http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/01/track-them-big-data-and-our-gun-crazed-country Comments On: Track Them: Big Data and Our Gun-Crazed Country by Grant Brissey en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Fri, 24 May 2013 17:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
If they meant "well trained" why didn't they say "well trained"? You think they couldn't speak English or something? They said "well regulated" because they meant "well regulated". And anyway, how come the NRA opposes mandatory gun training, genius? How come the Second Amendment lets us restrict machine guns, or mortars? If "training" is the only issue?

You know Ronald Reagan signed one of the most restrictive gun control laws ever as Governor of California. Reagan was a paragon of conservative thought in the 70s. But conservatism changed by light years since then. A whole new reading of gun law was cooked up and used as a new conservative litmus test. The standard position on the Second Amendment from the gun nuts is nothing like it was in generations past. It's a novel fabrication by activists judges, who got their marching orders from the gun lobby.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:06:10 -0800 The Stranger
Could be because you said knives and clubs are just as deadly as assault rifles? Maybe I started skimming your posts instead of reading. One can't read the whole Internet, can one? Have to cull out certain points of view when all you get from them is yuks.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:57:30 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 10:06:27 -0800 The Stranger
You never hear me talk about "gun owners" I don't have a problem with gun owners. I have a problem with the gun lobby, i.e. the NRA, i.e. the gun nuts, i.e. the Republican Party. It's the fucking morons who stand in the way of every single restriction on guns that are the problem.

The majority of gun owners support closing the gun show loophole, to take one example. Most gun owners are not that nuts.

And this modern, extremist interpretation of the Second Amendment essentially argues that we shouldn't even restrict machine guns. Or stinger missiles for that matter. Or nuclear bombs. There's nothing in the Second Amendment that says "no machine guns". If you can't ban semi-automatics, then what justification is there to ban anything?

The only justification is the words "well regulated militia". And the gun nuts, the NRA, the gun lobby, the Republicans, have erased the words "well regulated militia" from the Second Amendment. That's the whole problem, right there.

Prior to 1976 when they started this evil movement, "well regulated militia" meant something. We must go back to the better times of the past when we respected the entire Second Amendment, and didn't just pick out the words that 5% of gun openers, so you say, happen to like.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 09:37:21 -0800 The Stranger
Back then (since the founders in no way intended for this country to have a standing army), the "militia" was every able-bodied adult male. (Yeah, male, not female.) But I don't think they would have been any more happy seeing the village idiot running around with a gun than we would be, so I think that falls well within the definition of "able-bodied."

"Well-regulated" meant "well-trained." In other words, could you shoot your squirrel rifle, hit your target, and reload it in a minute? If so, you were pretty damned good. Those are the guys they wanted to have around. It had nothing to do with how much paperwork you filled out.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 07:43:45 -0800 The Stranger Posted by what do murderous gunboys have in common?]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 07:17:09 -0800 The Stranger
Had you walked into a room back in the 1700s and suggested to George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or any of the other founders that there was no right to keep and bear arms, they would have literally laughed you out of the room. It would have been utterly nonsensical to them.

But keep on keeping on in your (obviously very angry) dream world there, Cthulhu. Just don't think you're making any points with that malarkey.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 04:14:01 -0800 The Stranger
But stick with your version, if it makes you feel better. Less than 5% of gun owners belong to the NRA, but by all means, make them your focus, cuz that shit's going to be effective.
Posted by NateMan]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 03:39:09 -0800 The Stranger Posted by delirian]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:53:24 -0800 The Stranger Posted by 2cents]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 21:40:21 -0800 The Stranger
Yes. And they needed to pack the Supreme Court first. Because their worldview was not the establishment worldview. Their version of the Second Amendment was not widely accepted, and it was hardly 230 years old. It took almost four decades of sustained activism to bring us to where we are today.

And where we are today is more than 30,000 people a year killed by guns. Where 20 dead first graders is supposed to be ignored, because "shit happens". Good work, guys. You rewrote history.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 21:35:48 -0800 The Stranger
Oh, Jesus. Wikipedia again. The encyclopedia that ANY MOTHERFUCKER can edit, right? So one wingnut goes to Wikipedia and cooks up his version of history, and then all the other wing nuts link to it and say "See! It's on Wikipedia!"

I think I'm starting to understand how you guys all ended up thinking this way.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 21:26:01 -0800 The Stranger
Mind telling me who "the people" are.


Posted by Cascadian Bacon]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:42:29 -0800 The Stranger Because the NRA was not a political lobbying group until the 70s, previously it had mainly been about training and competitions.

The NRA became a political lobby in due to member pressure in response to the Gun control act of 1968 when it became evident that certain political interest wanted to disarm the American Public.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:38:37 -0800 The Stranger Yea it might do you some good to learn a little history rather than the outright falsehoods you continue to spout off.
Sigh...public school educations. Non-violence is a myth.

