Obama speaks on changes to US gun laws

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

Argentine president Juan Domingo Peron, famous for being a fan both of Stalin and Mussolini. Proudly defended labor rights, proudly advocated against most civil liberties. A flip-flopper like no other, started conservative, then became a liberal, then became a socialist, then a conservative again.

Where I differ, besides hating labor (as a profession, not laborers); is that I'm an advocate of civil liberties to the extreme, I just hate idiots taking charge of their nation.

You should google minarchism it is the ultimate goverment for those seeking freedom

[G-Tech Corporation]

Google is your friend.

Just use Safe Search when you look up Evita.

There's...of her? Seriously?

I don't know whether to say that's disturbing or what.

I wouldn't know personally, but she was attractive, and famous.

Damnable Rule 34 argues for caution when conducting an image search.

It does make me a touch sad though.

[Liriena]

Where I differ, besides hating labor (as a profession, not laborers); is that I'm an advocate of civil liberties to the extreme, I just hate idiots taking charge of their nation.

You should google minarchism it is the ultimate goverment for those seeking freedom

If I were seeking the ultimate freedom, I'd be an anarchist. But that would require a great leap of faith from me, in terms of my faith in humanity.

[Amerikians]

Where I differ, besides hating labor (as a profession, not laborers); is that I'm an advocate of civil liberties to the extreme, I just hate idiots taking charge of their nation.

You should google minarchism it is the ultimate goverment for those seeking freedom

Bah, Enlightened Despotism.

[Ovisterra]

Where I differ, besides hating labor (as a profession, not laborers); is that I'm an advocate of civil liberties to the extreme, I just hate idiots taking charge of their nation.

You should google minarchism it is the ultimate goverment for those seeking freedom

Last time I checked, "freedom" is not a synonym for "worldwide clusterfuck".

[Free South Califas]

Alekera, it also says "well-regulated militia", which obviously means that sufficient regulations were supposed to be used, and that "infringed" means "entirely denied".

Regulated meant equipped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... ode=phrase
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulate?s=t

And that's not even going into SCOTUS precedent or anything like that. Got a source for your interpretation? ETA: Or do you refer to the sense of "regulated" that roughly means "uniformly equipped"? Are you suggesting a Swiss model, where every fit male and interested/fit female is given exactly one of the same kind of rifle, it's provided by the government, and you don't get to keep ammunition at home? Cause you're starting to sound like a real Communist if that's the case.

"Well regulated militia" means "Every American gun-owner who is ready and willing to fight for American principles".

Source?

Alekera, it also says "well-regulated militia", which obviously means that sufficient regulations were supposed to be used, and that "infringed" means "entirely denied".

Not according to my dictionary

It say either
1. Actively break the terms of (law, agreement,etc.)
or
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

It says "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Note: it didn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You didn't follow my original post. I meant that the definition of "infringed" is made absolutely clear by context. The only justification given for any right to have guns is that "a well regulated militia" is necessary for security. At this point, I've studied enough linguistics to know that you're just pulling things out of your ass, so I won't bother to respond to you further until you bring me some sources. One unsourced dictionary does not cut it; dictionaries are useful tools to sate curiosity, but are not made to stand on their own without any other evidence. Nor are dictionaries equivalent to legal rulings, studies in semantics, grammars, etc., all of which would be quite a bit more useful for proving your extraordinary claim.

I'll give you a hint: What you would be disproving at this point is that there is any connection between the first and second clause. Of course, that would violate Grice's Maxims, since it would render the first clause irrelevant, but hey, go ahead and try, I guess.

You do, however, need it when you're a Korean L.A. storeowner and hundreds of crazed looters are descending upon your property while eying your ethnicity with a not-too-happy look.

Hundreds of crazed looters?

Funny, I've never seen this poster take an interest in police brutality before.

It's the mental health care that needs improvement.

Indeed, quite a lot of it. As well as how we as a culture treat the mentally ill. Making them feared pariahs for something that isn't their fault only worsens the situation.

Especially considering that most mentally ill and developmentally disabled people are actually far more likely to be the victims of violent crime, and the people we actually need to be looking at are people with certain specific mental illnesses as well as potentially violent personality disorders (which may or may not be comorbid with mental illness per se).

That the NRA and some Democrats think that we should start an unprecedented database of people with mental health conditions, and that this would somehow increase freedom, is really troubling. However, I doubt HIPAA will be repealed or overturned soon, so a hale and hearty "Fuck you, go back under the medieval rock you scurried out from, you bigoted little shit" goes out to every supporter of such a plan who is not a NationStates user.

What about people who would go broke, because they don't have a business anymore and losing their jobs.

Certainly an interesting angle to the debate. One I'd never considered before.

But to be honest, the economy can survive without guns, and the loss of life is too great to not act upon.

