Posted on 04/18/2011 11:22:11 AM PDT by Immerito
Who is your opponent for the congressional seat, so that we might contribute to his/her cause?
Indeed. :-)
Mr. Barkley, I was wondering if it was your wife who suffered from M.S.? It is a hard thing to watch a loved one suffer and I am truly sorry. I believe the lady I read about was named Jeanne? Was she related to you?
Whoa, this guy is nuts and serious about it.
” And guess what, everywhere that guns have been outright banned has seen an explosion in crime.
Because the criminals know they are safe. “
Gun grabbers are merely anarchists who hope the criminals win.
That could take a long, long time if done well.
Do join us.
Yeah, those eyes are the portal into a man clearly not in control of himself.
These days as long as TV and sports flow from the box, and certain other simple social things are met, we all sit around and complain face to face, or online.
I wonder what it will take to penetrate that apathy and make people say, well, I can skip South Park just for tonight and go to the Second Amendment rally. Where is my holster?
First, tell me, if you don't want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, why is "Repeal the Second Amendment" the very first item in your platform?
Second, what do you mean it's just one leg of a 3-legged right? Are you saying the right to keep and bear arms is encoded elsewhere? Or are you saying there are three rights in the 2nd and the right to keep and bear is only one of them?
Third, do you really think natural law can be repealed? How?
Now, to your reasons for repeal:
We are shooting too many people in this country
Right off the bat, this one shows that your understanding of human nature is limited at best. First, any number of innocent people being shot is too many, and if you get your wish "we" (nice to include all 300 million of us in there, including me who has never shot or shoat at anyone) will still be shooting too many people. Why? that brings us to the second huge problem: The "we" who are shooting people are criminals. They do not care if they have a right to bear arms or not. They carry firearms they purchased and carry illegally and they use them to commit crimes against the innocent.
Here's a tip: Rapes don't occur because there's a right to rape enshrined in the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution says nothing about rape has not kept a single man from raping a woman. Similarly, gun murders don't occur because there is a right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution.
There are too many guns, too easy access.
Who says? Time and again we see shooters who have their guns illegally. The "easy access" came from ignoring the law, and they will ignore your new law.
But what about shootings where the gun was legally purchased like Tuscon, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech? In those cases (and many of the cases where the gun was illegal!) I would argue that the problem with the laws regarding involuntary committal, not with the laws regarding gun access. Loughner, Hasan and Cho should all have been in rubber rooms long before they had access to these firearms, and if the State of Virginian had taken advantage of LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST, Cho wouldn't have been able to purchase his weapons.
So, again, you think you will wave your magic fairy wand and all gun violence will go away. Puuuuhhhhleeeeeze!
But another question arises: When you say there are too many guns, it's too easy to get them and so we will repeal the right to keep and bear, does that mean you're planning on rounding up all the guns?
Let's say you are. Unless you thoroughly search every domicile and vehicle in the country (better repeal the Fourth Amendment while you're at it, smart guy) criminals will still have guns. And guess what? They'll keep shooting people with them because they are (wait for it)...CRIMINALS.
Oh, and that puts aside the lead that will be flying from the hands of law abiding citizens at whatever jack-booted thugs you send around to get our firearms. That is, if you can find any. I don't know many cops who have any enthisiasm for this sort of thing. Maybe you can import some guys from the Chinese Internal Security Bureau.
But let's say you aren't going to grab the guns. Well then, if all you're trying to do is overturn Heller, you won't change squat. You willpass more and more restrictive gun control laws and criminals will still kill people. Well, you will change one thing: You'll open the door for some future fascist to grab all the guns. Can you say "Sieg Heil," kids? I knew you could!
I'm sure you're sitting there smugly thinking that I have no idea what I'm talking about, and that things will change. Sure, just like they changed for Washington DC and Chicago. Both are places where owning a handgun has been illegal for a generation or more, and both of them are places where kids get shot on the way to school. Your plan is just their plan for more people. Tasty pick.
Since Heller and McDonald, all gun control in this country is unconstitutional despite the bone tossed to the gun control people by Justice Scalia in Heller.
Now, here's where it really gets fun. Scalia said that reasonable restrictions on guns are fine as long as they don't completely prevent ownership and are "not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner."
So, when you say Heller got rid of all gun control, that means one of two things:
1. You are admitting that current gun control laws are arbitrary and capricious or that any law that gives you what you want would be
2. You have no bloody idea what's in the Heller decision, but you've decided to make policy for 300 million people founded on a fat pileof ignorance.
Either way, you're not showing any intellectual heft.
