There’s that word again
I doan theen it mean what you theen it mean.
“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”
This, as I have said many times before, is the issue I have with “belief” It is possible to “believe” the most ridiculous and outlandishly ignorant things, that can easily be demonstrated to be false.
If you’re a cousin humping yokel in the backwoods of Red State America, and you “believe” in UFO’s, you’re obviously a nutjob (Though someone will come along and offer you a TV show if you look ugly and sound stupid enough, witness “Sons of Guns”)
If, on the other hand, you “Believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers”, and you’re the president of the USA, people will flock to you, awaiting your bidding, because if you’re ignorant enough to vote for that monstrosity, you’ll “Believe” anything. And frankly, I’m hardly surprised.
Though, before I bet on gun owners saying “You know, you’re right! I do sort of wish I couldn’t buy an AK-47, because they really ARE for soldiers” I will be looking for the spacecraft full of Nomes.
Aside; having gone through the rest of Pratchett, the Bromeliad is a wondrous little trilogy, and I will try to get the Oglet to read it; it will do a good job of showing her that a once great people, brought to the level of subsisting on other people’s garbage, can return to their former glory. it is a lesson I hope she never has to learn firsthand.
Just because there are not a lot of people complaining that the 1968, and 1934 gun control laws are not constitutional, does not negate the fact that they are, if you believe the founding fathers meant what they said.
Why is it that everyone parses the phrase dealing with militia and overlooks the final phrase of the amendment.
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”.
if AK 47’s are for soldiers, then why don’t ANY modern armies issue them to theirs?
ours don’t.
The europeans don’t
The russians and Chinese don’t.
The only ones who still do are Africans and they can hardly be called “soldiers”.
AK-47’s should be inteh hands of the populace for the same reason M-1 garands, M-1 carbines, M1903’s, and FAL’s are in civilian hands… they are obsolete. Real armies have much better stuff that a rifle designed in 1947.
“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,†Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.â€
THe real problem is the false dichotomy.
An AK-47 (family weapon, naturally, not just the original, and not just the full-auto version) belongs in the hands of soldiers.
And civilians who aren’t criminals or lunatics.
Just not in the hands of criminals or (adjudicated) madmen.
(Though contra Prof. Hale, I don’t know that the current issue AK-74M or the Finnish Rk.62/95 or the Israeli Galil are really all that different from the original AK-47.
The AK pattern is perfectly acceptable for a “modern army”, and the AK-74 variant is so similar as to make no significant difference; it’s like trying to tell me that an M-16A1 is useless for soldiers because we’re deploying M-4s now.
Flavor of the week and incremental improvement don’t make a compelling case for No Longer Suitable.
For that matter one could argue that the FAL is still a perfectly good soldier’s weapon, and that matters of fashion and counter-insurgency doctrine make it a loser for modern deployment and procurement…)
1) .22 caliber six-shooter, nickname-Saturday Night Special = bad, no need to possess one, a little scary, if Robert F. Kennedy had seen it.
2) .50 caliber rifle, nickname-widow maker = bad Looks like DEATH, no need to possess one.
3) AK-47 replica, nickname-Kalashnikov = bad, looks scary.
4) 92F, Beretta 9mm – in the right hands, more terrifying to criminals than you can possbly imagine.
In a republic citizen = soldier.
In a socialist state citizen = Serf
In a socialist state soldier = State
We in the US are all about citizen soldier. especially in the fly over part. If those assholes on the coast forget that, we are more than ready to remind them.
Everyone in Fly Over country needs to vote in the next election. It is the only way we can overcome the graft in the cities.
U were right Og the agenda will come… he was just waiting for the opportunity.
Red;
IFF you need the reinforcement (and I recognize you probably don’t), you can always call someone who quibbles about the militia clause at best semi-literate, because they don’t know the difference between a dependent and an independent clause.
The independent clause can, of course, stand alone. It doesn’t require the dependent clause to make sense.
This is not commutative.
Therefor “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL not be infringed.” is a complete and whole sentence. The militia clause requires the rest to have anything to stand on.
Just as in the concept it explains — “A well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state” DEPENDS on the right to keep and bear arms.
And your interlocutor has to do all manner of verbal and pseudo-intellectual gymnastics to delude himself that this is not so.
Of course, the BEST answer to gun-grabing loonies is one I screamed at Nanny Bloomberg on the radio when he said something to the effect of “I don’t know why anyone needs a gun in this country.”
I yelled: “To kill tyrants like you, fuckwad!”
But, of course, he didn’t hear me.
M
Mark, even if he had heard you…he wouldn’t be “listening”.
Thomas Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies, Preface: “Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed because they are consistent with a widely held vision of the world – and this vision is accepted as a substitute for facts.”