# Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729 "2013-01-29T19:01:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 279
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5561 "2015-08-11T20:11:41Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > We are laughing at him, yes, but for merely thinking of doing an experiment about his particular fetish (about which decent people are appalled, another similarity you share). You went ahead and _did_ yours. > > Get help. You have still done nothing to show results other than what I got. You are, as always, just noise. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5562 "2015-08-11T20:15:20Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > You have still done nothing to show results other than what I got. Your results are meaningless, because you don’t know the type of trigger the gun had, the packaging it was in, or the handling it was subjected to. You have reached conclusions based on nothing. There is nothing to refute. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5563 "2015-08-11T20:16:19Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > You have still done nothing to show results other than what I got. It isn’t about the gun. Nobody else cares. It’s about _you_. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5564 "2015-08-11T20:23:28Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Who proposed the “loaded and cocked” story? Did I miss something in the original articles stating that the gun was mailed with the hammer cocked? Or is that more assumptions you’re piling on? > > We know the gun was loaded because it was fired. We know it went off, which, according to you, can happen if it was a pre-1973 gun and the hammer was hit (no trigger pull required). You then go on to say, in your last sentence, that a trigger pull was required. > > Occam’s razor, man. It was a pre-1973 gun and the hammer got whacked somehow. No “Postman Earp” required. The article says the gun went off while he was “holding” the box. How did he “hold” the box in such a way as to strike the hammer a blow? Why are you so certain it is an unaltered pre-1973 Blackhawk? Most Blackhawks are post-recall manufacture, as the gun began production in 1955. 18 years of pre-recall manufacture vs. 42 years of post-recall. Also, some percentage of pre-1973 guns were retrofitted. You are piling an unlikely event, i.e. “holding” the box struck the hammer a vigorous enough blow to fire the cartridge, on top of this being an uncommon variant of the gun. I am positing a cocked hammer and a pressed triger because that will fire a loaded Blackhawk every time…and yet you keep fatuously refering to Occam’s razor? You lot are like arguing with toddlers. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5565 "2015-08-11T20:32:15Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > You lot are like arguing with toddlers. When they don’t do what you want right away? What do you do then? Tell us more. Better yet, tell a shrink. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5566 "2015-08-11T20:35:15Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > The article says the gun went off while he was “holding” the box. The article never mentioned a box. For all we know, she mailed it in a padded envelope. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5567 "2015-08-11T20:37:26Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > The article says the gun went off while he was “holding” the box. How did he “hold” the box in such a way as to strike the hammer a blow? Why are you so certain it is an unaltered pre-1973 Blackhawk? Most Blackhawks are post-recall manufacture, as the gun began production in 1955. 18 years of pre-recall manufacture vs. 42 years of post-recall. Also, some percentage of pre-1973 guns were retrofitted. You are piling an unlikely event, i.e. “holding” the box struck the hammer a vigorous enough blow to fire the cartridge, on top of this being an uncommon variant of the gun. > > I am positing a cocked hammer and a pressed triger because that will fire a loaded Blackhawk every time…and yet you keep fatuously refering to Occam’s razor? You lot are like arguing with toddlers. I assume, like most postal workers, he delicately picked up the box and set it on the padded conveyor belt to it’s next destination. :rolleyes: Are you serious? He probably picked it up and prepared to chuck it into a bin 20 feet away by hauling back and when he did so, the gun smashed into the side of the box, right next to where his hand was. By the numbers, of course you’re correct. If we’re going to guess what year any random Blackhawk is, I would not assume it’s a pre-recall gun because the numbers don’t make sense. But if you assume that it’s a modern gun, then you need to explain how the trigger got pulled, and there’s no simple way to explain that. You either need something intruding on the package space or something packed in the package that could catch the trigger or (:smack:) a postal worker who opens the box for some stupid reason and decides to play dirty harry. I’m not saying you’re wrong, or impossible. But you seem awfully hell bent on discrediting the (IMHO) most likely explanation in order to absolve the gun of all guilt. I really don’t understand why. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5568 "2015-08-11T21:11:17Z")
