The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[2aguy]

Yes, of course, NRA. Not “IRA.” Not an Irish bone in my body — so far as I know, anyway.

***

Periods of relative peace and mutual violence between ethnic communities, e.g. Protestant and Irish communities in Northern Ireland, or the domination of England over Ireland, Scotland, India (and even the U.S. for over a hundred years) all show that political oppression or the lack of it is not simply or directly associated with “gun ownership” — though this often plays a part in colonial situations.

The army of the India Raj was run by British officers but its ranks were overwhelmingly Indians. The relative lack of weapons in civilian hands did not cause the massacres of innocents during Indian partition either. Consciousness, culture, politics, economic institutions, history — these are usually the key factors that lead to, or end in, massacres and genocide.

Nobody is out to genocide white Americans — or do you think different? In China the CCP was quite popular right up to the beginning of land collectivizations and the Great Leap Forward. These policies — when added to natural disasters — led to the huge Han starvation deaths that you here call “genocide.”

Germany and Jews? No amount of weapons in Jewish hands would have saved them, as they were a minority population distributed throughout the country and largely integrated into German society. Of course they were not completed integrated, and were turned into hated outsiders and scapegoats by German nationalists like Hitler with his mad Nazi Party demagogy.

Of course weapons in civilian hands sometimes do matter. When crime is completely out of control virtually everybody wants them for self protection. Israel has them and has used them successfully to survive … and expand. Ukraine needs them to survive today. But here we are talking more of military force, of armies.

Guns in the hands of normal Germans would have prevented the rise of the national socialists......their rise to power was done through murder and intimidation of normal Germans.....much like here, the blm and antifa brown shirts of the democrat party burned, looted and murdered about 40 Americans.....in primarily black neighborhoods, in cities under the total control of the democrat party...where the democrat party mayors ordered the police to stand down and do nothing to stop the violence....

Why didn't blm and antifa march into white neighborhoods in the suburbs? That is where people have guns....it isn't a coincidence that the neighborhoods targeted by the democrats and their blm/antifa brown shirts were in extreme gun control cities.........

You just had to see the blm/antifa brown shirts keep walking when that Missouri couple stood outside their home with their rifle and pistol.....

Preventing violence, and intimidation is the primary tool to keep elections fair, to keep elections normal...but when one group will destroy businesses...beat and murder anyone who pokes their head up without having to worry about their victims shooting them.....then you get the rise of radical groups....

We experienced it first in New York...when the democrats passed their gun control laws to protect their brown shirts...the Sullivan Laws...

The strange birth of NY’s gun laws

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them asshtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.

----Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The laws you want erode the Right......and will allow the democrats to keep pushing more and more restrictions that do nothing to stop crime or mass shootings, but will slowly take guns away from normal people...

Can you explain how any of the laws the democrats and you want would have stopped any of the mass public shootings or the crimes in democrat party controlled cities?

Yes, proximate assault weapons might have been avoided in some cases, in other cases, a more thorough background screening might have kept weapons out of the wrong hands. Prudent people are willing to pursue the possibilities.

Cities with their denser populations bring greater attraction for thieves and maniacs both - in addition to the greater friction created at close quarters. Your contention that Democrats are emptying the prisons is nonsense. Which prisons are empty or anywhere close to it?

And don't think for a minute that I buy the bullshit about increasing taxes to build more prisons. I'm reminded of a certain Governor who pointed at the mentally ill as the culprit in a recent school shooting. The hypocrite did so on the heels of having reduced the budget for the mentally ill.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Hey....you challenged me.,

Your post #746...

Blaming the Democratic Party is bullshit.


you ....I give you information....and like most anti-gun fanatics....you demand links and back up of what I say....I post the links and the facts, and then you bitch like a baby about "cut and paste."

I gave you their exact policies...just a sample...and you complain because it shows that you don't understand the issue....

What a load of crap.

Six oversized post laden with paste in what, nine minutes? You assessed the "exactness" of all that in less then ten minutes? One more time, who the fuck do you think you are kidding. You are playing games and I'm wise to it.

