Slog Comments
Gold Star Comment of the Day
1
Hahahaha!
Oh, wait, that's not funny. Not at all. Sad and pathetic really, and not in the good way
And they brainstormed for a week to come up with that!
Ok, a little funny.
Oh, wait, that's not funny. Not at all. Sad and pathetic really, and not in the good way
And they brainstormed for a week to come up with that!
Ok, a little funny.
3
@2, I think Dominic understands what a police state is far better than you ever will. You are a shill. You support evil. You and your gun nut organization are an accessory to murder.
4
There is no small amount of irony when someone uses the screen name "fairly unbalanced" to post right-wing reactions to how we handle violence from people we could describe as 'fairly unbalanced'.
5
Guess they're gonna need to post armed guards at every church, too.
http://news.yahoo.com/gunman-kills-woman…
http://news.yahoo.com/gunman-kills-woman…
6
NRA's proposal will never happen with this president and this senate. Unfortunately, an assault rifle ban requires republicans to sign on, and every republican knows he will not make it through a primary if he supports any kind of gun restriction or ban. Everyone is screaming "we have to do something!" right now, but that "something" that congress is going to do is just keep up that screaming until people forget they were supposed to do something. Does anyone disagree and see a possible way to implement national changes in the near-term?
8
@6
Right. Just like health care. Or gay marriage. Or gays in the military. Or marijuana. The classic conservative bluff is to try to scare you into giving up without a fight.
Just need to put gun control to a vote. Then at the midterms the ads against the Republicans will be a scrolling list of victims' names, or a list of all the mass murders between the vote and the election. Maybe a montage of children's faces. I don't mean the kids from Newtown; I mean the ones from the next massacre, the one the GOP did nothing to prevent.
The sick thing is how predictable these shootings are: there will be many, many mass murder rampages between now and the 2014 vote when the House comes up for reelection.
So let them run on that and we'll see how it goes.
Right. Just like health care. Or gay marriage. Or gays in the military. Or marijuana. The classic conservative bluff is to try to scare you into giving up without a fight.
Just need to put gun control to a vote. Then at the midterms the ads against the Republicans will be a scrolling list of victims' names, or a list of all the mass murders between the vote and the election. Maybe a montage of children's faces. I don't mean the kids from Newtown; I mean the ones from the next massacre, the one the GOP did nothing to prevent.
The sick thing is how predictable these shootings are: there will be many, many mass murder rampages between now and the 2014 vote when the House comes up for reelection.
So let them run on that and we'll see how it goes.
9
Damn it! I was totally going to post this exact comment word-for-word but nooooo... One more missed "Gold Star Comment" opportunity. *sigh*
11
@6 It's happening. The president is demanding laws before the end of January. It will pass the Senate (especially if the 60 vote filibuster is done away with). The spotlight will be on the Republicans in the House and there is enough of them from suburbs that it will get passed.
12
And who exactly was going to pay for all these armed guards in schools? The same right wingers who are cutting taxes for the rich? Yikes! Could the GOP be dumber?
13
@12 I agree with your sentiment but I also have to note that "it's too expensive and unfund-able" could be said about almost any of the proposals I've read from the Sloggers, both sane and loony.
"Where's the $$" is a weak-sauce low-hanging-fruit argument of about the same merit as the "it's not a perfect solution so it won't do at all" argument that the NRA uses so often.
The Sloggers have already listed several stronger reasons this NRA proposal is a lazy turd. It's a shame too. All I wanted for Christmas was the miracle that they would finally adopt a rational stance on gun control - they *could* do it. I'm a naive dreamer.
"Where's the $$" is a weak-sauce low-hanging-fruit argument of about the same merit as the "it's not a perfect solution so it won't do at all" argument that the NRA uses so often.
The Sloggers have already listed several stronger reasons this NRA proposal is a lazy turd. It's a shame too. All I wanted for Christmas was the miracle that they would finally adopt a rational stance on gun control - they *could* do it. I'm a naive dreamer.
14
A market based assault weapons ban is in effect. (The nation is sold out...)
Thanks Progressives!
Thanks Progressives!
15
IMO, (before any panties get in a twist: not a legal opinion but a citizen opinion) all you need to do is scroll down one amendment lower to see why this ought not work.
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Sure, we have to equate soldier with cop (arguable), house with schoolhouse (seems reasonable), and faux wars like the war on drugs with peacetime(easy once we pull out of Afghanistan), and quarter with staff/station(fairly easy),
but 'consent of the owner' is cut and dried: we the people own our public schools, and would have to give permission.
