Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I worked in politics when young, and understood the draw then, because I felt it. After three years of working in it, I was frightened by what it did to a lot of (but not all) people, and got out (law school! yay!).

Close to thirty years later, I no longer understand the draw.

You needn't be competent, as you can always blame someone else for a failure, and the revolving door pays nicely. What's to lose? It's a perfect career for the sort of person who doesn't want to be measured with exact, objective criteria (profit/loss, growth, etc.). The only places where an incompetent can more easily bullshit people into the belief he's got some value are academia and HR.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Guns can be maintained for a long time, but will the people we're concerned about do that?

You ever met a serious gun nut? These things are proxy penises for the assault weapons fetishist crowd.

They talk about these things like car freaks gush about their wheels.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Bullet control. Won't happen, but is doable.

Assault weapon regulation and background checks are not difficult to implement. If we could jail people for decades for acid, we could jail people for having illegal or illegally modified weapons.

We choose not to have reasonable regulation in part because of the NRA and politics. But there's another reason, I think, also at work. Low rent Americans (most Americans) deify aggression. It's considered wholesome for some fucked up reason. You can show people getting mangled in PG flicks, but breasts are banned. You can buy a pistol in any fucking WalMart, but magic mushrooms - an utterly harmless bit of brain candy - are banned. Weed is illegal, but getting pasted on alcohol, which causes one to behave less introspectively, and more outwardly idiotic, is celebrated.

Our reverence for the military is pathological. We acquit cops for blatant acts of violence because a large section of us still hews to authoritarian biases ("Respect my authoritaaayy!").*

The twisted frustrations of Puritanism still haunt us. The anger, repression, fear, and narrow mindedness that comes with 200 years of religious bullshit infecting our culture has rendered most of us neanderthals in a modern world. In a world changing so rapidly, note which cultures rush to the simple solution of the gun: Us, and Radical Islam. In this regard, we deserve each other. (And hell... we helped create Radical Islam, so it's just fitting we circle the bowl together, no?)

But I digress. We are indeed sick. And strange. But it's not our politics alone, or our gun laws. It's the deeply perverted sets of values comprising the everyman's worldview in this country. We're dumb, incurious, and this is a predictable regression.

My pet cure would be to dose the entire country with acid adequate enough to expand the pea brains of the nation. I believe that is the only mind scrambler out there that would unwind the crazy. Who the fuck wants to play with guns when the trees are so pretty, and the tunes are so awesome. Wouldn't it be better to grab a bit of afternoon delight with your SO, using your actual penis, rather than listen to Rush Limbaugh and kill things with your fake one?

_______
* E. Cartman

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

In anger about one of the earlier mass slaughters, I sat down at a computer and drafted a response to Scalia's butchery of the Second Amendment. I am a litigator, not someone who knows the first thing about legislative draftsmanship. So the following is really just a framework for somebody who actually knows how to draft legislation, that sticks it to the imbeciles who wave the Second Amendment like a rationale for mass murder that can't be helped. It is not well thought out, but you will get the gist. Indeed I may have posted this here before, long ago.


The National Well Regulated Militia Act of 2008

Whereas, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” and

Whereas, Americans justly consider their Second Amendment rights to be essential to the defense of liberty and freedom, and

Whereas, since the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, the Armed Forces of the United States, having been sorely tested and, despite a valiant effort by our men and women at arms, are in need of relief, and

Whereas, armed individuals, who may or may not be citizens of the United States, have committed acts in this nation which indicate the need for training and discipline in the use of weaponry, and

Whereas, individual legislation by the several states has not been effective to either prevent the illegal use of weaponry or to establish a well regulated militia, nor is it possible for any state to do so, given the ease of travel and transportation between the several states, and

Whereas, the Supreme Court has determined in District of Columbia v. Heller that individuals are permitted to own weapons without regard to local or state law to the contrary,

Now therefore, the following statute shall be enacted by the Congress of the United States.

Section 1. The National Well Regulated Militia Act.

This act shall be known as the National Well Regulated Militia Act.

Section 2. Establishment of the National Militia.

(A) There is hereby created a National Militia.

(B) The National Militia shall report to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces of the United States (hereafter, “Chairman”).

(C) The Chairman may, in his discretion assign such other individuals of the Armed Forces of the United States as the Chairman deems necessary to the National Militia to supervise the National Militia .




Section 3. Membership in the National Militia.

(A) All persons within the United States owning or possessing any object falling within the definition of the term “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution are hereby, without further action on the part of any individual, members of the National Militia.

(B) All members of the National Militia shall, within 90 days of the enactment of this statute, report to the United States Post Office nearest their place of residence to enroll their names in the rolls of the National Militia.

(C) All persons who are not currently members of the National Militia pursuant to subsection (A) of this section, but who become members of the National Militia by virtue of new ownership or possession of “arms” shall report to the Post Office nearest their place of residence and enroll their names in the rolls of the National Militia within 3 days of becoming a member.

(D) Any member of the National Militia who transfers ownership or possession of arms may do so only to a member of the National Militia who has been enrolled pursuant to subsection (B) or (C).

(E) Any member of the National Militia who ceases to be a member by virtue of cessation of ownership or control of “arms” shall immediately inform the Chairman or the Chairman’s designee.

