At this point in our history the 2nd amendment is a de facto terrorist instrument

[MightyMopar]

When thousands of people line up to buy military weapons to oppose a fair election they don't like or after a mass murder using such weapons, we basically are being blackmailed by terrorists. It's time to quit ignoring reality. It's time to call a spade a spade. Notice how the NRA apologists and their rightwing allies are trying to delegitimize shootings of "urban" kids as "gangbangers" just like they try to delegitimize urban voters.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Agreed. We should have the 2nd Amendment repealed on the grounds of being unconstitutional.

[MightyMopar]

2. The Constitution is designed to be amended or reinterpreted

[Tommy_Carcetti]

37. Actually, there are portions of the Constitution that would be unconstitutional....

....but for them being in the Constitution.

The electoral college, for starters. Not to mention the original text and the whole 3/5ths thing....

[RandiFan1290]

3. Do you listen to RW radio?

They really want to use their guns on you.

[Recursion]

4. Oh for Christ's sake

If you want to know why gun control keeps getting nowhere, this OP is an example...

[obamanut2012]

5. I think there's a reason for that

[Recursion]

6. IHBT?

[aikoaiko]

7. Yeah that opposition after the election was fierce.

Much plinking was done in protest.

[Kingofalldems]

8. Here they come to save the day!

That means the gungeon is on its way!

[LAGC]

10. Looks like I'm late to the party!

The Gungeon has already arrived.

[pipoman]

9. Sounds like the same kind of creative definition of

"terrorist" used by Bush and the patriot act lovers.

[lunatica]

11. This debate hasn't even started yet

President Obama will bring it up in the State Of The Union Address and he just promised he was going to do something about it.

I would like to see reasoned arguments rather than emotional extremism, but it won't be the first time I don't get what I want.

I do think it's possible to have rational dialogue although that doesn't seem possible nowadays.

[Demo_Chris]

13. We couldn't even manage a tax hike on the 250K bracket

At BEST Congress will pass some meaningless feel good nothing. When the government goes after guns three things happen:

1. MORE people buy guns. It happens every time.
2. Politicians lose elections and parties lose majorities.

And, if the government is foolish enough to start actually going after gun owners...

3. Tragedy.

[lunatica]

18. You just made my point a reality

Why would the government go after gun owners unless they're breaking the law? Really. Why?

That isn't going to happen. And as for Tragedy. What do you call the murder of the children in Newtown?

Obviously we can't have a reasonable dialogue when people keep screaming about how they're gonna shoot anyone who comes near your guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Exactly! If they're not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.

<flips SARCASM switch to "Off">

[Demo_Chris]

12. Gun nuts are ignorant evil terrorists and they refuse to have a rational discussion!

The above is sarcasm.

I don't care enough about this non-starter of an issue to have a strong opinion either way. But the many threads like this one are getting to be so obnoxious that they are almost forcing me to slide over to the pro-second amendment side of the debate.

Anyway, we get it:

You REALLY hate guns and gun owners!!!

But in the meantime Guns are legal and protected by the Second Amendment. And even if the last remaining copy of the Constitution were accidentally misplaced and that right no longer applied, the government STILL wouldn't even try to pass any kind of meaningful gun restrictions. The only way the American people will give up their guns is if they decide to do so on there own. Threads like this one don't help.

[MightyMopar]

14. if Moslems or commies did the school shootings we would spend billions chasing them dowm

and rescind all kind of liberties on the home front.

[billh58]

25. Uh, no guns are NOT

protected by the 2nd Amendment -- people are protected by the Constitution as a complete document.

The 2nd Amendment does not prohibit gun control, as was affirmed by the right-wing, Republican 5-4 Heller decision. Only the NRA prohibits sensible gun control through the outright buying, and bullying, of politicians. The 2nd Amendment is not the enemy, the NRA and it's corporate sponsors are the enemy.

And, you are wrong about the American people. Only knuckle-dragging gun fetishists would be willing to break the law when sane gun laws are passed. Reasonable law-abiding citizens who own guns are already calling for more stringent control of guns, as are most Americans who are fed up with the mass murders of innocent people.

The "cold, dead hands" NRA insane mantra is rapidly losing its message, and the attempts to induce fear into the discussion by insinuating that "they're coming for your guns," no longer holds water. The pendulum has begun to swing toward reason and sanity, and realistic gun regulation will begin in the near future. Deal with it.

[aikoaiko]

15. Is this the rational discourse that has not been able to take place until now?

[Chorophyll]

16. Doesn't sound irrational to me.

[aikoaiko]

19. It does to me.

Free speech is a instrument of terrorism.

Voting is an instrument of terrorism.

Due process is an instrument of terrorism.

Virtually any civil liberty can be used by criminals/terrorists to do bad things, but we are cautious about limiting them and we don't have to resort to extremism to discuss regulations.

[Chorophyll]

32. Except that free speech, voting, and due process do not involve deadly weapons.

So, no. Virtually any civil liberty cannot blah blah blah.

[oldhippie]

40. But obtaining and keeping those things did involve deadly weapons .....

.... pretty much through all human history. I am currently studying medieval English history and the genesis of English common law. It is pretty much a story of constant armed struggle against regime after regime.

[Chorophyll]

43. That's one way to look at history. But it isn't the only way.

You can look at it through the development of agrarianism, art, language, religion, disease, food -- almost anything. The fact that we teach history mostly through the medium of armed struggles says a lot about what we value as a society.