Dear NRA: You can't sell out the third amendment to bolster the second - they each should stand on their own merits.
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Sure, we have to equate soldier with cop (arguable), house with schoolhouse (seems reasonable), and faux wars like the war on drugs with peacetime(easy once we pull out of Afghanistan), and quarter with staff/station(fairly easy),
but 'consent of the owner' is cut and dried: we the people own our public schools, and would have to give permission.
Dear NRA: You can't sell out the third amendment to bolster the second - they each should stand on their own merits.
16
"A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population." - Wikipedia
I would call America a police state by definition. My social, economic and political life are completely at the control of either 1 of 2 of the same parties, the corporate party, and they like to call themselves democrats and republicans. They're repressive, one more so that the other, but who gives a fuck they're both repressive and it's so rigid that none of them are willing to change anything, we're utterly stuck in the same position the country was when I first became an adult. Nothing gets changed, it's a pathetic excuse for a country when I see more military style tactics against occupy bullshit than I do against people who actually deal money for the drug pushers and the terrorists. There's no justice in America, not for people who make tens of thousands a year, and the people who make millions? They can just buy as much justice as they need. I have little freedom, if I start a business I need a loan, I need a loan from the banks that got bailed out by the police state, who enforces their economic doctrine from banks from which we own the currency but are not allowed any control over it.
How the fuck could anyone see America as anything less than a police state? Either we need a new constitution restating that this tyrannical government must end or we need to just accept that we have little freedoms in America, well that is of course unless you have money, but with the kind of world we live in it's only your economic status that defines if you live in a police state or not, it's a free world for those with means, and it's no world at all for people like me.
I would call America a police state by definition. My social, economic and political life are completely at the control of either 1 of 2 of the same parties, the corporate party, and they like to call themselves democrats and republicans. They're repressive, one more so that the other, but who gives a fuck they're both repressive and it's so rigid that none of them are willing to change anything, we're utterly stuck in the same position the country was when I first became an adult. Nothing gets changed, it's a pathetic excuse for a country when I see more military style tactics against occupy bullshit than I do against people who actually deal money for the drug pushers and the terrorists. There's no justice in America, not for people who make tens of thousands a year, and the people who make millions? They can just buy as much justice as they need. I have little freedom, if I start a business I need a loan, I need a loan from the banks that got bailed out by the police state, who enforces their economic doctrine from banks from which we own the currency but are not allowed any control over it.
How the fuck could anyone see America as anything less than a police state? Either we need a new constitution restating that this tyrannical government must end or we need to just accept that we have little freedoms in America, well that is of course unless you have money, but with the kind of world we live in it's only your economic status that defines if you live in a police state or not, it's a free world for those with means, and it's no world at all for people like me.
17
@16 Wow! I had no idea it was so bad down there... Maybe we should invade you? Our Prime Minister would love the spotlight! Coalition of Freedom: Canada, UK, Mexico, Australia, Iraq...
18
That's just a working list BTW...thought Mexico could use a good war (outside their borders) and that maybe Iraq would like to return the favour...
19
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see the irony. Maybe it's because I went to Garfield High School in the late '90s, and I distinctly remember an armed police presence while I was there.
@15: obviously not a legal opinion. The 3rd amendment was meant to prevent the British practice of quartering their soldiers in private homes at the homeowner's expense. Schools are an arm of the government, so the twin concerns of (1) infringement of privacy and (2) cost to individual private citizens aren't there. By your logic, "we the people" would be able to prevent soldiers from being stationed/quartered anywhere, which is obviously not the case since the 3rd Amendment has literally been applied once by one court forty years ago, and certainly not to prevent placement of armed police in public schools.
@15: obviously not a legal opinion. The 3rd amendment was meant to prevent the British practice of quartering their soldiers in private homes at the homeowner's expense. Schools are an arm of the government, so the twin concerns of (1) infringement of privacy and (2) cost to individual private citizens aren't there. By your logic, "we the people" would be able to prevent soldiers from being stationed/quartered anywhere, which is obviously not the case since the 3rd Amendment has literally been applied once by one court forty years ago, and certainly not to prevent placement of armed police in public schools.
20
@4
"There is no small amount of irony ..."
The point in choosing that was to be able to identify people who are unable to focus on the issues under discussion. Congratulations.Looks like you're one of them.
"There is no small amount of irony ..."
The point in choosing that was to be able to identify people who are unable to focus on the issues under discussion. Congratulations.Looks like you're one of them.
Comments (20) RSS