dagblog - Comments for "At Least Two Gunmen Involved in Shooting in DC Naval Yard--Still Going On"

Licensing of the use of

artappraiser — Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:54:00 +0000

Licensing of the use of something dangerous is not "infringement." Locking people up for saying crazy stuff (like some people think you yourself do on the internet,) or acting crazy, before they do anything illegal, now that would be "infringement."

Many states have enacted solutions:

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-t...

but they do not work because it is not the same in all states. And because people can and do make straw purchases in some states for illegal resale which cannot be tracked.

It was your proposal, you

moat — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:07:44 +0000

In reply to It was your

It was your proposal, you tell me.

It was your

Resistance — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:27:08 +0000

In reply to The reference to badges was

It was your mischaracterization, What is your solution on how to restrain maniacs or those wishing to do others harm? Chirp (cricket sounds). Besides attempting to infringe upon those who haven't violated any laws.

The reference to badges was

moat — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:18:12 +0000

In reply to I have no disagreement with

The reference to badges was not a proposal I was putting forward. It was a characterization of your proposal to round up and constrain the mentally ill as a method to make gun ownership less of a problem for society. Calling that characterization of your proposal lame means you accept the absurdity of it on some level. These people don't wear badges.

The contradiction your proposal embraces doesn't concern whether you think good government is possible or not. It concerns having an authority that you have often expressed a readiness to take up arms against should it violate your freedom carry out a policy of restricting the freedom of "maniacs."

You promote a Libertarianism interrupted by hot flashes of Fascism.

This was in response to

rmrd0000 — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:19:06 +0000

In reply to You can only address so much

This was in response to arguments resistance has made on another issue aid to the poor.

You can only address so much

rmrd0000 — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:59:58 +0000

In reply to you have only got to half of

You can only address so much at one time

On the issue of poverty, here is the word from God

~~Matthew 25:31-46~~

~~New International Version (NIV)~~

~~The Sheep and the Goats~~

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

~~40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’~~

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

~~44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’~~

~~45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’~~

~~46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.~~

The more conservative Paul said

He who does not work, neither shall he eat

(from II Thessalonians 3:10).

So God says treat the poor with compassion. Treat prisoners with compassion. Treat the sick with compassion.

The phrase from Paul was a favorite of Karl Marx and is now the phrase championed by the Tea Party and the wingnuts,. It is an abomination. The Republicans want the poor and sick to hurry up and die. The prophet Ezekiel noted that Sodom was destroyed because it treated the poor harshly. Ezekiel did not mention homosexuality as the cause for Sodom's destruction.

the poor and in need deserve better from those who consider ourselves Christians.i

you have only got to half of

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:01:16 +0000

In reply to Hadiya Pendleton would still

you have only got to half of the lunacy of his arguments. Upthread @ 6:36 he says Remove the suicidal maniacs from your midst, treat them if you can and if they do not respond, lock them up like the wild animals they act like. Wild bears are a threat in some communities, either they are relocated or put down,

So basically it's an argument that we should lock up people in order to keep gun purchases from being registered. If they guns were licensed and registered across the country, they could be restricted from all those dangerous people. But he'd rather the government lock lots of people up according to the government's judgment of their mental health, in order to keep gun ownership secret from the government.

Now let's ask Mr. Patrick Henry ("give me liberty or give me death") which do you prefer? Being refused a gun license. or being locked up for an indetermined period by the government in an institution for some things you said and did in public that some people thought were crazy?

You gotta let go of such

artappraiser — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:00:28 +0000

In reply to Sorry I jumped in AA.

You gotta let go of such things (on the internet that is) getting your temper up personally, mho. Also of taking them personally. If that's what's happening, that's when you should stop and let your previous statements stand for themselves. But if you're simply still trying to learn something about a commenter's beliefs and how they think or or getting some other kind of knowledge out of it, there's no valid reason to stop if you don't want to. If it's just a continuous repeat of something argued before, there is no reason for a constant rehash (though even those I scroll over rather than vigorously object to, and I'd advise others that this one I've been having with Resistance, they might want to do that because it's a lot of same old same old. ) And always keep in mind that if it appears hurtful or mean to you, it will appear hurtful and mean to others, res ipsa loquitor.

I recommend the feint of

artappraiser — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:50:23 +0000

In reply to It was not a slur on bag

I recommend the feint of heart stay home...
by Resistance 9/23/2013 - 6:36 pm

Re: Violence is not abating

Where people have guns.

Where they don't, it's like this:

Overall, the city's murder rate this year is down 23%, reaching levels last seen in 1960.

It's really that simple, no matter how you try to rationalize your gun giving you power over "them," you are just contributing to the problem. You are adding to endangerment of your own family's health rather than protecting it. Guns for hunting and other sports, ok. Guns for protection are not ok, as they equal rising violence and crime, crimes of passion and temper, get to be an easy way of solving arguments with violence. No plotting necessary, just shoot when you're scared or angry. Soon enough everybody's shot dead.

I started out this sub-thread by making fun of your suggestion that individual people try and shoot gangs of terrorists in a shopping mall. That's really just so hilarious. It just took the Kenyan army 4 days to put those guys down. Anyone trying it by their lonesome would have been long dead. You clearly and many times on this site have shown yourself to have a ridiculous, laughable belief about how a gun can protect you rather than what one most often does-get people in trouble if not dead. It's almost like you think you could have shot the 9/11 planes out of the sky.

It's amazing how you can't see how ridiculously irrational and contradictory your arguments about this look to others and how you often get cognitive dissonancet o any facts regarding it all

I can only advise that if you really truly care about protecting gun ownership, you'll shut up about it on the internet and let Wayne Pierre do the work. You only hurt your case.

Hadiya Pendleton would still

rmrd0000 — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:49:09 +0000

In reply to It was not a slur on bag

Hadiya Pendleton would still have died if she were armed. Her friends would have died if they attempted to draw weapons and return fire against someone who already had guns drawn rather than run.

The four children who died in Birmingham 50 years ago would have still died if they were armed because guns would not have protected them against a bomb. We read stories daily for people who shoot other people because weapons are left out in the open exposed to children.

Most people are more afraid of being mowed down by nuts like George Zimmerman than feel the need to be armed to protect themselves from a crime.if you are that afraid, build a shelter that will be submerged in the next flood in your area.Arm yourself with multiple weapons and risk shooting a neighbor or relative knocking on the door in the early hours of the morning.

Prepare for your imaginary Armageddon. The rest of us are planning to live our lives in reality.