Your purpose isn't to engage honest discourse, it's to close it down.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, proximate assault weapons might have been avoided in some cases, in other cases, a more thorough background screening might have kept weapons out of the wrong hands. Prudent people are willing to pursue the possibilities.

Cities with their denser populations bring greater attraction for thieves and maniacs both - in addition to the greater friction created at close quarters. Your contention that Democrats are emptying the prisons is nonsense. Which prisons are empty or anywhere close to it?

And don't think for a minute that I buy the bullshit about increasing taxes to build more prisons. I'm reminded of a certain Governor who pointed at the mentally ill as the culprit in a recent school shooting. The hypocrite did so on the heels of having reduced the budget for the mentally ill.

Your contention that Democrats are emptying the prisons is nonsense. Which prisons are empty or anywhere close to it?

From my links I gave that you bitched about...you had mayors and police chiefs complaining that the states attorneys in their cities, and the judges in their cities are releasing known, violent gun offenders with multiple felony convictions, over and over again...often with no cash bail......from L.A., to Chicago, to Baltimore, to New York and every other city under the control of democrats...this is happening....

The democrat party prosectors aren't even prosecuting felons.......so they aren't even getting to prison in the first place....

Then you have this...so don't bitch about cut and paste.....you made the challenge....not me.

California is allowing 76,000 inmates to leave prison earlier, starting Saturday.

They include violent and repeat felons.

The move comes as the state aims to trim further the population of what once was the nation’s largest state correctional system.

76,000 California inmates now eligible for earlier releases

Inmates convicted of violent crimes could be eligible for good behavior credits that shorten their life sentences by one-third instead of one-fifth.

www.abc10.com

======

Chicago....

Even though they were supposed to keep inmates in custody for at least 60 days before reducing their sentences with early release credits, the IDOC was giving inmates credit from day 1. The result was that prisoners who had sentencing credit for their time in county jails awaiting trial were eligible for release on their first day in the IDOC
----
First and foremost, the requirement of serving 60 days before receiving other early release credits is back. But this time, it is written into law. Before 2009, the 60-day requirement was unwritten and no one complied with it. Now this is the rule followed in every case.

The 60-day requirement created the term, “61-day wonder,” which describes an inmate who is immediately eligible for release after serving 60 days. A prisoner serving a one-year IDOC sentence on an ordinary, non-violent Class 4 felony should become a 61-day wonder.

The six-month good conduct credit is back, too. While the Code of Corrections calls it good conduct credit, the IDOC is calling it Supplemental Sentence Credit (SSC). But the name is not the only thing that has changed. There are more restrictions.

IDOC Early Release | 61-Day Parole | 6-Month Good Conduct Credit

The Department of Corrections has re-instituted an early release program that will allow some offenders to get released from prison after 61 days.

www.criminallawyerillinois.com

==========

The state’s attorney promised to transform the office. Data shows she’s dismissed thousands of felonies that would have been pursued in the past.

The Kim Foxx Effect: How Prosecutions Have Changed in Cook County

The state’s attorney promised to transform the office. Data shows she’s dismissed thousands of felonies that would have been pursued in the past.

www.themarshallproject.org

=====

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx is dropping felony cases involving charges of murder and other serious offenses at a higher rate than her predecessor, according to a Tribune analysis that comes amid a growing debate over criminal justice reform.

During Foxx’s first three years as the county’s top prosecutor, her office dropped all charges against 29.9% of felony defendants, a dramatic increase over her predecessor, the Tribune found. For the last three years of Anita Alvarez’s tenure, the rate was 19.4%.

Kim Foxx drops more felony cases as Cook County state’s attorney than her predecessor, Tribune analysis shows

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx is dropping felony cases involving charges of murder and other serious offenses at a higher rate than her predecessor, according to a Tribune analysis th…

www.chicagotribune.com

New York...

