New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Another RW gun nut reeks havoc in Pacific NW

degsme

Council Member
If any of my Oregon or Washington buds is planning a hunting trip near Mount Rainier.. think again.
no please... his guns didn't kill anyone... HE killed the park ranger by thinking nasty thoughts at her....
 

Bo-4

Senator
no please... his guns didn't kill anyone... HE killed the park ranger by thinking nasty thoughts at her....
My bad degs.. it's my leftist, Marxist nature which compels me to think that it might have been a PTSD vet wandering legally (thanks to Congressional Rs) into a national park with his personal arsenal, body armor and issues up the yang.

I'll try to do better next post. ;-)
 

mark14

Council Member
The problem with all the "right to carry" arguments is that these crazy people can walk right up and shoot you with their guns and they haven't broken any law until the moment they actually do it. I've encountered these nuts before and feel their open display of weapons are a threat and if we had any sense we would realize it is worse than someone walking around with a big knife or club in their hand which most of us find disturbing as well. Maybe the gun nuts will be happy when every dispute is settled by a shootout. perhaps like iIraq is heading toward, but civilized people are generally "agin" it which is why frontier towns such as Dodge City ended up legally (in those days) banning or making people check their guns when they entered more than 150 years ago. The Second Amendment orginalist like Scalia who support the worship of guns don't get that when the Constitution was written it wasn't clear that the Bill of Rights intended an individual right to a gun to trump state rights ( but he's fine with the states executing innocents). How does that tenth one go

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” by the way "or to the people" may have been added as the draft circulated which I'm glad was done though I'm sure it wasn't intended to mean a corporation and possibly not even every individual.
 
D

Doc

Guest
The problem with all the "right to carry" arguments is that these crazy people can walk right up and shoot you with their guns and they haven't broken any law until the moment they actually do it. I've encountered these nuts before and feel their open display of weapons are a threat and if we had any sense we would realize it is worse than someone walking around with a big knife or club in their hand which most of us find disturbing as well. Maybe the gun nuts will be happy when every dispute is settled by a shootout. perhaps like iIraq is heading toward, but civilized people are generally "agin" it which is why frontier towns such as Dodge City ended up legally (in those days) banning or making people check their guns when they entered more than 150 years ago. The Second Amendment orginalist like Scalia who support the worship of guns don't get that when the Constitution was written it wasn't clear that the Bill of Rights intended an individual right to a gun to trump state rights ( but he's fine with the states executing innocents). How does that tenth one go

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” by the way "or to the people" may have been added as the draft circulated which I'm glad was done though I'm sure it wasn't intended to mean a corporation and possibly not even every individual.
I promise: I will NOT shoot you. But, I WILL own my gun, and, YOU have no say in that.

Now, IF and WHEN the Federal Government seeks to abridge the Second Ammendment, then, as far as I (and MANY others) am/are concerned, the Contract between The Federal Government and the governed, is null and void......
 

degsme

Council Member
Looks like the Dead Ranger attacked him with Mt Rainier

Bastard is dead - eaten by the mountain.
 
D

Doc

Guest
That's a "promise" that is hollow since you cannot guarantee your weapon won't malfunction.
Sure I can. by maintaining it, and, knowing how to use it properly.

Just as I do with my AUTOMOBILE, which, by the way, is FAR more likely to cause you harm, than anyone's GUN....

Either way, you have no bearing on MY rights.....
 
This iccident is nothing new, the same thing happened with some of the soldiers coming back from Vietnam. As sad as it is, these things happen but that is no reason to declare war on those who wish to promote their Constitutional right to protect themselves against those who would harm them.

With the sales of firearms over the Christmas holidays being given as presents, it is obvious that your side in on the loosing end of the argument.
 

BRU

Mayor
My bad degs.. it's my leftist, Marxist nature which compels me to think that it might have been a PTSD vet wandering legally (thanks to Congressional Rs) into a national park with his personal arsenal, body armor and issues up the yang.

I'll try to do better next post. ;-)
and I guess you think that law would have stopped him from entering the park armed?
 

degsme

Council Member
Sure I can. by maintaining it, and, knowing how to use it properly.
Nope still no guarantee. mechanical failure happens all the time. Enumerating all possible failure modes is impossible.

Just as I do with my AUTOMOBILE, which, by the way, is FAR more likely to cause you harm, than anyone's GUN....
But the automobile has utility beyond harming people, creatures and things The gun does not.

One has positive utility to balance against the other has net negative utility.
 

degsme

Council Member
and I guess you think that law would have stopped him from entering the park armed?
A law in which you could not easily have access to functioning firearms would have gone a long way towards preventing him from being armed yes.
 

BRU

Mayor
:focus:

that was not Bo's implication. The question is....(I'll repeat it) If the law had passed outlawing guns in national parks, (Bo's contention) would THAT have prevented this mad man from entering the park with firearms?
 

BRU

Mayor
My bad degs.. it's my leftist, Marxist nature which compels me to think that it might have been a PTSD vet wandering legally (thanks to Congressional Rs) into a national park with his personal arsenal, body armor and issues up the yang.

I'll try to do better next post. ;-)
and thanks to the SC who twice ruled your rights don't end when you enter a National Park.
 

mark14

Council Member
I promise: I will NOT shoot you. But, I WILL own my gun, and, YOU have no say in that.

Now, IF and WHEN the Federal Government seeks to abridge the Second Ammendment, then, as far as I (and MANY others) am/are concerned, the Contract between The Federal Government and the governed, is null and void......
You don't have to promise you won't shoot me. I might just need shooting some day else what is the point of having your gun? I just want to make two points about your post here and below. First you leave out the states. Are the states also forbidden to regulate your right to bears arms too? Second with regard to this -

"Sure I can. by maintaining it, and, knowing how to use it properly.

Just as I do with my AUTOMOBILE, which, by the way, is FAR more likely to cause you harm, than anyone's GUN....

Either way, you have no bearing on MY rights....."

Well there are many regulations regarding your car (how fast and where you can drive it for example) and there are also regulation regarding your gun such as you can't carry a loaded one on an airplane or into Congress so what are the acceptable limits? I'm sorry but I don't want you carrying a semiautomatic weapon into a shopping mall or down to a busy intersection any more than Congressmen want you carrying one into the Capitol Building as I don't know you and you don't need it to shop and cross the highway or for self defense 24/7 outside your home so go ahead and own it if you aren't a felon or mentally ill but just leave it at home then because I feel the act of carrying it around where it doesn't belong is a form of intimidation and infringement on everyone elses right to feel secure from being in the presence of someone who could kill them by bending a finger. Is that unreasonable?
 
Top