**Scumpup** , you continue to run away from my questions you nutless chickenshit pussy! Answer the questions. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5569 "2015-08-11T23:46:12Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > **Scumpup** , you continue to run away from my questions you nutless chickenshit pussy! Answer the questions. Ask away. What do you want to know? For every question I answer, you must answer one with no ElvisL1ves-style bullshit. Quid pro quo. The moment you start evading or non-answering or rules lawyering, we are done and every time you ever question another member I will link to your failure. If you can’t abide by these rules, then I am answering nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5570 "2015-08-11T23:58:51Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I assume, like most postal workers, he delicately picked up the box and set it on the padded conveyor belt to it’s next destination. :rolleyes: > > Are you serious? He probably picked it up and prepared to chuck it into a bin 20 feet away by hauling back and when he did so, the gun smashed into the side of the box, right next to where his hand was. > > By the numbers, of course you’re correct. If we’re going to guess what year any random Blackhawk is, I would not assume it’s a pre-recall gun because the numbers don’t make sense. But if you assume that it’s a modern gun, then you need to explain how the trigger got pulled, and there’s no simple way to explain that. You either need something intruding on the package space or something packed in the package that could catch the trigger or (:smack:) a postal worker who opens the box for some stupid reason and decides to play dirty harry. > > I’m not saying you’re wrong, or impossible. But you seem awfully hell bent on discrediting the (IMHO) most likely explanation in order to absolve the gun of all guilt. I really don’t understand why. I am sure of this: the chances of that revolver going off for any reason other than the hammer being cocked and the trigger pressed are very, very, very small indeed. The postal worker claimed sore hands and ringing ears. So, he even admits it was in his hands when it discharged. You keep jumping through your own asshole trying to come up with some unlikely combination of events where the gun just somehow goes off in the package all by itself. Well, Occam’s Razor is our answer. The simplest answer is the hammer was cocked and the trigger was pressed. I don’t know who did those things or even if the same person did both, but the article’s explanation and your attempts to retrofit reality to it are much less likely than that the gun went off because it was cocked and the trigger pressed. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5571 "2015-08-12T00:12:02Z")
In what way is “It was an older gun and the box was handled roughly” me jumping through my own asshole to come up with an unlikely series of events? Do you even hear yourself here? It was an older gun and the box was handled roughly. Watch out guys, I’m spewing conspiracy theories now! ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5572 "2015-08-12T01:38:58Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [BTW, here’s how the NRA made you believe their lies.](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856.html#.VcnoDPlVhBc) > Read in full if you’re willing to learn how easily gulled you are. Well to paraphrase what you said, “Another gun banner telling the same lie as you. Impressive” (NOT). Anyone can write an article; and even the text of the article itself undermines much of his own arguments. For starters, he admits that initially every able-bodied man was required to own and keep his own gun, the way the Swiss do today. And that “At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights.”. His argument amounts to claiming that a widely recognized common-law right was never given enumerated protection- hardly the ringing rejection of gun rights you are seeking. The Tennessee court case he cites (_Aymette vs. The State_) actually reiterates the keeping of weapons as a right while upholding a law against weapons that are not militarily useful- much the same argument that would be made at the federal level in _Miller_. By that argument, a state could ban Saturday Night Specials but be required to allow someone to own a fully-automatic M4 carbine- you wanna’ go there? He makes much of the fact that the Supreme Court had repeatedly refused to interpret the Second as upholding an individual right. What he glosses over is that for decades the Supreme Court refused to incorporate ANY of the Bill of Rights. Beginning with the Slaughter-House Cases, the court absolutely rejected the argument that the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities clause extended the Bill of Rights to the state governments. (Decades later, a 20th century court would find that incorporation in the “Due Process” clause). The _Miller_ decision came in the context of a Supreme Court being pressured to find legalistic justifications for Roosevelt’s ambitious social agenda, and even then it explicitly stated that the federal government could not flatly disarm the populace. Ultimately, the National Firearms Act that was upheld in _Miller_ was held to be merely a federal stamp tax, which did not actually **ban** fully-automatic weapons. This was actually a disappointment to the Roosevelt administration, which had sought to exert broad federal authority over guns, including the authority to ban handguns at the federal level. The article says “libertarian” and “conservative” like those were bad things. It repeatedly lays the (as he sees it) “blame” for the present situation at the door of the NRA- somehow without ever mentioning that “The NRA” is millions of Americans exercising their right to political activity (or are you going to repeat the lie that the NRA is just a facade for the gun companies?). He bemoans that public opinion has been “molded” (and just think about the ideological world-view that implies for a few minutes!) the “wrong” way. What the hell is democracy for if it doesn’t enable the people to have what they want? And the vote is clear: after decades of progressive government claiming it would make everything fine if people would just give up that foolish, archaic notion of owning weapons, the people no longer believe the social engineers. I’ll put it this way: if the Second Amendment never recognized an individual right to arms, it ought to. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5573 "2015-08-12T05:33:56Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > … Another gun banner … You know, I was lambasted not too long ago for using the term “gundamentalist”, possibly because the person who found the term offensive was under the impression that I was using it broadly, to describe everyone who had some concerns about regulation. Which, of course, is not the case, gundamentalists are a minority of the gun-rights advocacy spread. But the “gun banners” – by which I assume you must mean those advocating draconian restrictions and blanket bans on many firearms – are in fact a smaller minority than the gundamentalists. Very few critics of stupid mishandling of guns are anywhere near being “banners”, we just want some real, useful, effects rules and limitations in place, so that a thread like this, in a better world, would be lucky to get 34 post a year. What I mean is, when you start sputtering “_Gun Banner!_” at anyone who disagrees with you, it makes you look like a fucking drooling idiot. I do not know whether you are in fact a fucking drooling idiot, but I only have so much to go on. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5574 "2015-08-12T13:04:19Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > > [BTW, here’s how the NRA made you believe their lies.](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856.html#.VcnoDPlVhBc) Among other things,This is good:Which, of course, is the form of lie you’re using - the stripping of context. > > > > Read in full if you’re willing to learn how easily gulled you are. > > Well to paraphrase what you said, “Another gun banner telling the same lie as you. Impressive” (NOT). Anyone can write an article; and even the text of the article itself undermines much of his own arguments. Thanks for calling this article to my attention; I missed it earlier. > [@](#): > > "A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum. > Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches. > Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. My reaction: **Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law** – 1 **Lumpy** – 0 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5575 "2015-08-12T13:48:25Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > For starters, he admits that initially every able-bodied man was required to own and keep his own gun, the way the Swiss do today. And for the same reason, to provide a military force when required. Somehow you think that argues for an unlimited \*individual \*right, not within the limits the Second itself defines. > [@](#): > > By that argument, a state could ban Saturday Night Specials but be required to allow someone to own a fully-automatic M4 carbine- you wanna’ go there? _Miller_ established that, as if there had been any doubt. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > He makes much of the fact that the Supreme Court had repeatedly refused to interpret the Second as upholding an individual right. What he glosses over is that for decades the Supreme Court refused to incorporate ANY of the Bill of Rights. So? > [@](#): > > The _Miller_ decision came in the context of a Supreme Court being pressured to find legalistic justifications for Roosevelt’s ambitious social agenda You’ll claim context when you think it helps, won’t you? 😉 The relevance of that claim is for you to explain, if you can, except you haven’t. > [@](#): > > even then it explicitly stated that the federal government could not flatly disarm the populace. Nor did anyone claim that strawman. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > The article says “libertarian” and “conservative” like those were bad things. Waaahhh! > [@](#): > > “The NRA” is millions of Americans exercising their right to political activity (or are you going to repeat the lie that the NRA is just a facade for the gun companies?). Who said that was “just” what it is? There are indeed millions of people they, among others, have thoroughly fooled by appealing to base fears and by simple lying. You are implying that those millions are actually the majority and should be knelt before, somehow, though - well, here’s news for you, there are far more people who are not fooled and not bound by their fears. > [@](#): > > What the hell is democracy for if it doesn’t enable the people to have what they want? Why don’t we have Manchin-Toomey? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I’ll put it this way: if the Second Amendment never recognized an individual right to arms, it ought to. So you’re in favor of having a right to armed insurrection, are you? You’re in favor of killing when you can’t win by argument in a democratic process? Is that it, or what? Tell us specifically what your concept of society and government is that makes an “individual right” not only acceptable but necessary. A right to do what, exactly? Time to quit threatening “Second Amendment remedies” and tell us just what that means, and how it doesn’t give others the right to execute them against _you._ Show us your honesty and clarity of thought. Try to persuade us, and tell us why you should be able to kill us if you can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5576 "2015-08-12T18:19:03Z")