6,500 accused felons go scot-free as NYC DAs decline to prosecute​

Exclusive | 6,500 accused felons go scot-free as NYC DAs decline to prosecute

District attorneys across the Big Apple last year declined to prosecute accused felons at nearly twice the rate of 2019 — letting more than 6,500 suspects off the hook, The Post has learned. …

nypost.com

California....

He mandated an end to seeking cash bail, the death penalty, the sentence of life without parole and the prosecution of anyone younger than 18 as an adult. And in a rare, if not unprecedented, move by an American prosecutor,

Gascón declared his intent to effectively end very long sentences — in pending cases as well as new ones — for some of the most serious crimes, including murder.
---
Along with reconsidering more than 10,000 pending cases, Gascón pledged in his speech to make “an unprecedented effort to re-evaluate and resentence” thousands of prison terms. He referred to at least 20,000 that were “far longer than those they would receive under the charging policies I announced today. That is one-fifth of California’s total prison population.”

He’s Remaking Criminal Justice in L.A. But How Far Is Too Far?

To keep people out of prison, George Gascón is risking everything: rising violent crime, a staff rebellion and the votes that made him district attorney.

www.nytimes.com

-------

Another california prosecutor...

Chesa Boudin sent hundreds of violent offenders to diversion — and he has no idea where they are​

Chesa Boudin sent hundreds of violent offenders to diversion — and he has no idea where they are

Two studies show programs were in deep trouble years before Boudin took office

susanreynolds.substack.com

 

[2aguy]

What a load of crap.

Six oversized post laden with paste in what, nine minutes? You assessed the "exactness" of all that in less then ten minutes? One more time, who the fuck do you think you are kidding. You are playing games and I'm wise to it.

Your purpose isn't to engage honest discourse, it's to close it down.

No.......dipshit.......you challenged my claim.....I supported my claim with just a bare sample of what is out there.....it completely destroys your argument about crime and guns in this country, you know it, so now you are cry babying the links.....

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Guns in the hands of normal Germans would have prevented the rise of the national socialists.....

This quote — and you whole last comment about Democrats and BLM being Nazi stormtroopers who as always use force to win electoral victories in NYC and other cities, who in past could not win elections without ballot stuffing and gangs and the Sullivan Act — is totally off the wall crazy.

You are stuck so deep in your own anti-Democratic Party fantasies and gangster movie fantasies, so ignorant of the real history in cities, so obsessed with guns …. that you ignore the actual reality that built America’s democratic culture and famous “Melting Pot.”

The vote hustling of multi-ethnic ward healers wasn’t all negative. In those days (before there even was a “civil service”) political connections and ethnic organizations played a key role: they helped immigrants get established, provided jobs in city and private life, fixed roads, provided sanitation and utilities to new communities, even built public hospitals. You link to a simple-minded NY Post article, add a host of your own prejudices, and think you will impress anyone?

The role of Churches, reforms of both progressive Democratic & Republican politicians, the role of professional organizations, as well as far-sighted industrialists providing charity and private jobs and construction and city design, all this you ignore.

Also you ignore the real class differences that needed restraining, the workers leagues fighting without weapons for shorter and safer work, craft and industrial unions. You don’t see how it was precisely the haggling and messy democratic bloc voting in cities — not guns — that forced concessions from earlier ethnic elites, how troubles were often resolved through compromises arranged by ward healers and Church leaders.

You talk about guns used by gangsters but not about social welfare reformers and suffragettes. Guns were often a profound threat to all, deeply and almost universally unwanted in our seething urban jungles of new immigrant communities, strivers, and middle-class property owners. Even cops were often if not always unarmed.

All the infinite varieties of city life and politics and celebration in hundreds of different cities with their factories, grime, crime and family & Church affairs — all this you reduce to nothing. Why? Because that would not serve your idiot schema that widespread gun ownership and carrying guns in urban conditions … would have made all our cities into “beacons of light shining brightly upon a hill.”

