Mea Culpa

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PavePusher

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
314
Location
Tucson
O.K., I just did something quite un-H.R. and feel a strong need to confess and be castigated. Just read this article: http://www.kentucky.com/779/story/414808.html via keepandbeararms.com. I sent an e-mail to the author as follows:

"Mr. Eblen, I will be happy to accept any "gun control" you want... about 10 years after you submit to full licensing, permitting, training, registration and government control of your right to free speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Until that day, please repeatedly attempt airborne fornication with a rotating toroidal pastry of your choice.

Good day to you, sir."


Suggestions for penance, anyone?
 
Suggestions for penance, anyone?
Click to expand...

Repeatedly attempt airborne fornication with a rotating toroidal pastry of your choice, perhaps?

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on penance. :p
 
Uhhh...I read the article linked and didn't see any specific call for gun control. As far as I could tell, the author was merely stating that perhaps some comprimises on certain controls may not be as egregious as 2A absolutists may think.

I understand the meaning of "...shall not be infringed." But how many of us believe for example that restricting the rights of violent felons to possess firearms is an unaceptable compromise? Isn't that a form of gun control?

Please wait until I get this flame-retardant suit zipped up....OK - go ahead.
 
If we could strictly limit background checks to weed out ONLY violent felons (real ones), and those who had been judged mentally defective in a court of law, I might go for that.
 
But how many of us believe for example that restricting the rights of violent felons to possess firearms is an unaceptable compromise? Isn't that a form of gun control?
Click to expand...

Gun possession is a right but criminals, in being criminals, forfeit their rights. So not really.
 
how many of us believe for example that restricting the rights of violent felons to possess firearms is an unaceptable compromise? Isn't that a form of gun control?
Click to expand...

Technically, no. That's not gun control any more than permanently revoking the driving priveleges of a habitual drunk driver is car control.

It's people control...which is what "Gun Control" is really about.
 
Gun control is similar to my taking the crayons away from my son when he was marking up the walls.

It didn't take him long before he found another way to achieve the same result.

It ain't the crayons, Swee Pea.
 
But how many of us believe for example that restricting the rights of violent felons to possess firearms is an unaceptable compromise? Isn't that a form of gun control?
Click to expand...
What 1911Tuner said.

As illogical as the statements in the column were, I wish you would have sent him a reasoned reponse instead of a confirmation of his distorted image of Second Amendment advocates.
 
If we even give driving privileges back to DUI convicts, why should the 2nd Amendment be any different?

The whole point of the prison and justice system is to make sure that the people released are safe to society. If a felon has killed with a gun, who is to think that not recognizing his 2nd Amendment rights is going to, in any real way, keep him from obtaining a firearm? What about the illegal firearms trade? That person is just as much a threat society, with or without recognizing his 2nd Amendment rights.

So now where does the problem lie, in the Bill of Rights or in the legal system? I'd have to say in the latter. The Bill of Rights should not have to compromise for the acts of violent criminals. The people that we release to society are citizens and their rights should be respected as such. If people that we want to release are still dangerous, then they shouldn't be released in the first place, IF the well-being of society is what the legal system has in mind in the first place.

I think that we're far beyond middle ground and that it is time for Constitutional supporters to gain some ground back.
 
30 minutes of fast shooting at a 6" target at 50 yards. Pistol only. Post pictures.
Click to expand...

For that to be penance, we need to stipulate a caliber.

I suggest a .44.

That way, the penance is both physically and monetarily painful. (I don't care who you are, 30 minutes of fast shooting a .44 is gonna hurt.)
 
the author was merely stating that perhaps some comprimises on certain controls may not be as egregious as 2A absolutists may think.
Click to expand...
Those "comprimises" are exactly what warrants the pastry comment. People who make such comments NEVER articulate what "comprimises" they have in mind, precisely because such "comprimises" are indeed egregious. They NEVER refer to "strict scrutiny" restrictions, because what they intend doesn't even reach "reasonable" restriction standards. Their intent is NOT disarming felons, their intent is disarming YOU; they'll talk about disarming felons, but their implementation of "comprimise" disarms YOU.