> **[North Carolina open carry advocate shoots and kills toddler sons after...](https://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/north-carolina-open-carry-advocate-shoots-and-kills-toddler-sons-after-domestic-dispute/)** > > An Iredell County, North Carolina man is in critical condition after shooting and killing two boys, ages 3 and 4, and then shooting himself early Sunday morning. According to the Charlotte Observer, Iredale County Sheriff Darren Campbell reported... Same shit, different day. Wonkette also discusses it on their site. Nothing will change. Feeling very discouraged today… ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5577 "2015-08-12T18:42:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post > > For starters, he admits that initially every able-bodied man was required to own and keep his own gun, the way the Swiss do today. > > And for the same reason, to provide a military force when required. Somehow you think that argues for an unlimited \*individual \*right, not within the limits the Second itself defines. Who said unlimited? Free speech isn’t absolutely unlimited; but the government can’t issue blanket orders that you need permission to publish a book, or that newspaper articles have to submitted to a censor for clearance, or that certain people can be placed under injunction forbidding them to make public speeches. Granted we’ve come close to something like that at different times, such as the Alien and Sedition law, the laws against antiwar speech in WW1, or the '50s Red Scare in which it was virtually made a crime to be a member of the Communist Party. But most people today recognize those times as authoritarianism run amok. Gun rights proponents simply argue that military service isn’t the SOLE justification for possessing arms, and that there are good reasons for supposing that this was recognized at the time the Constitution was written. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > He makes much of the fact that the Supreme Court had repeatedly refused to interpret the Second as upholding an individual right. What he glosses over is that for decades the Supreme Court refused to incorporate ANY of the Bill of Rights. > > So? So the author makes it sound like the Second Amendment was unique in that respect, which is wasn’t. > [@](#): > > The Miller decision came in the context of a Supreme Court being pressured to find legalistic justifications for Roosevelt’s ambitious social agenda > > > [@](#): > > > > You’ll claim context when you think it helps, won’t you? 😉 The relevance of that claim is for you to explain, if you can, except you haven’t. OK, in a nutshell, after the SC struck down several New Deal laws as not being within the enumerated powers of the federal government, Roosevelt threatened to pack the court- whereupon the court suddenly began upholding New Deal legislation by such travesties as the Interstate Commerce Clause. I’m hardly the first one to point out the striking change from strict federalism to an expansive interpretation of federal authority. > [@](#): > > even then it explicitly stated that the federal government could not flatly disarm the populace. > > > [@](#): > > > > Nor did anyone claim that strawman. :rolleyes: The author you cited was claiming that historically there was no protection against disarmament outside of a military context. So to the extent that he’s trying to make a case that the Second Amendment wouldn’t protect against a federal law banning all private arms, **he’s** making that claim. > [@](#): > > “The NRA” is millions of Americans exercising their right to political activity (or are you going to repeat the lie that the NRA is just a facade for the gun companies?). > > > [@](#): > > > > Who said that was “just” what it is? There are indeed millions of people they, among others, have thoroughly fooled by appealing to base fears and by simple lying. You are implying that those millions are actually the majority and should be knelt before, somehow, though - well, here’s news for you, there are far more people who are not fooled and not bound by their fears. “Fooled by”? You’re showing the typical collectivist envy against conservatives: “THEIR indoctrination is working better than ours!! WAAAAAHH!!!” You don’t suppose millions of people with free will and the intelligence to be citizens might not have come to the conclusions they did based on experience and reflection? > [@](#): > > Why don’t we have Manchin-Toomey? :rolleyes: I dunno; different debate. _So you’re in favor of having a right to armed insurrection, are you?_ I’m in favor the people not being helpless against a junta and its hired thugs, yes. Especially if the knowledge that such a resistance is possible dissuades the ambitions of any would-be president-for-life. - You’re in favor of killing when you can’t win by argument in a democratic process? Is that it, or what?\* No. _Tell us specifically what your concept of society and government is that makes an “individual right” not only acceptable but necessary. A right to do what, exactly?