[oldhippie]

62. True that. But you were the one that ...

... brought up the subject of deadly weapons.

[CTyankee]

24. Nor to me. I find it supremely rational and realistic.

I love it when the Delicate Flowers burst into tears...

[Robb]

17. That's fringe thinking.

The fringe however always defines the debate. We eventually arrive at the middle, but the middle is found between the two extremes.

Anyone who claims to want reasonable gun safety laws needs to support you, because you balance the fringe on the other side. Shouting you down now only means they do not in fact want reasonable compromise, but rather favor the "nut" end of things.

[aikoaiko]

20. We reject both extremes as unreasonable. Its not that hard to do.

[Robb]

22. To the contrary.

You're doing the "gun nuts" work for them by shouting down the extreme gun safety position.

Why would you do that, in advance of the greater debate, if you were not in support of the "perspective" of the fringe gun advocates?

[aikoaiko]

23. Because extremism is a bad place to start debate.

I'll shout down anyone who says anti-2nd Amendment proponents are aiding terrorists or that everyone should have guns at all times, too.

[MightyMopar]

36. The gun pushers could have negotiated a better in the past but going forward............

The gun pushers could have negotiated a better deal in the past but going forward the new electorate is going to see them as more Teapublican overreach. Once the gerrymandering starts to collapse it will get very ugly for them.

[Robb]

39. Meh. A "shouting down" strategy only telegraphs the weakness of a position.

It's not sustainable.

[aikoaiko]

41. Maybe, but crazy talk definitely reveals weakness.

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. Because extreme gun control wouldn't advance safety.

Simple, really...

[Robb]

38. If it were so simple, you would not be in such a panic.

[Chorophyll]

44. +1

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. Me? Okaaaay...

Golly, I never met someone who could discern a person's emotional state over the interwebz!!!

[Robb]

51. It's not hard, you're not particularly subtle about it.

Again, I don't blame you. Were I the one lining up with these assholes, I'd be pretty panicky too.

The company you keep.

[Lizzie Poppet]

54. Actually, it's impossible.

That you actually think you can deduce this about my emotional state from my posts on a message board tells me pretty much every thing I need to know about your ability to contribute to a rational discussion. Hey, no problem! Comic relief is a valuable service.

[Robb]

55. U mad?

[Lizzie Poppet]

56. Nice follow up.

Nothing like chanspeak to reinforce my impression of your ability to offer anything of actual value. Y'know, I just purged my ignore list a couple days ago...full amnesty. You were on it, of course. I realize now what a good decision that amnesty was. This is some funny shit.

[Robb]

57. Keep on digging.

I'll play with your next incarnation, too.

[Lizzie Poppet]

58. Next incarnation?

Oh, God...this just gets funner every post. Do go on...

[HereSince1628]

21. "Call a spade a spade" but call the Constitution a "terrorist instrument"?

What about that sounds exactly like the sort of common sense that Obama said should be used to help solve the problem?

Can you not see that lede is going to put off a clear majority of Americans?

[CTyankee]

26. Nope. The 2nd A is being used as a terrorist instrument and I agree with the OP.

This is why that amendment should be eliminated.

[HereSince1628]

27. Well, good luck with that.

[CTyankee]

28. thank you for wishing me luck!

May your wish come true...

[Ter]

53. Careful what you wish for

Repealing it would lead to Civil War 2, and the Union wouldn't win that time.

[CTyankee]

60. You have a vivid imagination, I must say...

altho given some of the online conversations i've had with gun folks, I am not surprised at the sentiment, since I've heard variations of it that are "interesting."

[MightyMopar]

64. And why wouldn't the Union win that one

Silicon valley will have the south reduced to 1861 all over again in hours with stuxnet viruses!

[Ter]

65. Because for a cause this good, the Union would not hold

n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

29. And those acts of "terrorism" would be...?

Do recall that terrorism is violence committed for political gain...

[CTyankee]

31. do you like "terrorization" better?

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

"causing terror" in the hearts of teachers and first graders before they are slaughtered?

[Lizzie Poppet]

48. It's less of a misleading usage, sure. (nt)

[CTyankee]

61. No, we must always use correct usage when describing atrocities, musn't we?

[IWelcome TheirHatred]

33. There is no need for assault weapons in the hands of American civilians. Period.

The 2nd Amendment does not give anyone that right.

[MightyMopar]

34. One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

Many white christian heterosexaul men are threatened by the rise of a multicultural, multiracial majority that treats women , LGBT, atheists, muslims, etc as equal partners.

Whenever they brag about how many guns their buying, it's a threat to us.

[ileus]

35. I wish my new upper would arrive.

[Bucky]

52. How many "uppers" do you have to take to deal with OPs that stupid?

[JoeyT]

42. So is the first. I'd just as soon keep it anyway.

"Tiller the Baby Killer" kind of stuff, white power rallies, and crazy-assed anti-abortion groups are all protected by the first amendment until they actually do something illegal.

[Chorophyll]

45. And those illegal things often involve guns. Tiller being the case in point. nt

[Coyotl]

46. You mean our well-armed militia has finally scared the shit out of them readcoat Brits?

It all depends on the reading!

[Herlong]

47. I wouldn't do away with the 2nd Amendment

And I definitely wouldn't associate it with terrorism. Not in a million years.

[Bucky]

50. Okay you win

congratulations

[Coyotl]

63. What if women defended reproductive rights with guns?