OT: repeal the 2nd amendment

User Forum Topic
Submitted by scaredyclassic on December 30, 2012 - 2:51pm

I was gonna start this lobbying group.

But then I thought, for sure some assholes gonna shoot me.

Submitted by CardiffBaseball on December 30, 2012 - 4:25pm.

Yea a good squat does nothing to prevent a bullet or shell from ripping apart the flesh. Survival instincts must kick in.

Submitted by dumbrenter on December 30, 2012 - 5:59pm.

I have to hand it to you squat, at least you were stirred enough to start a new thread on the repeal!

Don't worry about the lunatics with guns, the pro 2nd amendmenters will be around to protect you :-)

Submitted by scaredyclassic on December 30, 2012 - 7:41pm.

I fear that in drawing the venn diiagrams of the set of lunatics with guns and the set of pro 2nd amendmenters, there may be some significant overlap.

Still it would be pretty cool to head up this organizations.

No one believed prohibition would ever repealed. Popular wisdom was it would never ever happen. A wealthy female socialite led the charge out of sheer conviction.

I truly believe we would all be better off if we were not collectively heavily armed. It's not based on fact or reason but strictly feelings.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on December 30, 2012 - 7:48pm.

Ever hear the Johnny cash anti gun song in which a mother teaches her child not to play with guns but then he shoots a man in Reno just to watch him die?

Folsom prison blues. I wonder if the guy he shot was armed?

Submitted by LuckyInOC on December 30, 2012 - 10:36pm.

Wouldn't we be better off if we were not collectively heavily drunk?

Based on the current number of deaths caused by alcohol, prohibition of alcohol should also be replaced.

In 2009, 24,518 persons died due directly to alcohol use. This does not include homicides due to vehicle accidents. (1)

Drug induced deaths were 39,147.

All injury by firearms deaths were 31,347.
355 were 14 years and under.

Suicide by firearms were 18,735 (included above).
Suicide by other means were 18,174.
Persons under 55 were less likely to use a firearm.

All type of homicides were 16,799.
11,493 by firearms (included above).

Accidental discharge of firearms were 554 (included above).

Deaths by motor vehicle accidents were 36,216.
1,548 deaths were 14 years old and under.

It appears this all comes from the lack of personal responsibility for ones self, ones family, and others. Without this basic understanding, no wonder these statistics will rise.

Lucky In OC

Note:
Alcohol related Vehicle deaths could be listed as Homicides.
Drug related deaths could be listed as suicide.

CDC Death statistics 2009:
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60...

Submitted by ucodegen on December 30, 2012 - 10:37pm.

squat300 wrote:
Ever hear the Johnny cash anti gun song in which a mother teaches her child not to play with guns but then he shoots a man in Reno just to watch him die?

Folsom prison blues. I wonder if the guy he shot was armed?

Probably not, otherwise there might have been a line in the song mentioning that the guy tried to draw his gun in defense but was too slow...

BTW: Folsom Prison Blues is not an anti-gun song. It is a song about taking responsibility for ones actions.

Cash recounted how he came up with the line "I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die": "I sat with my pen in my hand, trying to think up the worst reason a person could have for killing another person, and that's what came to mind."

The more complete quote for that song is:

When I was just a baby,
My Mama told me, "Son,
Always be a good boy,
Don't ever play with guns,"
But I shot a man in Reno,
Just to watch him die,
When I hear that whistle blowin',
I hang my head and cry.

Submitted by LuckyInOC on December 30, 2012 - 10:52pm.

"In 2009, a total of 1,314 children age 14 and younger were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes. Of those 1,314 fatalities, 181 (14%) occurred in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Out of those 181 deaths, 92 (51%) were occupants of a vehicle with a driver who had a BAC level of .08 or higher, and another 27 children (15%) were pedestrians or pedalcyclists struck by drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher."

"181 (14%) occurred in alcohol-impaired driving crashes" This is equivalent to almost 10 Sandy Nook's every year. Almost one every month.

Over 50% of the children were the occupants. Whether it is guns, cars, or drugs, it comes down to basic responsible behavior. This is taught by parents, not legislated. All we have is a citizenry of immature adults with no training in responsibility.