Not everybody wanted to live in “Dodge City.” Most normal people still don’t.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment. He was a very wise man. He was not beholden to the NRA or the gun culture folks.

Stevens was a left-wing loon.

 

[Vrenn]

This quote — and you whole last comment about Democrats and BLM being Nazi stormtroopers who as always use force to win electoral victories in NYC and other cities, who in past could not win elections without ballot stuffing and gangs and the Sullivan Act — is totally off the wall crazy.

You are stuck so deep in your own anti-Democratic Party fantasies and gangster movie fantasies, so ignorant of the real history in cities, so obsessed with guns …. that you ignore the actual reality that built America’s democratic culture and famous “Melting Pot.”

The vote hustling of multi-ethnic ward healers wasn’t all negative. In those days (before there even was a “civil service”) political connections and ethnic organizations played a key role: they helped immigrants get established, provided jobs in city and private life, fixed roads, provided sanitation and utilities to new communities, even built public hospitals. You link to a simple-minded NY Post article, add a host of your own prejudices, and think you will impress anyone?

The role of Churches, reforms of both progressive Democratic & Republican politicians, the role of professional organizations, as well as far-sighted industrialists providing charity and private jobs and construction and city design, all this you ignore.

Also you ignore the real class differences that needed restraining, the workers leagues fighting without weapons for shorter and safer work, craft and industrial unions. You don’t see how it was precisely the haggling and messy democratic bloc voting in cities — not guns — that forced concessions from earlier ethnic elites, how troubles were often resolved through compromises arranged by ward healers and Church leaders.

You talk about guns used by gangsters but not about social welfare reformers and suffragettes. Guns were often a profound threat to all, deeply and almost universally unwanted in our seething urban jungles of new immigrant communities, strivers, and middle-class property owners. Even cops were often if not always unarmed.

All the infinite varieties of city life and politics and celebration in hundreds of different cities with their factories, grime, crime and family & Church affairs — all this you reduce to nothing. Why? Because that would not serve your idiot schema that widespread gun ownership and carrying guns in urban conditions … would have made all our cities into “beacons of light shining brightly upon a hill.”

Not everybody wanted to live in “Dodge City.” Most normal people still don’t.

If you mean Dodge City of 1867 then no. But if you mean Dodge City of 1888 then I believe they do after living through living in in Dodge City of 1867.

 

[2aguy]

This quote — and you whole last comment about Democrats and BLM being Nazi stormtroopers who as always use force to win electoral victories in NYC and other cities, who in past could not win elections without ballot stuffing and gangs and the Sullivan Act — is totally off the wall crazy.

You are stuck so deep in your own anti-Democratic Party fantasies and gangster movie fantasies, so ignorant of the real history in cities, so obsessed with guns …. that you ignore the actual reality that built America’s democratic culture and famous “Melting Pot.”

The vote hustling of multi-ethnic ward healers wasn’t all negative. In those days (before there even was a “civil service”) political connections and ethnic organizations played a key role: they helped immigrants get established, provided jobs in city and private life, fixed roads, provided sanitation and utilities to new communities, even built public hospitals. You link to a simple-minded NY Post article, add a host of your own prejudices, and think you will impress anyone?

The role of Churches, reforms of both progressive Democratic & Republican politicians, the role of professional organizations, as well as far-sighted industrialists providing charity and private jobs and construction and city design, all this you ignore.

Also you ignore the real class differences that needed restraining, the workers leagues fighting without weapons for shorter and safer work, craft and industrial unions. You don’t see how it was precisely the haggling and messy democratic bloc voting in cities — not guns — that forced concessions from earlier ethnic elites, how troubles were often resolved through compromises arranged by ward healers and Church leaders.

You talk about guns used by gangsters but not about social welfare reformers and suffragettes. Guns were often a profound threat to all, deeply and almost universally unwanted in our seething urban jungles of new immigrant communities, strivers, and middle-class property owners. Even cops were often if not always unarmed.