Resistance to economic change, for the sake of the economic status quo as a good in an of itself, is never a functional argument against social change. The same arguments were made about slavery, feraynssakes. As the anarchist cossack Nestor Makhno said to the Bolshevik "revolutionary committees" he dissolved after capturing Ekaterinoslav and Alexandrovsk, "Take up some honest trade."

That being said, I personally support the right to own, maintain and distribute a variety of hunting weapons. Makhno's advice to the Bolsheviks applies well to those who make the other guns, IMHO.

If the people who are needed to do maintenance don't show up for work?

The bombers will collect cobwebs.

Big talk for a guy who has probably already lost his house, neighborhood, foliage, family and/or life to the bombing run. Sorry, but you're delusional if you think that the massive, internationalized, elite professionalized command hierarchy of today's US Armed Forces can be thwarted in all of its attempts to launch strategic bombing campaigns in any part of the world by force. No, the way this kind of thing is resolved in revolutions is by distributing egalitarian literature that asks the military personnel to refuse combat duty and unify with the resistance. You're talking about a wildcat strike in the Air Force.

Wildcat strikes are not achieved at the point of a gun barrel, but at the intersection of libertarian and socialist revolutionary politics. You don't strike me as the kind of cat who'd be very useful to the resistance in such a scenario, nor do I see you anywhere else in NSG advocating a peaceful, pluralistic and democratic revolutionary society that does not allow itself to use such force against its own people, nor offering any kind of solidarity with the people who are actually oppressed right now; and I can assure you that the effects of shitty or nonexistent healthcare coverage, the raw punch-in-the-gut feeling of hunger and food insecurity, the budget crunch caused by prioritizing corporations over human needs, are far more real to those people now being oppressed than your Orwellian fantasy will be in any realistic scenario one could envision in this country.

The way you stop such a domestic bombing campaign is through anti-aircraft guns or peaceful revolution. Anti-aircraft guns are not exactly a realistic proposal, so put up or shut up.

People are still rioting over the Rodney King beating? It's been 20 years, how the hell are they still able to keep going? Why hasn't everyone just abandoned the area and let the roving mobs tucker themselves out and get bored?

So, basically, it's absolutely impossible for something like that to happen again?

Oh, do go on then, what ambitious social program do you have planned to combat police brutality? Formed a Copwatch, have you? Joined your local chapter of Critical Resistance? Or are you saying the federal government should uplift the ghetto by aggressively tackling unemployment and poverty? Subsidize black-owned businesses so desperate people aren't provoked into violence by the perception that their scant earnings are leaving the community when the shop closes at night? Is that what you're saying?

Good luck beating the Police and the Military.

Who said anything about me being a revolutionary? I'm academia, I'm the first one revolutionaries kill.

That makes no sense. This isn't 19th century France. Many, many revolutionaries are in academia, including anarchist anthropologists who helped set Occupy Wall Street in motion.

Yes war is hell but so is government

So...you are an anarchist?

I am, and I would never make such an outlandish equivocation.

Your nationality has nothing to do with your political ideology. I'm Canadian-American and I'm staunchly absolutist and fascistic...

...Ah, so this is the real reason you're not a revolutionary. Gotcha.

[Liriena]

You should google minarchism it is the ultimate goverment for those seeking freedom

Bah, Enlightened Despotism.

I am actually not repulsed at all by the concept of Englishtened despotism.

Frederick II gave a good example, all in all.

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

There's...of her? Seriously?

I don't know whether to say that's disturbing or what.

I wouldn't know personally, but she was attractive, and famous.

Damnable Rule 34 argues for caution when conducting an image search.

It does make me a touch sad though.

I decided to google search anyway and it was not porn

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

Regulated meant equipped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... ode=phrase
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulate?s=t

And that's not even going into SCOTUS precedent or anything like that. Got a source for your interpretation? ETA: Or do you refer to the sense of "regulated" that roughly means "uniformly equipped"? Are you suggesting a Swiss model, where every fit male and interested/fit female is given exactly one of the same kind of rifle, it's provided by the government, and you don't get to keep ammunition at home? Cause you're starting to sound like a real Communist if that's the case.

"Well regulated militia" means "Every American gun-owner who is ready and willing to fight for American principles".

Source?

Not according to my dictionary

It say either
1. Actively break the terms of (law, agreement,etc.)
or
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

It says "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Note: it didn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You didn't follow my original post. I meant that the definition of "infringed" is made absolutely clear by context. The only justification given for any right to have guns is that "a well regulated militia" is necessary for security. At this point, I've studied enough linguistics to know that you're just pulling things out of your ass, so I won't bother to respond to you further until you bring me some sources. One unsourced dictionary does not cut it; dictionaries are useful tools to sate curiosity, but are not made to stand on their own without any other evidence. Nor are dictionaries equivalent to legal rulings, studies in semantics, grammars, etc., all of which would be quite a bit more useful for proving your extraordinary claim.