Lucky in OC.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-drivin...

Submitted by scaredyclassic on December 30, 2012 - 11:47pm.

ucodegen wrote:
squat300 wrote:
Ever hear the Johnny cash anti gun song in which a mother teaches her child not to play with guns but then he shoots a man in Reno just to watch him die?

Folsom prison blues. I wonder if the guy he shot was armed?

Probably not, otherwise there might have been a line in the song mentioning that the guy tried to draw his gun in defense but was too slow...

BTW: Folsom Prison Blues is not an anti-gun song. It is a song about taking responsibility for ones actions.

Cash recounted how he came up with the line "I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die": "I sat with my pen in my hand, trying to think up the worst reason a person could have for killing another person, and that's what came to mind."

The more complete quote for that song is:

When I was just a baby,
My Mama told me, "Son,
Always be a good boy,
Don't ever play with guns,"
But I shot a man in Reno,
Just to watch him die,
When I hear that whistle blowin',
I hang my head and cry.

id just been listening to the song in my car, so the lyrics were pretty fresh. i ehard it as a song about a kid who knew guns were bad news but who did an impetuous act he might nototherwise have done simply because he had the opportunity and basically killed himself and all his dreams at the same time.

i dont hear anything about eprsonal responsibility int he song, like he turned himself in or anything. it sounds like the gun was the cause of his misery the way i read the lyrics. the way his mama told him not to play with guns, but he went to Reno, a sort of risky town, and was i figure probably drinking and gambling,a dn the next thing you know, he killed a man, where if it had been other circumstances, might merely have been arelatively friendly fistfight.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on December 30, 2012 - 11:48pm.

as some say, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, so shoot first and ask questions later.

Submitted by ucodegen on December 31, 2012 - 9:53am.

squat300 wrote:
i dont hear anything about eprsonal responsibility int he song, like he turned himself in or anything. it sounds like the gun was the cause of his misery the way i read the lyrics. the way his mama told him not to play with guns, but he went to Reno, a sort of risky town, and was i figure probably drinking and gambling,a dn the next thing you know, he killed a man, where if it had been other circumstances, might merely have been arelatively friendly fistfight.
Take a look at the wording. Does it say anything about blaming having a gun? or that his mama told him not to and he did it anyway? That he was warned, did it anyway just to see, and is paying the price. Also look at the quote from Cash on how the phrase came about. It was not the worse use of a gun, it was the worse reason for killing someone. It also mentioned nothing about drinking, gambling, etc. Quite a stretch there. Here is another line from the same song:

Well I know I had it coming, I know I can't be free.

Looks like it is personal responsibility.

Submitted by ucodegen on December 31, 2012 - 9:53am.

squat300 wrote:
as some say, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, so shoot first and ask questions later.
That in a line, is an example of the real problem.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on December 31, 2012 - 10:03am.

I know I can't be free is not the same as I acknowledge I should not be free. Only the latter involves taking responsibility. I could be unjustly imprisoned and "know I can't be free" but still contest the validity of my imprisonment.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on December 31, 2012 - 11:00am.

Reno indicates sin drink gambling and whoring to me but maybe it wa different st the time of the creation of the song

Submitted by scaredyclassic on December 31, 2012 - 6:20pm.

Had he not owned the gun he would have ultimately been more free.

I wonder if the set of people who believe the military is fighting for our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan is largely the set of people who believe guns prevent tyranny at home.

Submitted by CA renter on January 2, 2013 - 1:08am.

squat300 wrote:
ucodegen wrote:
squat300 wrote:
Ever hear the Johnny cash anti gun song in which a mother teaches her child not to play with guns but then he shoots a man in Reno just to watch him die?

Folsom prison blues. I wonder if the guy he shot was armed?

Probably not, otherwise there might have been a line in the song mentioning that the guy tried to draw his gun in defense but was too slow...

BTW: Folsom Prison Blues is not an anti-gun song. It is a song about taking responsibility for ones actions.

Cash recounted how he came up with the line "I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die": "I sat with my pen in my hand, trying to think up the worst reason a person could have for killing another person, and that's what came to mind."