New and different forms of gun control are required to cut down the inventory and access problems and those cannot be imposed without first repealing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Really? Like what? Like your $1,000 fine that would punish a crime victim for the crime committed against them? Good Lord, step away from the bong.
I be there upthread
One at a time?
Yup.
No way we’d do a thing without you, D.
He’s not current on RKBA restoration in the various states,
obviously. Not giving him a lot of credit for knowing
what an Amendment takes to pass, but maybe a minute amount.
The real, nuclear-grade question for *you* be you the
actual candidate or no, is whether you would promote
further infringements on the RKBA *other* than by an
Amendment to the Constitution. Look up “Unintended
Consequences” for a start.
Lazamataz wrote,
>> Adopt the Multiple Sclerosis Anti-Discrimination Social Security Act.
>
> My mom has multiple sclerosis, and she would even oppose this. No
> ‘protected classes’ based on disease.
All of you have certain rights to Social Security Disability, provided you file your claim within a specified period after losing your employment because of disability. You might also have other rights under SSI if you file too late to receive Social Security Disability but the SSI
payments will probably be smaller. Per the Social Security Administration, “Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which is based on prior work under Social Security, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Under SSI, payments are made on the basis of financial need.”
MS can be a very sneaky devil. The victim can suffer cognitive problems, unexplained weakness, unexplained inability to get out of bed to go to work on various mornings, and so on. It can take years in some cases for some doctor to get the bright idea to look for MS. In the case of many on the MS web sites, those years between initial onset and diagnosis are often years of declining earnings or sheer inability to get or hold a job of any sort. The right to Social Security Disability at any specific income level wanes also - SSA says it “is based on prior work”, but it is really based on income from such work. As compensation declines, so does the Disability award. The longer it takes to get a diagnosis, the smaller the award. Several other diseases like MS (maybe fibromyalgia?) also take a long time to manifest. I am disappointed that you would label this as some sort of “’protected class’ based on disease”. It is more a victimized class because of disease. For many disabling diseases the right to SSDI manifests immediately. Perversely, those are the fortunate as compared with MS victims, at least with regard to SSDI.
WhyisaTexasgirlinPA wrote,
> Mr. Barkley, I was wondering if it was your wife who suffered from M.S.?
> It is a hard thing to watch a loved one suffer and I am truly sorry.
> I believe the lady I read about was named Jeanne? Was she related to you?
Thank you for your comments. Yes, we were married for 36 years before she died of “hospital mistakes” following surgery for ovarian cancer, which cancer was shielded from discovery by the MS symptoms and treatment. She was a very special lady. The hospital mistakes took her about 3 months
before the metastasized cancer would have and if they hadn’t taken her, the suffering would have been unbearable. I have mixed feelings about those mistakes, she wanted to live as long as possible, but they relieved her of the escalating suffering. It’s an unanswerable riddle.
Arrowhead1952 wrote,
> Sooooooooooooooooooooo, you are still here, but refuse to reply.
Um, actually I’ve been busy digging ditches to run underground utilities to a house. At the moment I’m writing an answer to:
“191 posted on Saturday, April 23, 2011 2:27:42 PM by Mr. Silverback”.
and maybe
“176 posted on Saturday, April 23, 2011 6:10:08 AM by aruanan “
but it’s going to take me a bit. It’s difficult to figure out which of you are looking for answers or which are just posing rhetorical questions.
For those of you looking for who I’m running against for Congress, please see post #52 for the upcoming California redistricting bug tussle. It would be interesting to see if Ms. Pelosi, for instance winds up representing the great city of Fresno. . . .
On the IBTZ question, well, it is what it is. Should the Big Z come down, I’ve listened to each of you and carefully considered your comments.
Best wishes, —Mike
Mr. Barkley,
It is customary, when replying to another poster(s), to submit your reply directly to that poster(s).
Since you named the above posters in your post, I have taken the liberty of pinging them on your behalf so they may be alerted to your reply in post #197.
You addressed the chaff of my comments, and not one kernel of wheat.
Yessir, you are a lightweight. I am a computer developer, as you state you are. If you program like you debated, you'd have one very pretty screen control on an otherwise useless GUI with almost codebehind and database support.
I view you as a very unlikely candidate, and predict your Congressman will trounce you handily.
ALL of your primary responses are MS related. I understand the impact on your life; it devestated my younger years as well, to see Mom so inflicted.
Now, bearing in mind that your opponent will handily crush you -- he's got the cash, the name, the will to run again on your ticket, and so on -- would it not be a better and more productive effort to create or join a group that lobbies for MS research? Also, are you aware of new research that shows promise in halting MS progression outright? If you are interested, I will find it for you.
PS: If you want to take my guns, you will need to kill me, and there are millions out there just like me. Give genocide a rest, okay?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.