John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14039
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby snoqueen » Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:28 pm

I'm not sure at what point a topic about Stevens and the second amendment turned into something more like "ask a white supremacist." Maybe next time we'll see it coming a little earlier.

Given other news coverage of the past week not many can say they're surprised, but it's still weird seeing it unfold in real time.

Enough. I'm SO done with this one.

Thanks for your patience, rabble.

Jeerleader
Senior Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:11 pm
Location: Philly

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Jeerleader » Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:55 am

snoqueen wrote:wack is right -- the J totally misses the points being made, probably on purpose.
Discussing gun policy with a liberal is like playing basketball against the Harlem Globetrotters. It's all misdirection and fake-outs.


I guess that's what he calls it when he doesn't want to address the issues raised. I see.


LOL, sez the person who ignores 90% of the points I make (no comment on the Texas CHL post????) and notes but dismisses the rest. Re-read what elicited the Globetrotter remark, as if you didn't purposefully "miss" the point I was making.

snoqueen wrote:
... it was deemed more important to poke a stick in the eye of gun owners and the NRA than to capitalize on the wide support for doing something and come together and work together.


I'd be interested in your proposals for doing something, coming together, and working together. Really.


Sure, no problem:

    1) Decriminalize recreational drug use, reallocate interdiction / enforcement / prosecution budget lines to wherever needed among the following:

    2) Enforce with vigor laws criminalizing the violent misuse of firearms.
      2a) Don't use any weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges.

      2b) Never allow the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors or the application of accelerated disposition or suspension of sentence with expungement for weapons offenses.

      2c) Mandate full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm.

      2d) Enhanced sentences for repeat armed offenders / felon in possession of a firearm.
    3) Increase funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and tighten oversight of the boards responsible for early release.

    4) Mandate states maintain the most up-to-date database of prohibited persons possible (including a red flag for mental issues - HIPPA be damned) and this be shared with the federal "NICS" system and all other states.

    5) Increase funding for states and cities for FTA/fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders.

    6) Enact a nationwide concealed weapon permit reciprocity for law-abiding citizens that no state or municipality can opt out of.


If these steps were taken criminal firearm homicide would fall 60%+ in three years with nobody's rights being violated.

snoqueen wrote:We now know more about your political viewpoint, which is typical of European right wing parties but far from the only view, or even the majority view, in most of Europe.


And that's the extent of you "addressing' what I wrote?

snoqueen wrote:It's curious that he sees people in the US as driven by different desires than people in other developed countries, who are generally not enthused about adopting the kinds of problems we have in the news here on an ongoing basis.


And that's the extent of you "addressing' what I wrote?

snoqueen wrote:Ditto my earlier assessment. I am usually willing to discuss with nearly anybody on this forum, but engaging with you becomes less interesting the more I know about where you come from. Some viewpoints are not worth dignifying by engagement.


Oh, well, just as long as you are not holding me to standards you yourself refuse to adhere.

snoqueen wrote:I believe people everywhere have the same fundamental capabilities, needs, and desires but all those are shaped profoundly by their environment. At the present time, I believe some countries are doing better than America in addressing and even solving social ills. That is why I think we ought to look at what other countries are doing about gun violence, same as the way we ought to look at how they are addressing health care. We can be guided by their results, which are available as statistics: cost of care, outcomes of care; rates of violence and death, and much more.


Lament, lament, lament, the US just sucks doesn't it?

If only we could be more like ___________, all our problems would go away!

snoqueen wrote:Our attempts to collect data on gun usage have been hampered by the removal, fragmentation, and underfunding of databases from which to make calculations. I order to make informed comparisons and decisions, this type of data is needed. The CDC is doing the best it can, but needs more support and money.


President Obama opened those purse strings with an Executive . . . well, not Order, whatever it was, post Newtown, no?

snoqueen wrote:Didn't like that one, huh? More "exceptionalism?"


Just the pining to be more like the "enlightened" Europeans is sad. I believe we can solve our unique problems ourselves without looking to other nations who you yourself argue, do not have our problems. What do they really have to offer that you embrace besides a "powerful central government" enforcing universal citizen disarmament?

Do you advocate that "powerful central government" intruding in the lives of citizens in other manners or just to disarm them?

Seems to me, if I were to be allowed to speculate, all you want to do is reverse engineer the Social Democracy political form here, under the guise of solving our gun crime problem. (Without of course, ever actually addressing the "gun crime problem).

snoqueen wrote:Sure it is. We live in a global society. Immigration is not only keeping our population steady as native-born reproduction rates decline, but is providing workers that keep our businesses productive.


