Callooh! Callay!1428010939

The 2nd amendment does not grant or create the right to bear arms. It restricts government from infringing on the right.

Rights don't come from the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the state from infringing on them. The 2nd Amendment doesn't "grant" you the right to bear arms. It recognizes that you have that right and restricts the state from infringing on it. A tyranny of the majority may strip you of your arms. But even repeal of the 2nd amendment would not strip you of your right to bear them.

Reading the comments and listening to Christie's comments, I was expecting to see a truly execrable video from the NRA. Then I watched the video. Yawn. "I always looked at Gov. Christie as a mindless hyper-right minion" ---- Of course you did. Don't feel too badly about it. Many on the right have been, and remain, just as clueless. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"His topic has to be approved by the funders such as NSF." That's not a restriction on his topic. It's a restriction on what he can do with other peoples' money. If only there were more such restrictions.

Who cares? Surely the earthworms. Your point is good. One wonders how much the rigor applied will sway opinions that are uniformed.

"No different for CDC experts" Actually it is different: the Air Force problem you describe is 1000 times greater. 10,000 among the active duty Air Force is a little over three percent of the force. 10,000 among the population of the US represents a little over three one thousandths of a percent of the population.

"But on this issue, nope! We want nuthin' but random uninformed opinion in makin' decisions!" That is an interesting point. And it's not just Marc-Antonian funeral orators burying assault weapons bans that raise it. There are folks who prefer rule by some wise authority to our messier democratic republican system. Random, uninformed opinion can be a scary thing. Look who it put in the office of the executive. But not all opinions are random and uninformed and there has already been research - must the research be government controlled in order to be valid?

"yeh do realize that that $10M to find root causes is in response to da NRA's request that we look into the violence in society, particularly video games and Hollywood movies, right?" Your respect for the NRA's authority seems a bit excessive. Granted, it's a decent organization that does some good. But it's not infallible. This request for looking into "root causes" smacks of diversionary tactic. One hope the "requesting" will be asking for donations rather than confiscating it from taxpayers. "And I'm in favor of research, eh?" Wonderful. When do we suppose they'll announce where all the in-favors can send their contributions to the $10M?

Checkers or chess? The "actual Biden/Obama plan" is to "fundamentally transform the United States of America." "Request for $10M to study root causes" "Root causes," is a euphemism for "let's find something, anything, other than obvious truths that are unpleasant, inconvenient, and don't provide any reason for coerced collective action"

http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx http://eddieeagle.nra.org/information-for-parents.aspx

"But of course they didn't ban any research. They just banned spending tax dollars on it. There's a world of difference." Not in the minds of collectivists, unfortunately.

Food for thought? Yes, potato chips. Cheese doodles. For similar, even stronger, evidence of the futility of CCW watch this: the relevant portion kicks in at 1:23 Note well, even with pistol at the ready, and even though he apparently hits his attacker several times, the defender remains helpless as the Spirit of Anubis presses the attack. And this in spite of the fact that he is armed with a custom cartoon pseudo-luger that manages semi-auto fire with no apparent action other than a bit of recoil from firing what appear to be exotic super low velocity specialized anti-mummy rounds. And it's not just concealable weapons in the hands of bumbling cartoon villains that are futile. In the same video clip, skip forward to 4:36 and see a highly trained professional, Race Bannon himself, using a semi-auto long gun against an invisible monster attack... to absolutely no avail. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

That men started without laws is not evidence of the superiority of that state. Yes, the amendment was "just" an amendment... to the Constitution of the United States of America. That isn't a statement of its unimportance. Focusing attention on how someone must not be as well read or wise as you because they are concerned about collectivist tendencies, is flattering to their concerns. Please continue to focus argument on the interlocutor's assumed ignorance and lack of thought that is apparently so serious that he must be admonished not to "buy the crap someone is feedin' yeh. It's a bunch of malarkey." (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"Nutty stuff?" There's a good bit of it in state laws and local ordinances that already outlaw or restrict carrying knives or even owning some knives. A Fed imposed fixed blade knife ban sounds farfetched, but it does remind us of other authorities already "going there." Poseur-cons can employ satire to shield their smugular veins from knife-ban nannyism. But truth is stranger than fiction. For example, in Ft Lauderdale, one can carry a gun around a parade, but not a knife - unless they've changed that very recently.

Nation of laws, not of men. An Amendment to the founding document has a portion which stipulates: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Darn absolutists... don't they know that if they think 2+2 is 4 and some other absolutists think 2+2 is 13, that the reasonable answer absolutely must be something in between? So say absolute moderates.