All the infinite varieties of city life and politics and celebration in hundreds of different cities with their factories, grime, crime and family & Church affairs — all this you reduce to nothing. Why? Because that would not serve your idiot schema that widespread gun ownership and carrying guns in urban conditions … would have made all our cities into “beacons of light shining brightly upon a hill.”

Not everybody wanted to live in “Dodge City.” Most normal people still don’t.

Wow…….you are the lame ass…..thinking I am unaware of everything else you posted about….

My point, you twit…..is that the democrat party has a long history of using violence for its ends and today’s democrat party is no different……...from the Civil war, to Jim Crow to the Klan….,,violence has been one of its most often used tools.

My point about the democrat party and its policies attacking the police and freeing violent criminals…..is true….you are tap dancing trying to deny it…..

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Your contention that Democrats are emptying the prisons is nonsense. Which prisons are empty or anywhere close to it?

From my links I gave that you bitched about...you had mayors and police chiefs complaining that the states attorneys in their cities, and the judges in their cities are releasing known, violent gun offenders with multiple felony convictions, over and over again...often with no cash bail......from L.A., to Chicago, to Baltimore, to New York and every other city under the control of democrats...this is happening....

The democrat party prosectors aren't even prosecuting felons.......so they aren't even getting to prison in the first place....

I've pasted only a part of one of your many paste-rants in which you present an unbalanced selection of evidence which is not aimed at objective truth but at singling out problems in Democratic Cities and States. ALL big cities have problems, red, blue and otherwise. Get your head out of your ass.


It took me only about five minutes to locate a reasoned report which appears below in italics.

"Gun violence and the prevalence of violent crime in the United States remain hot button issues in American society.

Undoubtedly, the US has remarkably high rates of violent crime compared to other developed nations in Europe and Asia, especially in certain regions, but what is the underlying cause behind these numbers? Could it be the nation’s lax gun laws and the ease of acquiring a firearm, or is there another explanation?

Is this about gun control or the lack thereof?​

The strictness of gun laws seems to play a role in violent crime rates, as the states with well over their share of cities in the top 100 (Table 1), like Florida, Michigan, Georgia, and Alabama, all have rather lax gun laws. However, there are exceptions: New Jersey, home to five cities in the top 100, and Illinois, home to three (including #98 Chicago) have very strict gun laws.

Although mass shootings are becoming increasingly common in American life, the violent crime and prevalence of gun murders plaguing America’s most dangerous cities aren’t best explained by lax gun laws, rates of gun ownership, or one-off rampages (although, these do have an effect), but rather, by income inequality.

Where there is a high poverty rate, and little opportunity to earn a decent wage, we find high homicide rates and a prevalence of other types of violent crime.​

The American communities suffering the hardest at the hands of violent crime are also some of the most impoverished in the country, with some of the highest unemployment rates, to boot."

Top 100 Most Dangerous Cities in America | National Council For Home Safety and Security

www.alarms.org

Is the above precisely about gun violence? No, and neither are your rants about Democrats and Progressives. Are the various list of infame more about red than blue? I don't know. I didn't count because I have no desire to endlessly engage your juvenile game of "Mommy, mommy he did it first".

We have a problem in this country and it won't be solved by pretending that guns aren't some part of it.

On my way to Arizona tomorrow. In my absence feel free to slap me up with some more one-sided paste.

 

[2aguy]

I've pasted only a part of one of your many paste-rants in which you present an unbalanced selection of evidence which is not aimed at objective truth but at singling out problems in Democratic Cities and States. ALL big cities have problems, red, blue and otherwise. Get your head out of your ass.


It took me only about five minutes to locate a reasoned report which appears below in italics.

"Gun violence and the prevalence of violent crime in the United States remain hot button issues in American society.

Undoubtedly, the US has remarkably high rates of violent crime compared to other developed nations in Europe and Asia, especially in certain regions, but what is the underlying cause behind these numbers? Could it be the nation’s lax gun laws and the ease of acquiring a firearm, or is there another explanation?