Indian revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutiona…

Black Panther Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panth…


Posted by Cascadian Bacon]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:34:51 -0800 The Stranger
No. The NRA's extremist interpretation of the Second Amendment traces it's roots back to 1976! That's a bare 37 years. The Summer of Love is older than that. Go go boots have been around longer than the notion that the Second Amendment is a suicide pact to sit idly by and let our civilization be blown apart by violent crazies.

This idea is even younger than adding "In God We Trust" to our money and adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance (1950s) or the saying Pledge of Allegiance in public schools (1890s).

Before the NRA cooked up this interpretation of the Second Amendment, it was generally understood to actually refer to a militia, just like it says. A well regulated militia.

Two hundred thirty years my ass! This is typical of the tactics of the right wing: to try to pretend we've "always" thought this way. That radical ideas like flat taxes have any history behind them, or that rigid, socially destructive ideas like unrestricted ownership of military-grade hardware has any roots in history.

Go read a book, OK? You sorely need it.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:31:32 -0800 The Stranger
Oooooh I loves me a good yarn.

I got my popcorn. Now tell me the gun nut version of Ghandi's revolution. And the gun nut version of the Civil Rights Movement. It's going to be like Django Unchained, isn't it?

This should be good.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:15:12 -0800 The Stranger
For the most part, I agree with you; shotguns, handguns, and hunting rifles in the hands of common citizens are unlikely to stop military takeover of an industrialized country such as our own. A takeover which is incredibly unlikely to begin with. And the 1st Amendment is more important than the 2nd. But that's not the point, Skippy, as much as you want to make it about this single issue so as to make yourself feel better. Over 230yrs ago it was decided that the right to own firearms was a civil right that shall not be infringed. If you want to take that right away, the onus is on you to prove it's necessary. And, like every Prohibitionist ever that's tried to make an idea, substance, or property illicit, your argument comes down to "you don't like it." Yes, people with guns rarely kill other people, and that's tragic and should be stopped. But it's not going to happen, and your prissy little insistence on one stickig point just makes you that much easier to ignore.

People like guns. The vast, vast majority of legal gun-owners never hurt anyone. You're intent on seeing all of them thru the same filter, and punishing the many for the actions of a few. Sorry dude, but that bird don't fly.
Posted by NateMan]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:36:18 -0800 The Stranger
You're asking me to take it on faith that gun ownership is a necessary right. When I ask for examples demonstrating the necessity of this right, nobody offers even one.

I can cite the Arab Spring, Gandhi, MLK, Mandela, the Velvet Revolution, the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc, etc, etc as proof that guns are irrelevant to securing freedom in the modern world. I have evidence to support my argument. Where is the evidence that guns secure freedom? Where?

Instead, you repeatedly commit the fallacy of presumption. Your "proof" that gun ownership is a right is to keep repeating that it is a right. You're claiming that nobody dare question it, because it's a right, end of discussion. Yet the best you can do is call it a mere "hobby"?

Freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of religion, petitioning the governemnt, the right to privacy, and the right to a fair trial facing your accusers are not "hobbies". They aren't mere fun pastimes. If you were to question any one of them, I could bury you in mountains of evidence showing why they are so essential to a free society. Guns can't touch any of those rights when it comes to tangible proof of their importance, because guns are so useless and irrelevant.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:11:59 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Spindles]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:39:47 -0800 The Stranger
Yes I am hung like a mouse, and that is why I am so interested in CIVIL RIGHTS.

Thank you for your ability to have an unbiased rational discussion about guns.

@18
Sounds like you haven't traveled much and like to cherry pick statistics. Try going to one of those "democratic" gun free country's where there are random police checkpoints and you can be detained for no cause. Been there done that.

Also Ii find it amusing you mentioned the Arab Spring but some how seemed to miss the massive civil wars in Libya and Syria. You also bring up MLK with out mentioning the Black Panthers and Gandhi without mentioning the thousands of Indian troops who deserted with their weapons, often killing their British Officers.

"'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
-Mohatma Gandhii
Posted by Cascadian Bacon]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:39:33 -0800 The Stranger Posted by scary tyler moore]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:26:33 -0800 The Stranger
please explain, if it's locked in a gun safe, how it protects you at night from an intruder coming in the bedroom window. Thanks!
Posted by still waiting on answer]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:53:44 -0800 The Stranger
Tyranny could be a lynch mob, a rapist, a gay basher.

Pacifism is a privilege bought in blood. Just because your social situation or demographic dosen't apply doesn't mean someone else's doesn't. but wait, thats just an opinion as well so talking about the law it doesn't matter anymore than yours.

If someone chooses to pick up a legal hobby in america that involves shooting paper, its their right, just like taking about why you think banks should be regulated and wealth redistributed is, or really should be. Asking those that challenge that to come up with a reasoning more solid than knee-jerk fear or some night school philosophy on the *meaning* not the current legal interpretation of the bill of rights is not a high bar.
Posted by meanie]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:44:24 -0800 The Stranger A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I think the problem for you is the last word. Infringed. It infringes on a person's right if it tracked by government, does it not?


Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:37:33 -0800 The Stranger