The more complete quote for that song is:

When I was just a baby,
My Mama told me, "Son,
Always be a good boy,
Don't ever play with guns,"
But I shot a man in Reno,
Just to watch him die,
When I hear that whistle blowin',
I hang my head and cry.

id just been listening to the song in my car, so the lyrics were pretty fresh. i ehard it as a song about a kid who knew guns were bad news but who did an impetuous act he might nototherwise have done simply because he had the opportunity and basically killed himself and all his dreams at the same time.

i dont hear anything about eprsonal responsibility int he song, like he turned himself in or anything. it sounds like the gun was the cause of his misery the way i read the lyrics. the way his mama told him not to play with guns, but he went to Reno, a sort of risky town, and was i figure probably drinking and gambling,a dn the next thing you know, he killed a man, where if it had been other circumstances, might merely have been arelatively friendly fistfight.

IMO, that song is about the loss of freedom because of an impetuous act, likely committed by a psychopath/sociopath. He is lamenting the fact that the lives of people on the outside are going on normally while he sits in prison. The sound of the train reminds him that life goes on outside the prison walls, and that, if not for that one moment in time, he would be free as well.

What I gather from the lyrics is that he is not sorry for his actions, but for his loss of freedom -- stereotypical thought process of those who suffer from psychopathic tendencies.

Some people torture or kill animals or people just to see what happens; this is a sign of mental illness, and has nothing to do with guns, IMO.

------

The lyrics:

Folsom Prison Blues Lyrics
Artist: Johnny Cash (Buy Johnny Cash CDs)

I hear the train a comin'
It's rollin' 'round the bend,
And I ain't seen the sunshine,
Since, I don't know when,
I'm stuck in Folsom Prison,
And time keeps draggin' on,
But that train keeps a-rollin',
On down to San Antone.

When I was just a baby,
My Mama told me, "Son,
Always be a good boy,
Don't ever play with guns,"
But I shot a man in Reno,
Just to watch him die,
When I hear that whistle blowin',
I hang my head and cry.

I bet there's rich folks eatin',
In a fancy dining car,
They're probably drinkin' coffee,
And smokin' big cigars,
But I know I had it comin',
I know I can't be free,
But those people keep a-movin',
And that's what tortures me.

Well, if they freed me from this prison,
If that railroad train was mine,
I bet I'd move out over a little,
Farther down the line,
Far from Folsom Prison,
That's where I want to stay,
And I'd let that lonesome whistle,
Blow my Blues away.

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/johnny-cash/f...

Submitted by Huckleberry on January 2, 2013 - 9:13pm.

Specifically because of this post, I joined a new shooters group so as to strengthen my Second Amendment rights!

http://www.meetup.com/The-San-Diego-Shoo...

Submitted by Blogstar on January 2, 2013 - 12:52pm.

squat300 wrote:
Had he not owned the gun he would have ultimately been more free.

I wonder if the set of people who believe the military is fighting for our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan is largely the set of people who believe guns prevent tyranny at home.

I believe it is largely a set of people who need a job.

Submitted by livinincali on January 2, 2013 - 2:48pm.

squat300 wrote:

I truly believe we would all be better off if we were not collectively heavily armed. It's not based on fact or reason but strictly feelings.

The bills rights was primarily adopted to prevent tyranny of government. The colonists had just fought a revolution war against perceived acts of tyranny (I.e. taxes without representation). Almost everything in the bill of rights is a check and balance against acts of tyranny by the government. Free speech, rights to bear arms, protection against unwarranted search and seizure, etc. Obviously we've been pretty far removed from a tyrannical government but should we really give up those checks and balances because of a small percentage of criminals.

Honestly what's the first thing you would do if you were a dictator that wanted to push the US to a hard core socialist/communist government? Remove the guns so the producers couldn't realistically fight back. Then you start removing protections of search and seizure and free speech. Basically everything in the bill of rights would be quickly removed because those are the primary checks and balances to oppose your takeover.

Submitted by all on January 2, 2013 - 10:13pm.

squat300 wrote:
I was gonna start this lobbying group.

