23 thoughts on “Just For Future Reference

  1. So Biden says that gun violence is a “public health emergency.”
    Let’s hope the government approaches this public health emergency with the same nuance, delicacy, respect for civil liberties, inclusion of opposing opinions, and democratic debate that it used when dealing with covid!

  2. That seems like an extraordinarily long and complex “solution,” when it would be much simpler just to make murder and mayhem (with a gun) illegal. Oh, wait….

  3. Well, you can either punish criminals effectively, or you can reduce the number of tools they have at their disposal. Since the Democrats don’t want to do the former…..

    ….and I am reminded of driving by the Illinois penitentiary near Galesburg, seeing the monster guys lifting weights outside, and thinking “those are the guys I definitely do not want to face without a gun.” Biden really wants to make Americans vulnerable to the worst of us.

  4. The thoughts I have about this are pretty much covered by the first three comments. Adults call “gun violence” crime. Crime. You deal with crime by incarcerating criminals.

    The left is always talking about money for “research into gun violence.” What they want is the cdc to declare it a public health crises. Hmm, what happened last time the cdc did that?

  5. “Biden believes any plan to address the gun violence epidemic must address suicides by firearms, which account for 6 in 10 gun-related deaths but are often left out of the conversation. . . In the months ahead, Biden will put forward a comprehensive plan to improve access to mental health services.”

    So two-thirds of the deaths are not covered by your plan, but you’re going to come up with a plan that does, pretty soon? And it will involve convincing old white men (the victims of most suicides) to hand over their guns to social workers, ‘for their own good?’

    Let me know how that works out for you.

  6. I did not know that the Brady Act reduced the 393 million guns in the US by 3 million, which is a whopping 0.7%. That’s an amazing statistic. How about the fact that 19 times as many murders are committed with handguns than rifles, “assault” type or otherwise? So much for getting rid of long guns. I didn’t find those stats in Joe’s gun plan.

  7. I wonder if Slow Joe has a plan to care for all of the people that committed suicide during their “plandemic”? Oh… Wait. Too late for them now. Just add those deaths to those of the elderly people that were murdered by Democrat governors, who deliberately violated Medicare guidelines by putting them in nursing homes, then letting the operators of those facilities, who happened to be big donors to the party, off the hook, to the Democrat death count. You know. The death count that our factually challenged, village idiot Emery wants to keep blaming on Trump.

  8. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/17-year-old-arrested-connection-fatal-shooting-jacob-blake-protest-n1238227

    Yet more Right Wing Terrorism…

    BTW, Mitch, I don’t NEED to explain my vote to you or anyone.

    However, in the interest of comity, I have no problem doing so. The 2nd Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”

    YOU and silly right wing knuckleheads, thin you can reasonably divorce the second part of that sentence from the first. The first justified the second for more than 200 years of our history. Only the recent McDonald and Heller decisions changed that. Even in the McDonald decision, Antonin Scalia a FAR FAR FAR FAR x 100,000 right winger/reactionary justice said states may apply reasonable restrictions, like not being allowed to own nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons, predicated (and here’s the hypocrisy) on the premise that since state militias are no longer the prevalent part of our “standing army”, private citizens no longer need those sorts of major arms of war.

    So, in dicta in the McDonald decision, Scalia pointed to an individual right to bear arms to hunt and for self-defense (not the need to arm an army). He separated that right from the first part of the Amendment, on purpose, because without doing so, the right of an individual rests on the need for a militia. So, an individual can be limited solely to those arms needed for self-defense and hunting. This is an inference from the Federalist Papers, which I find incredibly ironic given Scalia was a self-described originalist/textualist, who in every other case argued solely for interpretation of the text AS WRITTEN, of the Constitution, but once again, we see the GOPers, the reactionaries, arguing out of both sides of their faces. Textualists when you like, throw in Federalist Papers when it’s convenient.

    ANYWAY, back to the point, so, you have 2 rights identified as individual (and distinct), hunt, protection.

    You can reasonably defend yourself w/o a high capacity magazine – no question. Biden says he supports sensible restrictions on such magazines, I find that entirely in comportment with the 2nd Amendment, both the original text and Scalia’s direction in Dicta. Second, you can hunt, very well and far better, with rifles/shotguns which don’t have 30 round extended magazines – those arms which take that sort of magazine are generally sub-par performers as hunting weapons. Now, you want to slaughter vermin? Sure, you can do that more easily with a semi-auto weapon with a large capacity magazine but THAT was not enshrined in the Constitution, in the Federalist Papers, or in the McDonald decision, and it’s not confusing, and it’s not close.