I'm just of the mind that we need to get Americans to work and get the nation on its feet before we discuss amnesty and a path to citizenship for 11 million illegals.

snoqueen wrote:
And again I'll ask, do you honestly feel you have a "right" to "feel safe" or to actually "be safe"??


Huh? You're the constitution guy. Where does it talk about "safe?"

I think the safest countries, at the population level, have both prosperity and a functioning, active, and powerful central government which the people support readily, even as the personnel and parties change over time. People don't have to waste time trying to keep themselves "safe" as single individuals; the task is done and done well and adequately by their chosen government.


So I'll take that as a yes.

One's "safety" should be provided by a "powerful central government".

Problem is, here in the States, no government operation or agent is duty bound to provide safety /security to any individual even if a threat is known to exist. The only condition that a responsibility is recognized is when government action has eliminated the person's ability to act on his/her own behalf (incarceration or other custodial condition, like child services).

In other words, only you are responsible for your personal security; relying on a government agent (i.e., police) for your safety is a cruel illusion.

snoqueen wrote:
But you do realize that the "public safety" policies of those nations often run afoul of the constitutionally secured civil liberties that Americans are accustomed to?


Well, if you're talking about the second amendment, you're right. Others deride it as a "cowboy law," and have reason to do so when they look at our outcomes.


No, I'm talking about rights of the accused, privacy rights and search and seizure.

snoqueen wrote:
Seems to me the relaxation of gun laws is progress and the institution of new restrictions would be regression, falling back on policies that not only were ineffective but damaging,


Depends on your version of a desirable social order.


Well, I would rather live in a low crime "city" of 402,914 gun carrying Texans than one of your gun control utopias like Washington DC or Chicago. I note again you made no notice of the Texas CHL post.

snoqueen wrote:
Can you point to any successes of strict gun control in the USA?


Can you point to any examples of strict gun control in the USA?


NJ, CA, NYNY, Washington DC, Chicago . . .

snoqueen wrote:here is no point in highlighting this person's politics, which seem to be quite repellent. Does anyone else want to continue? If there's popular support and we can go on once again, but if not I'm done.


Thanks for telling me I'm winning.

snoqueen wrote:I've got a stack of library books and pages of citations for when we find a way to discuss guns/public safety in another manner. I do think it's one of the important if not defining topics of our time.


IOW, you need to wait until the board returns to being a leftist echo chamber and there's no real challenge to your warped, disconnected from reality BS?

I have given you plenty of opportunity to put your scholarship on display and you have, at every turn, complained and head-faked a path through this thread only to maintain your high opinion of yourself and to nurture your delusional opinions, not to discuss any issue especially the topic of the thread.

Climb off your hypocritical high horse and start actually debating; what you have been doing is pathetic.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9947
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Huckleby » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:57 am

What sorts of weapons should society allow Bundy's militia to possess? Does society (the voting majority) have a say at all?

Jeerleader
Senior Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:11 pm
Location: Philly

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Jeerleader » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:48 pm

rabble wrote:
snoqueen wrote:I've got a stack of library books and pages of citations for when we find a way to discuss guns/public safety in another manner. I do think it's one of the important if not defining topics of our time.

That will come in useful when this becomes a safety discussion instead of ideology.


Well, for such an important if not defining topic of our time, one of the most intelligent and totally worthwhile things do is get into deep discussions about what public policy you want to see happen, dismissing any examination or understanding of the constitutionality of what you propose, whether it can even be done, legally . . .

Amusingly, it seems you don't consider that to be completely ideological . . .

Jeerleader
Senior Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:11 pm
Location: Philly

Re: John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment

Postby Jeerleader » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:06 pm

snoqueen wrote:I'm not sure at what point a topic about Stevens and the second amendment turned into something more like "ask a white supremacist." Maybe next time we'll see it coming a little earlier.


Interesting.

This thread for you has never been about Stevens and the 2nd Amendment. It has been about a myriad of disjointed subjects and a wondrous adventure in the corners of your deluded mind but you have avoided at all costs any focus on the topic of the thread.

Now, I am, after a fleeting mention of illegal immigration, a "white supremacist".

I welcome the empty-headed accusation for it only tells me you can not be considered a thinking person. Your comment is base and disgusting. I would never ask for an apology from you as you have so little respect for yourself, any respect shown for anyone else is merely a duplicitous facade


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: donges and 5 guests