I wonder if yeh are listening to yourself Callooh Callay?" Wonder? About me? I'm not interesting. The ideas, information, observations, examples, etc I share are... or not. But listening to the information, ideas, etc, I hear them quote another post in which we were told: "if yeh really believe in da risk of invading hordes then yeh need to run, not walk, to a mental health professional. And yeh definitely should not be allowed to handle a firearm." That's how they roll in the communities that have the "more community minded mindset" that you correctly noted I was "referring to so disparagingly." Nonconformist beliefs are diagnosed as mental illness and their holders denied rights and freedoms in such communities. And yes, they do it for the good of the community; it's what they say, and it's what plenty of them really think. And they do, as you say, believe "that individuals must work hard and sacrifice in service to others and the community." Yes. They "must." It's not voluntary association and cheerful voluntary service (although pretending that it is can be an additional "must"). They "must" work hard and sacrifice for the collective. Very tricky, this stunt with the "believe in da risk of invading hordes" straw man. Naturally when the straw man was introduced we all thought we'd be treated to the spectacle of seeing it set alight. But it was a bait and switch surprise in which the straw man was trotted out and then left, unburnt, dancing around a bonfire of piety about scoutlier-than-thou hard work and sacrifice for the community. So far, on the one hand there is the 2nd Amendment. And "huh?". On the other hand, there have been innumerate "no true scotsmen" posting hocs and ergo-ing propter hocs of drama and pathos along slippery red herring slopes upon which ad hominem straw men beg questions... or something like that. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay! - becuz he cudent spel(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"Physical Wellness online training" Imagine what great physical condition everyone would be in these days if online training really did improve physical wellness!

"gun violence" - People can engage in violence. Guns have no agency, violent or otherwise. Adapting the construction of the phrase "gun violence" to the method of murder most often employed in the murder of children, it would be "hand violence," sometimes "blunt object violence," usually at the hands of a parent. And yet people accept that this is acceptable collateral damage in support of families keeping government monitoring (which could predict and prevent such incidents) out of their homes for what appears to have no relationship to their right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (since it's not "unreasonable" to protect children and is not really a threat to the security of their persons, houses, etc... the government monitoring system would be protection of their persons, houses, etc... not a threat).

Innumeracy in America is incredibly common; so common, it afflicts hundreds of people! There were no sensational news reports about the hundreds of millions of firearms in the US that were not used in a crime last month. And if there were reports of how the number of children murdered by psychos with guns last year compares to number whose parent strangled or beat them to death (it's how most murdered children are murdered), they apparently haven't made much of an impression. Sometimes people use firearms for bad purposes. The number of such incidents in any given time period may seem large to folks who don't take into account the enormity of the population from which we derive the numbers or who don't compare them to the incidence of any other kinds of things about which we might be concerned. They may also seem large when compared to other places in which these infrequent events happen even less frequently. And they may seem large to folks who are fascinated with news of the bizarre (in other words - pretty much everyone - everyone's ears perk up more for the odd than for the ho-hum routine) if they fail to maintain a sense of proportion as they take it in. The numbers may also seem large to folks who want them to seem large because they don't like guns or because they don't like certain kinds of guns, or because they don't like the idea of folks other than the ones they approve having any degree of self reliance for security. These sorts of persons often use the warm fuzzy language of community, caring, looking out for everyone's best interest, etc... but make no mistake about it... the important part of gun control for them is not the gun... it's the control... for the good of the community, of course. These people would draft us all into their warm, caring, almost family-like, community. In this wonderful caring community of theirs, they want Big Brotherly authority watching over us all - just to keep us safe of course. The Big Brother can be govt appointed or self appointed... but they usually prefer government, usually through a tyranny of the majority or at the least the illusion of a majority. It's love of their fellow man that motivates them; that's why if you disagree with them over matters of fact or preference, they are far to big-hearted to tell you that you're ignorant or evil minded.... no... they will diagnose you as having some sort of illness and tell you something like: "if yeh really believe in da risk of invading hordes then yeh need to run, not walk, to a mental health professional. And yeh definitely should not be allowed to handle a firearm." In some countries where this more community minded mindset reigns, it's a matter of policy, and folks with political or religious views that don't conform to the "correct" views are sent to facilities to get the treatment they need, and sometimes even rehabilitative work retreats. " We gun owners should be on da forefront of havin' da public conversation about the responsibilities and ethics of gun owners." "forefront" ? huh? Oh...... forefront.... "F:)rward" Of course. How could we miss a reference to Vanguardism? Yes, gun owners might forward their cause more effectively through Vanguardism... particularly if their cause is less about gun ownership and more about achieving the communitarian society of their dreams - dreams that will of course necessitate some important changes in the rights of individuals so that they don't become overly obsessed with nutty things like the 2nd amendment. Vanguardism, for now will work better than a forthright attempt to repeal the amendment. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"Yah, Callooh, you said it. Easier for someone to shoot straight with a rifle." Yep, and Beavah you're right that the situation could have been defused even quicker with less danger to all, had one of the restaurant patrons had a weapon.

