. The term well regulated meant to be well practiced and well drilled. It could literally mean that the state require firearm proficiency. It could also mean that the state could require a citizen arm himself and dictate the minimum criteria of to what sort of armament that would be.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:02:05 +0000

Ramirez could have added swimming pools.
I think we should ban assault swimming pools along with assault hammers and assault fists.