(OT) DEA Officer Shoots Himself Video

[justnzane]

that's ricky williams!

284005[/snapback]

i was looking to see if anyone posted that.

now you know why marijuana can be a deadly drug

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Yet that's all you've offered in support of 'fine-tuning things.' Placing further restrictions on a right guaranteed in the constitution should have a higher standard than a casual reference to 'a zillion other insane activities'. I assure you there's a lot of data out there that supports the argument that we would in fact be safer by issuing concealed carry permits to any law-abiding citizen who wanted one. But a 2nd amendment shootout isn't worth the trouble if you're only bringing a pea-shooter. 

284041[/snapback]

 

anecdotes do not judtify changing the principle, but they do justify at least an explorattion of fine-tuning thins. Do you think that getting rid of the second amednment (which I would oppose) or fine-tuning how our society adheres to it (which I support) are exactly the same thing?

 

I think the trap our society falls into on this issue and other alleged discussions which the media love to turn into debates (because controversy sales ads which is what the businesses of CNN and Fox are primarily about regardless of ideology) and politicians are all about (again because controversy turns out the base and keeps the moderates at home out of frustration) is adopting a slippery slope point of view where they can turn moderate point of view into the most insane and easy to argue against proposals.

 

I mean seriously do you think that opposing people on the terrorist watch list having unfetter access to weapons is the same as totally scraping the second amendment (Wayne LaPierre and the NRA seem to)? Do you think that severly limiting third trimester abortions is the same thing as eliminating the right of a woman to any abortion (NOW and whoever runs it these days seem to.

 

The media from CNN to Fox and politicians fro Tom Delay to Al Sharpton has played a game we have fallen for that has destroyed this country's ability to embrace or even to seek moderation.

[Terry Tate]

anecdotes do not judtify changing the principle, but they do justify at least an explorattion of fine-tuning thins. Do you think that getting rid of the second amednment (which I would oppose) or fine-tuning how our society adheres to it (which I support) are exactly the same thing?

 

I think the trap our society falls into on this issue and other alleged discussions which the media love to turn into debates (because controversy sales ads which is what the businesses of CNN and Fox are primarily about regardless of ideology) and politicians are all about (again because controversy turns out the base and keeps the moderates at home out of frustration) is adopting a slippery slope point of view where they can turn moderate point of view into the most insane and easy to argue against proposals.

 

I mean seriously do you think that opposing people on the terrorist watch list having unfetter access to weapons is the same as totally scraping the second amendment (Wayne LaPierre and the NRA seem to)?  Do you think that severly limiting third trimester abortions is the same thing as eliminating the right of a woman to any abortion (NOW and whoever runs it these days seem to.

 

The media from CNN to Fox and politicians fro Tom Delay to Al Sharpton has played a game we have fallen for that has destroyed this country's ability to embrace or even to seek moderation.

284124[/snapback]

My thought is you are furthering an argument that is predicated on the very foundation that you recognize as artificial. Passing a law that restricts people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing a firearm sounds reasonable. Certainly no one could be for arming terrorists, but please consider:

1. Who maintains this watch list, and how?

2. If you were a terrorist, would this law in fact prevent you from obtaining a firearm (or box cutter, as the case may be)?

3. Would this law restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens? This should be explored for any law, and any restriction of rights weighed against the desired effects. I won't go into detail, but you can imagine for this to have any hope of actually preventing a terrorist from obtaining a firearm, it would be easy to extend this train of thought to a national ID system. Papers please. I need to see your papers (that was for the slippery slope folks).

4. Would this law have prevented the law enforcement officer from discharging his firearm in the classroom, or the school shooting you cited that was the catalyst for this discussion?

 

Improving an existing law is always worth exploring. But it's never as simple as 'make terrorists unable to buy firearms'.

[Alaska Darin]

anecdotes do not judtify changing the principle, but they do justify at least an explorattion of fine-tuning thins. Do you think that getting rid of the second amednment (which I would oppose) or fine-tuning how our society adheres to it (which I support) are exactly the same thing?

 

I think the trap our society falls into on this issue and other alleged discussions which the media love to turn into debates (because controversy sales ads which is what the businesses of CNN and Fox are primarily about regardless of ideology) and politicians are all about (again because controversy turns out the base and keeps the moderates at home out of frustration) is adopting a slippery slope point of view where they can turn moderate point of view into the most insane and easy to argue against proposals.

 

I mean seriously do you think that opposing people on the terrorist watch list having unfetter access to weapons is the same as totally scraping the second amendment (Wayne LaPierre and the NRA seem to)?  Do you think that severly limiting third trimester abortions is the same thing as eliminating the right of a woman to any abortion (NOW and whoever runs it these days seem to.

 

The media from CNN to Fox and politicians fro Tom Delay to Al Sharpton has played a game we have fallen for that has destroyed this country's ability to embrace or even to seek moderation.

284124[/snapback]

Probably because the NRA doesn't trust the government not to put innocent people on the terrorist watch list. Has something to do with that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing we're supposed to enjoy as citizens. Do you also advocate removing other Constitutionally guaranteed individual rights for people on government compiled lists?

 

Feel free to point out the last time people on the terrorist watch list used guns to accomplish their mission here in the US. Using the show "24" is off limits.