(F) Each member of the National Militia shall report for training, with all “arms” within their ownership or control, to the military facility designated for that member of the National Militia by the Chairman at a time and place determined by the Chairman.

Section 4. Service in the National Militia.

(A) All members of the National Militia shall serve two years active duty service at the discretion of the Chairman.

(B) Members of the National Militia who are concurrently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, although required to register as members of the National Militia, are exempt from the service described in subsection (A) of this section.

(C) Members of the National Militia who have served two years or more on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States, although required to register as members of the National Militia, are exempt from the service described in subsection (A) of this section.


(D) All members of the National Militia shall be solely responsible for the “arms” owned or possessed by the respective members. Such arms must be secured, to the satisfaction of the Chairman, so as to absolutely prohibit the use of the arms by any person who has not complied with the provisions of Section 3 of this statute.


Section 5. Penalties.

(A) Failure by any member of the National Militia to comply with any registration or transfer of ownership provisions of Section 3 , or the service provisions of Section 4, shall be cause for immediate confiscation of “arms” in possession of the member, and such member shall be incarcerated for 10 years or until compliance is effected.

(B) Failure by any member of the National Militia to comply with the provisions of section 4(D) concerning securing arms in their ownership or possession shall be incarcerated for 10 years.

(C) Any member of the National Militia who fails to secure arms in their possession pursuant to section 4(D) shall be civilly liable to any person injured by use of the arms. The United States District Courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any civil lawsuit initiated pursuant to this subsection.

(D) The Bankruptcy Code is hereby amended to add a new section, to wit Section 523(a)(20) of the Bankruptcy Code, to exclude from discharge “any debt incurred pursuant to a judgment under subsection 5 (C) of the Well Regulated Militia Act.”


Section 6. Authority to Enact Regulations.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution contemplates a “well regulated militia”. The Chairman shall have the power to approve such regulations, consistent with this statute, as shall be appropriate to implement the provisions herein.

Back in the days when we actually had a militia, there was also a regular inspection of weapons in people's home, to make sure they were being properly cared for. The troops at Lexington and Concord were more disciplined that they're often given credit for.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I want to go to Congress to be the loudest fucking thorn-in-the-side, one-term rep in the history of the institution.

TM

Before we donate, can you confirm you don't sext dick pics? some nyc congress people have burned us.


As to your question, every movie I've seen shows people move slowly away from an ideal to "I must win, it is important I am here to achieve my goals," and they want to stay there long after they have abandoned all of their original ideals.

I mean, even Prez, can you imagine the hate you have to ignore? Obama got lots of love, but tons of shitty hate. For that matter the Donald was a billionaire who only heard positive, now he has to listen to daily hate (deserved, but still) why would anyone run for Prez (besides getting your kids a $1B after the estate is repealed).

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Could we at least impose strict liability on them? Your gun hurts or kills someone, you are responsible. Doesn't matter if your kid shoots his cousin. Doesn't matter if it's stolen. Doesn't matter if you shoot yourself in the leg. Doesn't matter if the dude was disrespecting your property. You're fucking responsible. You bear the costs. The only question for the jury is whether or not you owned the gun. "Self defense" may mitigate, but it does not absolve you of responsibility.

Shoot away, but be prepared to pay.

People tried those cases and lost.

[Icky Thump]

I was in Vermont for a bit which seems like such a happy place. I am thinking it is a matter of time before a state or two decides to secede. You know, you are driving on the road from NV to CA and all of a sudden a road block appears and the officer stops your car and asks "License?" You show him yours and he says "Sorry, sir, we are only letting California residents into California, now."

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is a fantastic idea.

TM

I'm going to start pushing Durham University (tuition about £20,000) on my 9 year old:

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

People tried those cases and lost.

Weren't those suits against the gun manufacturers?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I'm going to start pushing Durham University (tuition about £20,000) on my 9 year old:

My wife did a year abroad there and loved the place.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Weren't those suits against the gun manufacturers?

There are statutory protections for gun manufacturers shielding them from liability. Thanks in part to a certain socialist Senator.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

As to your question, every movie I've seen shows people move slowly away from an ideal to "I must win, it is important I am here to achieve my goals," and they want to stay there long after they have abandoned all of their original ideals.

Right. I realize that. I want to know why. What is it about the job that makes people give up their ideals in order to stay in it? I don't feel like anything below Senator is really all that powerful a position. So, what the fuck is it? The attention? Is it the low-level celebrity they can't give up?

TM

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My wife did a year abroad there and loved the place.

It looks amazing. I'm not really pushing any colleges on my kids (yet).

[Replaced_Texan]

Can anyone else remember a former Supreme Court Justice writing an op-ed to explain the Constitution?

Maybe they do this all the time and I'm not paying attention, but this seems pretty unusual to me.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.e712f618ff34

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Can anyone else remember a former Supreme Court Justice writing an op-ed to explain the Constitution?

Maybe they do this all the time and I'm not paying attention, but this seems pretty unusual to me.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.e712f618ff34

That was written back in 2014 as part of a promotion of his book on issues we should revisit in the Constitution. I think a lot of retired justices make speeches and the like, but I don't think a lot have published books on their jurisprudence.