Is this about gun control or the lack thereof?​

The strictness of gun laws seems to play a role in violent crime rates, as the states with well over their share of cities in the top 100 (Table 1), like Florida, Michigan, Georgia, and Alabama, all have rather lax gun laws. However, there are exceptions: New Jersey, home to five cities in the top 100, and Illinois, home to three (including #98 Chicago) have very strict gun laws.

Although mass shootings are becoming increasingly common in American life, the violent crime and prevalence of gun murders plaguing America’s most dangerous cities aren’t best explained by lax gun laws, rates of gun ownership, or one-off rampages (although, these do have an effect), but rather, by income inequality.

Where there is a high poverty rate, and little opportunity to earn a decent wage, we find high homicide rates and a prevalence of other types of violent crime.​

The American communities suffering the hardest at the hands of violent crime are also some of the most impoverished in the country, with some of the highest unemployment rates, to boot."

Top 100 Most Dangerous Cities in America | National Council For Home Safety and Security

www.alarms.org

Is the above precisely about gun violence? No, and neither are your rants about Democrats and Progressives. Are the various list of infame more about red than blue? I don't know. I didn't count because I have no desire to endlessly engage your juvenile game of "Mommy, mommy he did it first".

We have a problem in this country and it won't be solved by pretending that guns aren't some part of it.

On my way to Arizona tomorrow. In my absence feel free to slap me up with some more one-sided paste.

Mass public shootings are not becoming more common...this is a typical, anti-gun trick...they conflate gun violence with mass public shootings and the two are not the same...

Gang bangers shooting at each other is not the same as a nut walking into a public space to murder innocent strangers....

In 2021, there were 6 mass public shootings in the United States.....out of over 330 million Americans.....6 individuals.....

they murdered a total of 43 people...

Meanwhile, criminal violence stemming from democrat party policies of attacking the police and releasing violent criminals resulted in over 10,000 gun murders.....

The two problems have different solutions...but gang bangers in democrat party controlled cities do not frighten the average American the way 24/7 coverage of a school shooting do...so the democrat party media cover the mass public shootings and conflate them with other criminal violence....to push gun control.

 

[2aguy]

I've pasted only a part of one of your many paste-rants in which you present an unbalanced selection of evidence which is not aimed at objective truth but at singling out problems in Democratic Cities and States. ALL big cities have problems, red, blue and otherwise. Get your head out of your ass.


It took me only about five minutes to locate a reasoned report which appears below in italics.

"Gun violence and the prevalence of violent crime in the United States remain hot button issues in American society.

Undoubtedly, the US has remarkably high rates of violent crime compared to other developed nations in Europe and Asia, especially in certain regions, but what is the underlying cause behind these numbers? Could it be the nation’s lax gun laws and the ease of acquiring a firearm, or is there another explanation?

Is this about gun control or the lack thereof?​

The strictness of gun laws seems to play a role in violent crime rates, as the states with well over their share of cities in the top 100 (Table 1), like Florida, Michigan, Georgia, and Alabama, all have rather lax gun laws. However, there are exceptions: New Jersey, home to five cities in the top 100, and Illinois, home to three (including #98 Chicago) have very strict gun laws.

Although mass shootings are becoming increasingly common in American life, the violent crime and prevalence of gun murders plaguing America’s most dangerous cities aren’t best explained by lax gun laws, rates of gun ownership, or one-off rampages (although, these do have an effect), but rather, by income inequality.

Where there is a high poverty rate, and little opportunity to earn a decent wage, we find high homicide rates and a prevalence of other types of violent crime.​

The American communities suffering the hardest at the hands of violent crime are also some of the most impoverished in the country, with some of the highest unemployment rates, to boot."

Top 100 Most Dangerous Cities in America | National Council For Home Safety and Security

www.alarms.org

Is the above precisely about gun violence? No, and neither are your rants about Democrats and Progressives. Are the various list of infame more about red than blue? I don't know. I didn't count because I have no desire to endlessly engage your juvenile game of "Mommy, mommy he did it first".