_ A right to defend myself against assault. A right to be judged by what I do, not by what I could potentially do. The right to live in a society where it’s not held that people need to have helplessness imposed on them. The right not to be held collectively responsible for other’s misdeeds. The right to remind the authorities if necessary that government exists to serve people, not the other way around. > [@](#): > > Time to quit threatening “Second Amendment remedies” and tell us just what that means, and how it doesn’t give others the right to execute them against _you._ I assure you I am not a “Freeman on the Land”, “Sovereign Citizen”, or any other type of half-baked would-be rebel. I just hate being bullied and I insist on retaining the right to defend against being bullied. > [@](#): > > Show us your honesty and clarity of thought. Try to persuade us, and tell us why you should be able to kill us if you can’t. You wouldn’t know honesty and clarity of thought if it was sprinkled with chili powder and shoved up your rectum. You have no credibility whatsoever. And I’ve never threatened to kill anyone for disagreeing with me; I’ve threatened to resist anyone who would do that first. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5578 "2015-08-12T19:17:05Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Who said unlimited? It’s implicit in everything you’ve said here, based as it is on claiming anyone who disagrees with you simply wants to ban all guns. Yes, the Second is limited, and the writers went out of their way to explain just how, too. It’s right in the text. > [@](#): > > So the author makes it sound like the Second Amendment was unique in that respect, which is wasn’t. To repeat, so? > [@](#): > > OK, in a nutshell, after the SC struck down several New Deal laws as not being within the enumerated powers of the federal government, Roosevelt threatened to pack the court Etc. yadayada. I asked you for relevance to gun laws. > [@](#): > > “Fooled by”? “Hell is truth seen too late.” - Hobbes. Ain’t it though? > [@](#): > > You don’t suppose millions of people with free will and the intelligence to be citizens might not have come to the conclusions they did based on experience and reflection? Yes. But the ones who disagree with yours must not have, hmm? > [@](#): > > I dunno; different debate. Your point, a central one at that. If you can’t defend it, at least have the honesty to withdraw it. > [@](#): > > I’m in favor the people not being helpless against a junta and its hired thugs, yes. What was that about how you cherish democracy? Because that’s what your’e describing. > [@](#): > > Especially if the knowledge that such a resistance is possible dissuades the ambitions of any would-be president-for-life. You’re fucking serious, aren’t you? You’re serious! 😃 > [@](#): > > - You’re in favor of killing when you can’t win by argument in a democratic process? Is that it, or what?\* > No. That’s what you’re claiming. That, when you fail to persuade, then those who obstinately refuse to agree with you constitute “a junta and its hired thugs”, not a democratic republic with a military force. You in fact do not respect democracy at all. You in fact claim the right to _be_ a “thug” if you fail to persuade and find yourself in the minority. > [@](#): > > A right to defend myself against assault. A right to be judged by what I do, not by what I could potentially do. The right to live in a society where it’s not held that people need to have helplessness imposed on them. And do others have the right to defend themselves against _you_, or better yet prevent you from acting on your thuggishness? > [@](#): > > The right not to be held collectively responsible for other’s misdeeds. The right to remind the authorities if necessary that government exists to serve people, not the other way around. Do others have the right to remind you of the responsibilities of citizenship in a democracy? You are denying that such a thing exists for you. > [@](#): > > I assure you I am not a “Freeman on the Land”, “Sovereign Citizen”, or any other type of half-baked would-be rebel. Is that what the evidence you offer here says? > [@](#): > > I just hate being bullied and I insist on retaining the right to defend against being bullied. And the rest of us think the same about you, too, thug. > [@](#): > > You wouldn’t know honesty and clarity of thought if it was sprinkled with chili powder and shoved up your rectum. You have no credibility whatsoever. Says the guy telling us about “Presidents for Life” 😛 > [@](#): > > And I’ve never threatened to kill anyone for disagreeing with me; I’ve threatened to resist anyone who would do that first. That is _exactly_ what you’re claiming. You have to rename a democracy who decides against you a “junta” with “thugs” in order to tell yourself you’re still one of the good guys, and to justify (your psychotic fantasy of) shooting law-enforcement officers and soldiers to defend against “bullying”. But you’re \*not \*one of the good guys even with those names you use, are you? The thug, the bully is _you_. You \*are \*the very thing you’re afraid of. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5579 "2015-08-12T19:25:32Z")
**ElvisL1ves** , you’re arguing against a fantasy opponent that only exists in your mind. Quit telling me what my words **really** mean. In fact, I wouldn’t mind if you shut up altogether. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5580 "2015-08-12T19:35:14Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > **ElvisL1ves** , you’re arguing against a fantasy opponent that only exists in your mind. “President for Life”? Really now? 😃 > [@](#): > > Quit telling me what my words **really** mean. In fact, I wouldn’t mind if you shut up altogether. You really want to grab your firearm right now so you don’t have to put up with any more bullying, don’t you, thug? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=278) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=280)