I'll give you a hint: What you would be disproving at this point is that there is any connection between the first and second clause. Of course, that would violate Grice's Maxims, since it would render the first clause irrelevant, but hey, go ahead and try, I guess.

Hundreds of crazed looters?

Funny, I've never seen this poster take an interest in police brutality before.

Indeed, quite a lot of it. As well as how we as a culture treat the mentally ill. Making them feared pariahs for something that isn't their fault only worsens the situation.

Especially considering that most mentally ill and developmentally disabled people are actually far more likely to be the victims of violent crime, and the people we actually need to be looking at are people with certain specific mental illnesses as well as potentially violent personality disorders (which may or may not be comorbid with mental illness per se).

That the NRA and some Democrats think that we should start an unprecedented database of people with mental health conditions, and that this would somehow increase freedom, is really troubling. However, I doubt HIPAA will be repealed or overturned soon, so a hale and hearty "Fuck you, go back under the medieval rock you scurried out from, you bigoted little shit" goes out to every supporter of such a plan who is not a NationStates user.

Certainly an interesting angle to the debate. One I'd never considered before.

But to be honest, the economy can survive without guns, and the loss of life is too great to not act upon.

Resistance to economic change, for the sake of the economic status quo as a good in an of itself, is never a functional argument against social change. The same arguments were made about slavery, feraynssakes. As the anarchist cossack Nestor Makhno said to the Bolshevik "revolutionary committees" he dissolved after capturing Ekaterinoslav and Alexandrovsk, "Take up some honest trade."

That being said, I personally support the right to own, maintain and distribute a variety of hunting weapons. Makhno's advice to the Bolsheviks applies well to those who make the other guns, IMHO.

If the people who are needed to do maintenance don't show up for work?

The bombers will collect cobwebs.

Big talk for a guy who has probably already lost his house, neighborhood, foliage, family and/or life to the bombing run. Sorry, but you're delusional if you think that the massive, internationalized, elite professionalized command hierarchy of today's US Armed Forces can be thwarted in all of its attempts to launch strategic bombing campaigns in any part of the world by force. No, the way this kind of thing is resolved in revolutions is by distributing egalitarian literature that asks the military personnel to refuse combat duty and unify with the resistance. You're talking about a wildcat strike in the Air Force.

Wildcat strikes are not achieved at the point of a gun barrel, but at the intersection of libertarian and socialist revolutionary politics. You don't strike me as the kind of cat who'd be very useful to the resistance in such a scenario, nor do I see you anywhere else in NSG advocating a peaceful, pluralistic and democratic revolutionary society that does not allow itself to use such force against its own people, nor offering any kind of solidarity with the people who are actually oppressed right now; and I can assure you that the effects of shitty or nonexistent healthcare coverage, the raw punch-in-the-gut feeling of hunger and food insecurity, the budget crunch caused by prioritizing corporations over human needs, are far more real to those people now being oppressed than your Orwellian fantasy will be in any realistic scenario one could envision in this country.

The way you stop such a domestic bombing campaign is through anti-aircraft guns or peaceful revolution. Anti-aircraft guns are not exactly a realistic proposal, so put up or shut up.

So, basically, it's absolutely impossible for something like that to happen again?

Oh, do go on then, what ambitious social program do you have planned to combat police brutality? Formed a Copwatch, have you? Joined your local chapter of Critical Resistance? Or are you saying the federal government should uplift the ghetto by aggressively tackling unemployment and poverty? Subsidize black-owned businesses so desperate people aren't provoked into violence by the perception that their scant earnings are leaving the community when the shop closes at night? Is that what you're saying?

Who said anything about me being a revolutionary? I'm academia, I'm the first one revolutionaries kill.

That makes no sense. This isn't 19th century France. Many, many revolutionaries are in academia, including anarchist anthropologists who helped set Occupy Wall Street in motion.

So...you are an anarchist?

I am, and I would never make such an outlandish equivocation.

Your nationality has nothing to do with your political ideology. I'm Canadian-American and I'm staunchly absolutist and fascistic...

...Ah, so this is the real reason you're not a revolutionary. Gotcha.

I like this guy

[Amerikians]

Did you just compare revolution to mere social agony? For shame, friend.

19th Century France maybe not, the stipulation of Revolution hardly changes, out with the elite.

Also the reason I'm not a revolutionary is the fact I'm rather fond of America as much as I am of Canada; I dislike certain policies as do all but I don't call for the fall of the state.

[Imsogone]

Where I differ, besides hating labor (as a profession, not laborers); is that I'm an advocate of civil liberties to the extreme, I just hate idiots taking charge of their nation.