You continue to beg the question (original meaning BTW - not the one folks ascribe to it lately). I'm not convinced there is a problem to which it makes any sense to propose one of your old school conservative type solutions. You and the old school posse exhort me "Forward!" I respond with an eloquent... "huh?" And you bluster "Well then, you propose a way forward! Or are you part of the problem?" And of course, as a member of the "party of no" I say "no." Perhaps instead of loony muttering about the second amendment, you'd accept simple reference to it? Cops by the way, are law enforcement officers. They are not generally trained or equipped to protect us from invading hordes unless in addition to being law enforcement officers they've coincidentally had military training. And they're not manned to be there when we need their help unlocking the two separate safes in which some folks think we ought to keep our ammo and our guns. Bad guys look to do bad things when armed representatives of the state aren't around to stop them. The good old progressive liberal values of preparedness and self reliance still have a place in this modern new old school conservative world of yours.

"And da positive result was enhanced by da fact that Garcia didn't have an AR-15 knockoff, and apparently couldn't shoot straight with a handgun." Really? How did his not having an AR-15 knockoff help? (many of the "knockoffs" are as good and as pricy an the "real" thing BTW) He had a Glock-23. See one in action here: It's chambered in .40 whereas the AR-15 is chambered in .223. The .40 would likely be more effective at the distances he'd have been shooting (indoors and up relatively close). From further out the AR-15 would be more effective because it's long gun whereas the Glock-23 is a pistol and because the .223 is a higher velocity round. There's no appreciable (and to my knowledge no, period) difference in the rate of fire between the two weapons. In closer quarters the Glock-23 would likely be easier to maneuver with. So for the scenario we're discussing the only appreciable increased capacity the man would have had with a .223 semi-auto rifle rather than the .40 semi-auto pistol he used, would be that he'd have had to change magazines about half as often since most AR magazines take 30 rounds and you can get the Glock-23 with 13,15, or 17 rounds magazines. But it doesn't take that long for a practiced individual to swap magazines - watch someone do it at relaxed pace here: And therein lies the real independent variable you touch on in the "couldn't shoot straight part" of the comment (maybe it was actually "wouldn't" shoot straight - maybe he was an unstable person in a violent rage rather than a calculating psychopathic mass murderer). The real issue is the shooters, not the weapons, and we've already got laws against shooting people.

An old school conservative issues a debate challenge in which he begs the question in exactly the way liberals and progressives would prefer: there is a problem about which the federal government must do something. And then to address it, posits a false dichotomy giving us a choice from the options that so called progressives and liberals pretty much always favor: more taxes and/or less freedom. Be it rhetorical flimflam or satire, it's an interesting specimen.

RE: "We can deny all we want, but we all have some type of "prejudice"; it just depends on how you perceive something and how you were raised. How we respond to that prejudice is the real problem, not having it." It's true that we're all much more likely to be influenced by factors that influence us than we are to be influenced by ones that don't. But how little such statements clarify can be clearly obscured in statements expressing not just prejudice about prejudice but also prejudice about how the response to prejudice is more problematic than the prejudice itself, as is done in the above quote which itself expresses a prejudice asserting that one's response to the prejudice that one is prejudiced to believe one has is more of a problem than the prejudice that one is prejudiced to believe one has. It only leaves us to wonder... how should we respond to the prejudice that the problem with prejudice is more the response to the prejudice than the prejudice itself when that very prejudice is itself a prejudice, which according this maxim we ought be concerned about how we respond.... particularly when the prejudice about response to prejudice isn't developed as far as suggesting what kinds of responses are even available as options, much less what the consequences of selecting one option or another might be? Accuse me of using "skewed and twisted logic" but what else have we got here unless this maxim's twin elements, the omnipresence of prejudice, and the importance of our response to it, are themselves exempt from what the maxim posits... ...in which case, it can only be true if it is false. In other words.... huh? Anyway, it doesn't matter. I spent the last few years developing an immunity to iocane powder.