What, exactly, is the "comprimise" that he solicits as not egregious?
Funny, he doesn't say...
 
I don't know whether the American Hunters & Shooters Association is a good organization or a bad one. What I found interesting was its willingness to say what many "pro-gun" Kentuckians like me think about this endless debate: that we need some intelligent compromises to protect responsible gun ownership and make communities safer.
Click to expand...

and:

As society becomes more diverse, we must regain the lost art of compromise. Otherwise, we'll never be able to deal with complex problems in ways that protect everyone's rights. Polarization may be good for special-interest groups and political parties, but it's bad for America.

If Second Amendment absolutists keep standing up and daring others to pry their guns from their "cold, dead fingers," eventually somebody's going to do it.
Click to expand...

Whenever you hear leftist extremists use the word "compromise," you can be sure you're going to lose your rights in small bites rather than all at once. That's a lot like being glad your dictator is Hitler rather than Stalin or Stalin rather than Pol Pot.
 
O.K., I just did something quite un-H.R. and feel a strong need to confess and be castigated.
Click to expand...
Nah, someone might give you hell, but I doubt they'll want to cut your balls off for it. That's kinda extreme, dontcha think?

...please repeatedly attempt airborne fornication with a rotating toroidal pastry of your choice.
Click to expand...
Maybe a bit low road, but sometimes the low road is a lot more fun!
 
Gun control is similar to my taking the crayons away from my son when he was marking up the walls.

It didn't take him long before he found another way to achieve the same result.

It ain't the crayons, Swee Pea.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you didn't go around and take the crayons away from every other kid in the neighborhood, did you?

I have no problem with limiting the rights of those who abuse them, cept that in doing so, you effectively turn those rights into privleges, which can then be taken away more or less at will. Therein lies the slippery slope. Who controls the criterea for limiting rights and how much power do they have to do that job? Elben fails to understand that. Gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates aren't paranoid, we're realistic. We have seen the slope get steeper and slipperyer little by little as that control and power continue to shift.
 
I am playing the "devil's advocate" here for the sake of discussion. The author of the article (who I believe is a gun owner) did not imply (by my reading) that he advocated specific restrictions on gun ownership - only that there may circumstances in which some compromise might be acceptable. I have tried to define one example (the "infringement" of gun rights for violent criminals) on which at least many of us might agree that a compromise of the 2A is warranted.

It's people control...which is what "Gun Control" is really about.
Click to expand...

OK...Does anyone here believe we shouldn't control people who are committing acts of criminal violence? Restricting the rights of violent felons to possess firearms gives prosecutors one more tool to put them back in jail (from which they probably should not have been released in the first place) - perhaps before they commit another act of violence.

The justice system does not impose many life sentences without the possibilty for parole - not even for murders in many cases. So it is a given that these violent offenders are going to be out amongst the rest of us.

Discovering a firearm in the possession of a paroled violent offender may be a pretty good indication that they intend to commit more criminal violence.

Firearms are tools, right? Why not use them as a tool to put violent criminals back where they belong? I would like law enforcement to have every reasonabale means to give those criminals another trip through the system. Perhaps a firearm violation is the "third strike" that does put them away forever. Buh-by...and good ridance!
 
Suggestions for penance, anyone?
Click to expand...

Penance? What the heck are you talking about buddy?

That was.........................................EFFING BRILLIANT

If it was me emailing him, I would tell him that no matter what gun control he pushed, he still wouldn't be able to impress Sarah Brady enough so she would allow him to get into her pants.
 
one of my favorite quotes I've seen lately is: "I don't need the right to bear arms any more or less than you need your right to free speech, so kindly shut the (bleep) up."

since your email goes along with that, I can't really say anything other than 'good job'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Il.congressman Bobby Rush gun licensing bill
Replies
1
Views
657
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
Back
Top