You should google minarchism it is the ultimate goverment for those seeking freedom

I actually prefer leavemethefuckaloneism.

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

You should google minarchism it is the ultimate goverment for those seeking freedom

I actually prefer leavemethefuckaloneism.

Thats what minarchism is. The government only exists in minarchism to protect the states lack of government and the citizens. Ex. Police, military, courts

[Wikkiwallana]

Bullshit.

Very mature comment my friend

Fine:
Twaddle
Nonsense
Balderdash
Horse Hockey
Baloney
Poppycock
Rubbish
Tripe
Drivel

Take your pick. Regardless of how mature you think my choice of word was, you're still wrong.

[Frisbeeteria]

you are an idiot and so are people who harm innocent children with guns. PROSTITUTION is wrong, it allows men to lower they're morals and if your going to argue that certain types are ok. Then go ahead and type that up and have one of those girls shove that up your asshole you goddamn pervert.

You seem to have strong feelings on this subject, apparently causing you to attack the players rather than the argument. Given you've used a similar approach before, perhaps you'll feel more kindly inclined after your *** seven day forumban ***.

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

Very mature comment my friend

Fine:
Twaddle
Nonsense
Balderdash
Horse Hockey
Baloney
Poppycock
Rubbish
Tripe
Drivel

Take your pick. Regardless of how mature you think my choice of word was, you're still wrong.

Still immature that you would attack my beliefs with a single word instead of making a statement. "Those who respond to a smart comment with shut up aren't smart enough to have a comeback." and just saying bullshit is you saying to me " shut up your wrong, im right and i dont want you to speak your opinion." good day

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

you are an idiot and so are people who harm innocent children with guns. PROSTITUTION is wrong, it allows men to lower they're morals and if your going to argue that certain types are ok. Then go ahead and type that up and have one of those girls shove that up your asshole you goddamn pervert.

You seem to have strong feelings on this subject, apparently causing you to attack the players rather than the argument. Given you've used a similar approach before, perhaps you'll feel more kindly inclined after your *** seven day forumban ***.

I believe in the legalization of pot, guns, and prostitution. Stop telling people how to live their lives, if they want to have sex for money thats damn well their right. It's their bodies not your's don't tell them what they can do with it

[Free South Califas]

I believe in the legalization of pot, guns, and prostitution. Stop telling people how to live their lives...

One of these things is not like the other. Of course, with guns proliferated throughout society, anyone who has one can step into a movie theater, restaurant, household etc. at any time and start telling people exactly how to live their lives, or ending same on a whim.

[Amerikians]

An armed society is a polite society...Or else.

[Dyakovo]

You seem to have strong feelings on this subject, apparently causing you to attack the players rather than the argument. Given you've used a similar approach before, perhaps you'll feel more kindly inclined after your *** seven day forumban ***.

I believe in the legalization of pot, guns, and prostitution. Stop telling people how to live their lives, if they want to have sex for money thats damn well their right. It's their bodies not your's don't tell them what they can do with it

Fris' banning someone for persistent rule-breaking is not a topic for discussion...

[Liriena]

An armed society is a polite society...Or else.

Yeah! Haven't you seen countries like Somalia and 1980's Afghanistan? Totally polite societies!

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

I believe in the legalization of pot, guns, and prostitution. Stop telling people how to live their lives...

One of these things is not like the other. Of course, with guns proliferated throughout society, anyone who has one can step into a movie theater, restaurant, household etc. at any time and start telling people exactly how to live their lives, or ending same on a whim.

In a truly armed society said person with gun would be shot once the threats were ordered by the chef, waiters, and customers thank you very much

[Chernoslavia]

Great. That means life gets a little harder, at least he's not trying to take the guns out of our hands. If he tried that, I'd be fighting to the death. If a single one of you mentions wolverines, Know that i only saw that movie recently and don't even think about Wolverines when it comes to revolution. I look to history, not Holywood.

History says fighting to the death for stupid causes doesn't end well.

Says the guy that supports gun bans.

[Amerikians]

An armed society is a polite society...Or else.

Yeah! Haven't you seen countries like Somalia and 1980's Afghanistan? Totally polite societies!

Touche.

[Free South Califas]

One of these things is not like the other. Of course, with guns proliferated throughout society, anyone who has one can step into a movie theater, restaurant, household etc. at any time and start telling people exactly how to live their lives, or ending same on a whim.

In a truly armed society said person with gun would be shot once the threats were ordered by the chef, waiters, and customers thank you very much

Yawn...thankfully, you have demonstrated enough disconnection from reality that you are likely to be prevented from assuming any significant power. Problem solved, I suppose.

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

History says fighting to the death for stupid causes doesn't end well.

Says the guy that supports gun bans.

Red Dawn is awesome (the old one) just thought i'd mention that