    ONE federal judge so far has disagreed, we’ll see if it stands, for now, these sorts of restrictions are in fact seen as compliant. Consequently, as a gun owner and supporter of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, I have no issue voting for Biden. I further have no issue with the idea that large capacity magazines are something reasonable to restrict. Only people who are insecure and deeply fearful see this as a 2nd Amendment issue – the rest of us don’t care, nor should we. Preserving a right to military grade rifles or high cap magazines is not really necessary for me to hunt or defend myself or my home and the 2nd Amendment will survive just fine.

    My question for you is, you NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDD, because I get to give you orders passing judgment on your foolishness in my sneeringly condescending question, you NEEEEEEEEEEED to explain how you can possibly vote for Trump if you support the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th or 10th Amendments, or for that matter the 13th, 14th and 15th. ALL of which he has pissed on, repeatedly. As Angry Clown once said so eloquently, the only Amendment you’ve ever cared about is (your perverted interpretation of) the 2nd.

  9. OK, Paddyboy, one knucklehead abusing gun ownership, breaking several laws before he ever touched the trigger, means the rest of us get our right to lawfully use firearms abridged? By that logic, then, Rolling Stone and CNN ought to justify repeal of the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, right?

    And yes, several laws. Perp is an Illinois resident, low age for FOID is 21–same as carry permit in Wisconsin, which of course at 17, he didn’t have. You’ve also got brandishing and other unlawful use of that gun. Probably, judging by the last name, some issues of ethnic/racial intimidation and the like too.

    Now tell me, Paddyboy, exactly what new law is going to prevent this knucklehead, or someone like him, from getting a gun and using it? Keep in mind that for decades, Chicago has had precisely this kind of laws that you endorse, and it doesn’t stop the native knuckleheads THERE from getting and using firearms illegally, either.

    I’ve got a counter-proposal. What about we, instead of defunding police as your Democrats seem to desire, start insisting that the police go in and restore order, using groups like the state police and National Guard if necessary? If we had done that, we wouldn’t have had a riot for the knucklehead you mention to visit at all. Problem.Solved.

  10. Evidence that Trump “ pissed on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 13th, 145h, and 15th Amendments would be….what? Good luck

  11. I took one look at the length of p*ss-boy’s screed and skipped, letting those braver than I take the abuse.

    Good news p, infamous c*ck smoker and sexual abuser Don Lemon says the rioting has to stop, it is showing up in the polls. So of COURSE its right wing, ha ha ha ha.

    CNN: cares about their party winning, doesn’t care about the (many minority) people getting hurt and losing their business forever. Nice people at CNNLOL.

  12. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 08.26.20 : The Other McCain

  13. The CDC was tested by covid-19 and failed that test miserably. It showed poor judgment in giving policy recomendations based on deeply flawed, amateurish models and wildly wrong projections, it endorsed the pseudo-science of fighting a pandemic by socially isolating the heallthy and crashing the economy, which caused certain bad health results to the public. They advised closing hospitals and health clinics. They have proved to be a caricature of a bureaucracy — politicized, incompetent, and corrupt.
    And Biden wants to give the CDC a veto over our civil rights.

  14. Today, your chances of dying of covid in the US are 2.88 in one million. This number has been slowly dropping over the last ten days, but your chance of dying of covid in the US are still 14 times your chance of dying of covid in sweden, which had no lockdown and no mask mandate.
    Way to go CDC!

  15. Paddyboy’s screed reminds me of the joke : If Liberals interpreted the First Amendment as narrowly as they do the Second Amendment, you’d have to publish newspapers on a wooden printing press and the only religion would be Church of England.

    So Paddyboy, perhaps you can tell me why US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was remanded?

  16. M O;

    It’s becoming more clear every hour that the failed covid responses was a. not about the virus b. more people have been harmed by the drastic, illegal and actual fascist actions taken by largely Democrat party governors and people with a financial stake in it (FAUXci), than the virus and c. that Democrats can never be trusted to handle a crisis.

  17. Paddywhacker.

    When you use left wing biased sources like the Communist News Network, you lost the argument. Moron!

  18. Paddy, just for reference, if a reporter is seen as deliberately misrepresenting the truth vis-a-vis a political figure, that political figure, even if he has orange skin, is allowed to collect evidence for a possible libel suit. The person, then, working against the 1st Amendment, then, would be the CNN reporter.

    You’re welcome.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.