We have a problem in this country and it won't be solved by pretending that guns aren't some part of it.

On my way to Arizona tomorrow. In my absence feel free to slap me up with some more one-sided paste.

The major cities that drive have the highest levels of gun crime are controlled by the democrat party and their policies...

You refuse to see this because you only think "guns," so you won't see the solutions to the actual problem....

Fatherless homes......the democrat party promotes this

Fatherless homes create boys and girls who get sucked into crime and drugs.

The democrats then attack the police forces....making them stop doing their jobs, currently forcing massive retirements, relocations to areas that are less hostile to the police in philosophy, and the DAs, who I highlighted from major American cities who are refusing to prosecute actual violent criminals, and who are working to release violent criminals create the growth environment for violent gun crime....

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, the carnage is by the hand of those with easy access, in part due to a great supply.

The vast, vast majority of the people in the US have the right to keep and bear arms.
Why should it not be "easy" for them to exercise that right?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The major cities that drive have the highest levels of gun crime are controlled by the democrat party and their policies...

You refuse to see this because you only think "guns," so you won't see the solutions to the actual problem....

Fatherless homes......the democrat party promotes this

Fatherless homes create boys and girls who get sucked into crime and drugs.

The democrats then attack the police forces....making them stop doing their jobs, currently forcing massive retirements, relocations to areas that are less hostile to the police in philosophy, and the DAs, who I highlighted from major American cities who are refusing to prosecute actual violent criminals, and who are working to release violent criminals create the growth environment for violent gun crime....

You have argued some legitimate points in our exchanges, but much of what is given above (and in your prior post) is just a partisan rant.

I accept that anti-gun arguments can go too far, and that crowded places are part of that which contributes to violence. You need to accept that another part of the problem rest with the proliferation of weapons, and the lax manner in which they are often bought, sold and brandished.

 

[2aguy]

You have argued some legitimate points in our exchanges, but much of what is given above (and in your prior post) is just a partisan rant.

I accept that anti-gun arguments can go too far, and that crowded places are part of that which contributes to violence. You need to accept that another part of the problem rest with the proliferation of weapons, and the lax manner in which they are often bought, sold and brandished.

No.....we have more than enough laws......the direct cause of our gun crime problem is the democrat party and their policies.....you don't want to admit that, you want to blame the gun and protect the democrats....

The democrat party is destroying the local police and releasing violent offenders, no matter how many crimes they commit....you don't see that as the primary problem....so you won't be able to fix it.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

This quote — and you whole last comment about Democrats and BLM being Nazi stormtroopers who as always use force to win electoral victories in NYC and other cities, who in past could not win elections without ballot stuffing and gangs and the Sullivan Act — is totally off the wall crazy.

You are stuck so deep in your own anti-Democratic Party fantasies and gangster movie fantasies, so ignorant of the real history in cities, so obsessed with guns …. that you ignore the actual reality that built America’s democratic culture and famous “Melting Pot.”

The vote hustling of multi-ethnic ward healers wasn’t all negative. In those days (before there even was a “civil service”) political connections and ethnic organizations played a key role: they helped immigrants get established, provided jobs in city and private life, fixed roads, provided sanitation and utilities to new communities, even built public hospitals. You link to a simple-minded NY Post article, add a host of your own prejudices, and think you will impress anyone?

The role of Churches, reforms of both progressive Democratic & Republican politicians, the role of professional organizations, as well as far-sighted industrialists providing charity and private jobs and construction and city design, all this you ignore.

Also you ignore the real class differences that needed restraining, the workers leagues fighting without weapons for shorter and safer work, craft and industrial unions. You don’t see how it was precisely the haggling and messy democratic bloc voting in cities — not guns — that forced concessions from earlier ethnic elites, how troubles were often resolved through compromises arranged by ward healers and Church leaders.

