Spouting off? Where I come from, that’s what we call the noise from blowhards who post swaggering bullshit without backing it up with any cites. All hat and no cattle, sez I.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Here’s the thing itself: “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.”
Actually, I would have thought that everyone in America who believes in their right to own and carry guns justifies that belief on the need for a committed, organised and prepared citizenry. Especially, the individuals that probably shouldn’t have them. It could be argued that the license provided by the second is more powerful than any piece of paper issued by the state, county or whatever.
Not everyone. Some believe that more guns with fewer restrictions means that responsible citizens are better able to protect themselves. Not my POV, just saying that’s probably a more common position than one based on a broad reading of the 2nd Amendment.
I think the narrower position (the one you refer to) flows from the broader one (the one I refer to). In other words, the gun-owning citizen who shoots an intruder who is deemed to be threatening his or her self or family sees themselves as acting under the broader authority of the Governor of the state as part of the “militia” referred to in 1787.
I see where you’re getting it, but that’s a pretty tortured interpretation. Self-defense is necessary, but shooting a person in your home doesn’t make you part of a militia.
FI,
I feel I owe you an apology…that came out far nastier than I meant it to be.
What would you consider an adequate cite?
Apology accepted.
As for the cites, I’m not sure either contention is supportable. You suggested that “quite a few” of the gun nuts mocking Kerry on the internet served in the military. Even if you could produce a gun list membership that details who was military and who wasn’t, it doesn’t account for the thousands of gun nuts who lambast Kerry without subscribing to gun lists. Then you further contend that those gun nuts who served, completed their tours, another contention that I just don’t think is supportable one way or the other by any evidence. That you believe it, is not in dispute; but that is hardly convincing to those of us who do not. And, as has been pointed out, this point is irrelevant anyway, as Kerry served two tours during the Vietnam war.
A distinct minority over all…and it’s my experience that the ones who were there have some respect for other veterans. They also tnd not to be the loudmouths.
So did Kerry. More even.
Given the veneration in which the constitution is generally held, including the amendments, I’d have thought that the connection between militia, freedom and the attempt to threaten that freedom was felt by nearly every gun-owner. Whoever might be attempting to assault that freedom, however or wherever. After all, one’s home is within one’s State. Indeed, I understood that to be BobLibDem’s point.
And, anyway, having resided online among you Americans for a few months, the one thing I’ve come to appreciate is your dedication to tortured interpretations! Not surprising in a country where one in what (20? 50?) have some formal legal background. And where, even as we speak, lawyers in Colorado and no doubt elsewhere are preparing avenues for costly exploration in anticipation of a torturous outcome to next week’s main event. An outcome that they can perhaps dictate as much as merely benefit from.
Are you serious? Dude, that’s hysterical! HAHAHAH!!!
That’s odd.
Hmm…that’s not how the American SongBird Coalition casts it.
From: http://www.savethedoves.org/gwbush.html
(emphasis added)
So it looks like according to the Coalition, who certainly are anything but pro-Bush, that even “experienced” hunters make the same mistake.
I assume there must be a cite that says Richards “bagged herself some birds”, or that the ASC is wrong about the characterization of accidental shootings of killdeer, right?
Roger, you’re being a silly twat again. Not only are you not American, but “residing among” us online most definitely doesn’t make up for that. So please stop trying to speak on all things gun-related and American, because your grasp is so tenuous at best.
Oh, and you’re hijacking yet another fucking thread with your blather.
Sam
That’s it? That’s your comeback? Anne Richards didn’t shoot anything? Who cares? It’s ancillary to the story. The story is that dumbass shot a killdeer because he “thought it was a dove.”
I heard the story told by Molly Ivens on some talk show several years ago. She said Richards bagged a bird. It looks like we have two conflicting reports about that utterly irrelevant detail. Take comfort in that if must.
Hear, hear.
Non-hunter vegetarian here, voting for Kerry despite that rather idiotic attempt to compell the almighty “undecided” hunter voters to make up their fucking minds! (by bagging a geese). :dubious: Ann Richards? Please don’t make me go there. For once, I’d like to see a candidate for any public office (who resides in Texas) to not feel compelled to hunt down animals as part of their campaign. When you really stop and think about it, we’re not going to be attacked by your average duck.
It’s not a “comeback”; I don’t get into these debates on here. It’s a simple response to either a deliberate lie or a simple mistake.
I knew this one off the top of my head only because Fierra and I “adopted” a killdeer, and I came across this story a while ago while searching for info on them. I read this thread because it involved guns and hunting. The two coming together drives my posting, not anything else. It was the first Google hit. Took me all of 10 seconds to rebut with a cite what you wrote. It just wasn’t that hard to fact-check. Otherwise I would not have bothered to post.
I provided a cite-based rebuttal to an assertion you made. Your response is not to provide a cite but to yell at me and attempt to misdirect with “who cares?” Seems like the honourable thing to do would have been just to say “you’re right, I got that one wrong” or provide a cite. Will you be doing either of those?
You didn’t “rebut” anything, fucktard, you corrected an irrelevant ancillary detail. Who gives a shit?
Back up a second here.
**Una ** was dealing with the facts of the story, which are:
- Ann Richards was successful in hunting
- GWB was not, and in fact shot a killdeer by mistake
To the first, **Una ** provides a cite that indicates Ann was unsuccessful, which you describe as ancillary to the story. In my reading of the original, part of the punch of the story was that GWB was out-shot by a woman. Even so, let’s concede it’s ancillary.
On the second point, the cite indicates that the mistake made is a common one. This is definitely not ancillary, it’s material.
You’re being unnecessarily confrontational and argumentative, Diogenes. As one who would like to see you stay here, I suggest you re-read your post and decide whether the tone is one you want to take.
The point of the story was not that GWB got outshot by a woman (why would that be a bad thing?) but that Bush tried to go hunting for a photo op like Kerry did and that he shot an endangered bird because he’s a moron. The Anne Richards is completely irrelevant to the story. She doesn’t even need to be mentioned.
As for being “unnecessarily confrontational,” This is the fuckling PIT, dumbass. It’s supposed to be unnecessarily confrontational? What are you a fucking noob? Suck my balls.
He’s just being himself.
So, what have we learned?
From the first part of this thread, we learned that despite claims to the contrary from idiots, John Kerry is an experienced hunter, has been for many years, and was not simply posing for a photo op doing something he knew nothign about.
From the quote above, we learn that Diogenes is also an idiot. He posted a slam at George W. Bush, relating a story that suggests he was a moron because he shot a songbird instead of a game bird. The story also claims that his gubernatorial opponent, Ann Richards, was successful in shooting her prey.
Subsequent to this posting, we learn two things: first, that Ann Richards did not shoot her prey after all, and, second, that shooting a songbird by mistake does not fairly allow the inference that the shooter is a moron, since experienced hunters make this mistake with regularity.
Diogenes’s response is to bluster instead of admit error.
Poor show.
- Rick