But then I thought, for sure some assholes gonna shoot me.

The guy representing the family that tried to sue the state for the Newtown shooting said pretty much the same thing - they did not go after NRA because they were worried for their safety if they do that.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 3, 2013 - 8:41am.

livinincali wrote:
squat300 wrote:

I truly believe we would all be better off if we were not collectively heavily armed. It's not based on fact or reason but strictly feelings.

The bills rights was primarily adopted to prevent tyranny of government. The colonists had just fought a revolution war against perceived acts of tyranny (I.e. taxes without representation). Almost everything in the bill of rights is a check and balance against acts of tyranny by the government. Free speech, rights to bear arms, protection against unwarranted search and seizure, etc. Obviously we've been pretty far removed from a tyrannical government but should we really give up those checks and balances because of a small percentage of criminals.

Honestly what's the first thing you would do if you were a dictator that wanted to push the US to a hard core socialist/communist government? Remove the guns so the producers couldn't realistically fight back. Then you start removing protections of search and seizure and free speech. Basically everything in the bill of rights would be quickly removed because those are the primary checks and balances to oppose your takeover.

the power of america's stable institutions have a heck of a lot more to do with the stability of the govt that the ak-47 in some dude's closet with a blood splatter pattern pro gun tshirt

Submitted by SK in CV on January 3, 2013 - 8:47am.

livinincali wrote:

Honestly what's the first thing you would do if you were a dictator that wanted to push the US to a hard core socialist/communist government? Remove the guns so the producers couldn't realistically fight back. Then you start removing protections of search and seizure and free speech. Basically everything in the bill of rights would be quickly removed because those are the primary checks and balances to oppose your takeover.

Given the history and direction of the country over the last 60 years, it's much more likely that a dictator that wanted to push a hard core fascist/corporatist government would appear on the scene. But point taken.

Submitted by dumbrenter on January 3, 2013 - 10:09am.

squat300 wrote:
the power of america's stable institutions have a heck of a lot more to do with the stability of the govt that the ak-47 in some dude's closet with a blood splatter pattern pro gun tshirt

Yeah, right. The power of "institutions". This government structure is beginning to resemble an oppressive one.
With near continuous surveillance, tracking and a very cooperative media, we are pretty much a police state where the big guy will tell us what to think. All this is paid for from the extortion in the name of taxes for programs/wars we don't really need.
The only difference here is unlike europe and other so-called democracies, the government can go only so far before the heavily armed citizenry pushes back.

We have seen arms control advocates use arguments from "Americans are violent people" to exceptionalism (we have better institutions, or maybe we are simply better than others). Why is it so hard to see that we are just like everybody else except for the 2nd amendment and that makes all the difference in how we want to govern ourselves?

Submitted by Huckleberry on January 3, 2013 - 10:36am.

the power of america's stable institutions have a heck of a lot more to do with the stability of the govt[/quote]

Wow squat, you REALLY are naive...

Submitted by CA renter on January 3, 2013 - 5:46pm.

SK in CV wrote:
livinincali wrote:

Honestly what's the first thing you would do if you were a dictator that wanted to push the US to a hard core socialist/communist government? Remove the guns so the producers couldn't realistically fight back. Then you start removing protections of search and seizure and free speech. Basically everything in the bill of rights would be quickly removed because those are the primary checks and balances to oppose your takeover.

Given the history and direction of the country over the last 60 years, it's much more likely that a dictator that wanted to push a hard core fascist/corporatist government would appear on the scene. But point taken.

That's exactly what I was thinking when reading that post. The vast majority of dictators in history were not socialists -- not by a long shot. Socialism gives power to the masses/workers, which is the very opposite of what most dictators want. As you note, livin's point about checks and balances is still valid, though.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 3, 2013 - 8:49pm.

Huckleberry wrote:
the power of america's stable institutions have a heck of a lot more to do with the stability of the govt

Wow squat, you REALLY are naive...[/quote]

perhaps. although it might also be naive to think a little piece of paper would stop an actual dictator...

when i talk to most people about the constitution it kinda ends up like this...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-ma...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.