You talk about guns used by gangsters but not about social welfare reformers and suffragettes. Guns were often a profound threat to all, deeply and almost universally unwanted in our seething urban jungles of new immigrant communities, strivers, and middle-class property owners. Even cops were often if not always unarmed.

All the infinite varieties of city life and politics and celebration in hundreds of different cities with their factories, grime, crime and family & Church affairs — all this you reduce to nothing. Why? Because that would not serve your idiot schema that widespread gun ownership and carrying guns in urban conditions … would have made all our cities into “beacons of light shining brightly upon a hill.”

Not everybody wanted to live in “Dodge City.” Most normal people still don’t.

Wow…….you are the lame ass…..thinking I am unaware of everything else you posted about….

My point, you twit…..is that the democrat party has a long history of using violence for its ends and today’s democrat party is no different……...from the Civil war, to Jim Crow to the Klan….,,violence has been one of its most often used tools.

My point about the democrat party and its policies attacking the police and freeing violent criminals…..is true….you are tap dancing trying to deny it…..

2aguy, you are clearly not aware that the city and immigrant centered development of our democratic “Melting Pot” culture was based as I said NOT ON GUNS but on messy democratic electoral politics.

You are also acting like a “twit” and “lame ass” by using these words to attack me and defend your own prejudices and presumptions. Take, for instance:

“The democrat party has a long history of using violence for its ends and today’s democrat party is no different……...from the Civil war, to Jim Crow to the Klan….,,violence has been one of its most often used tools.”

This is dumb. It could be said equally of the whole violent history of Western expansion and “Manifest Destiny,” or of U.S. society generally.

Much of what made us a great nation, the expansion and reform of electoral politics, was led by Democratic Party politicians and by Republican “progressives” like Teddy Roosevelt. Struggles to extend suffrage started way back under (Democrat) Andrew Jackson (who personally fought almost a dozen duels and vigorously opposed secessionists) and continued later by populists (agrarian anti-railroad monopolists), suffragettes and immigrant and minority communities.

This “democratizing” of society and our Republican electoral system worked ultimately to displace and lessen the role & need for guns, especially in cities, and they helped set the stage for the Civil Rights Movement too. Reform and “progressive” movements were powerful, bipartisan, but sometimes disorienting for conservatives and traditionalists. At one time they not only dramatically limited carrying guns, but even banned alcohol!

Your totally dishonest amalgamation attributing BOTH violent behavior AND anti-gun policies (in different regions and in different periods) uniquely or primarily to Democrats is silly. It was Southern pre-Civil War society, not any particular political party, that long maintained effective “militias” … to catch runaway slaves and protect from slave uprisings. The degradations inherent in Southern slave society created a much better armed, more martial and more violent culture there than existed in the North at that time.

Democrats (and Whigs) in the South were indeed well armed. Democrats in big Northern cities were quite different and relied on votes from immigrants. It was “Lincoln Republicans” who finally were obliged to raise armies — largely of city folk, immigrants and rural “Free Soilers” — to beat back the violent pro-slavery secessionists. “Marching through Georgia,” by the way, was a very violent thing to do … and a “Republican” campaign.

In general I defend “Lincoln Republicans”(of whom there seem rather few these days), and 19th & 20th century progressives. Though I am a gun owner myself and was once in the IRA, I am ambivalent about the “gun issue” today, as this discussion has been deformed by partisan extremists on both sides.

Your side directly attacked the police on Jan. 6th, moreover these were police protecting the very seat of our Republic. Unregistered and uncontrolled carrying of guns also makes the job of police and law enforcement much harder, especially in teeming cities. While I never support the release of violent criminals out into the public, I note we have the world’s highest rates per capita of incarceration … as well as of gun carrying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Though I am a gun owner myself and was once in the IRA

Again?

 

[Papageorgio]

Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...

www.dailykos.com

Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

Good thing that idiots like you weren't around 200 years ago. You are free to try to get it removed form the Constitution, and good luck.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Again?

So you have nothing of substance to say … again!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you have nothing of substance to say … again!

NRA.