Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Support of the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment specifically, needs to be an OWS Unity Principle.

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 19, 2013, 5:09 p.m. EST by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We need declared Unity Principles.

At Zuccotti, it was clear that an unspoken unity principle was that society should be organized to answer human needs, not corpoRAT greed. We now need public unity principles to define who we are and to weed out government shills.

In my opinion, they can be no such thing as an OWSer who favors disarming the 99%.

106 Comments

106 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

Guns are not ever going to be a unifying principle, unless your organization was begun to promote or prohibit them.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

'Guns' are not the issue. The U.S. Constitution and the inalienable rights of citizens are the issue. Simplifying the issue to the word, guns, is a propaganda turn of phrase.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

From my own perspective, we are experiencing a breakdown in representation at the most basic level of governance -- our elected representatives no longer represent the voters whom elect them to office. However, whoever they do represent is not as important as the simple fact that they do not represent the vast majority of Americans who cannot afford large campaign donations and lobbyists. This issue is basic to Constitutional self-governance which, according to the Declaration of Independence, is based solely on the principle that government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed".

However, the democratic aspect of our little constitutional republic is limited to popularly electing Representatives and Senators to Congress and electors in the Presidential election, as well as serving on juries (and grand juries) in criminal and civil matters. Notwithstanding the First Amendment's articulation of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", there is no other Constitutional means to assert democratic (that is to say direct citizen) control over our government.

The Constitution does not confer rights upon citizens, rather it merely articulates some of our inherent rights as contrasted with the limited duties, powers and responsibilities we delegate to the government it describes. Or, in other words, the Constitution is a formal agreement between Americans, individually and collectively, about how we govern ourselves. As such, elections serve to elect citizens to Constitutionally described offices whom then constitute the actual and functional "government" which presides over our (we the people's) business. Thus, each election not only constitutes a "new" government, but also conveys our consent, individually and collectively, to be governed under the Constitution by that government. Individually, voting for a candidate in an election conveys your consent to be governed by any candidate elected to office and, collectively, our consent legitimates the new government regardless of whom is elected.

If consent to be governed under the Constitution is implied, both individually and collectively, by voting for a candidate in an election for office, it follows that any citizen withholding their consent must do so explicitly in an election, insofar as elections are the only Constitutional means of democratically determining our (we the people's) political will both individually and collectively. Moreover, it also follows that a citizen withholding their consent is also casting a vote against all candidates for office.

Individually this is political protest in the only poll that counts. Collectively it becomes democracy -- an expression of our (we the people's) political will under the Constitution.

By withdrawing consent, a plurality of voters presents the lame-duck Congress with an undeniable Constitutional crisis if the House of Representatives proves unable to seat a quorum come January.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Yes the government no longer represents the majority, no longer represents the interests of the citizens.

We take it back, or face enslavement by the copoRAT masters (Foxxconn, Nigeria oil industry styles, etc.)

In terms of withholding the vote and thus the legitimacy of the democracy fraud, a massive withholding would be necessary, otherwise the minority of truth see-ers would be run over.

Good post.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

Considering that people are reacting emotionally, it doesn't matter what the issue really is. When you say you are defending the second amendment a majority of people translate that as you are defending guns. You can try to approach it on a strictly intellectual level but it's going to cause more argument then unity. The right to bear arms is not going to unify a population reacting emotionally to a shooting.

[-] -2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

That is exactly the thinking of the planners of the Aurora and Sandy Hook psyops and false flags. They are playing the populace like a harp.

To understand today's world, it is necessary to understand three concepts: false flag attacks, information warfare and control fraud.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

I understand the concept. It doesn't matter though, few believe these shootings were any kind of conspiracy. Pressing that notion would likely also create disunity.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

The suggested unity principle is simply support of the Bill of Rights.

The knowledge of false flag conspiracies is spreading at its own speed.

Your objections are red herrings.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

I just gave offered opinion, making the second amendment a focus of anything is likely to be more divisive then unifying. You're under no obligation to to accept my opinion.

[-] 0 points by SteadyRock (63) from New York, NY 1 year ago

True dat

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

It's so obvious.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Everything you know is a "false flag", from WW I onward to the inauguration.

All false flags!!!!!

Perpetrated by the old, new world order!!!!

Or was it the new, old world order?

Whatever!!!

It's out of order!!

You should hide under the bed immediately.

Unless of course you bed is also a false flag.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

You are pathetic. You really should tell your boss Cass Sunstein to fire you for incompetency.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Who dat?

Never heard of 'im.

Besides, I'm retired, so I don't "work" for anybody, ergo, no one can fire me.

Or maybe........I'm a false flag...........Whooo hoooo!

The Boggieman's Gonna Get You!

------Catfish Hodge--------

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

I humbly disagree. Guns are the issue when some people are trying to take them away from you.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

ows is fundamentally anti violence. good luck with your gun rhetoric. jerkoff.

[-] -2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

It certainly is. We are the 2nd American Revolution, nonviolent this time. And we will win, thru nonviolent means.

Of course, you probably are not a fan of the first American Revolution. But then, you are a unAmerian, anti-Patriot douchebag.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

there are plenty of things to hate about america. take idiots like you for example.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

I welcome your hatred.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Jeez, you are on a rant today. Calm down a bit. I’m a gun owner, own lots of guns. I’m a law abiding Navy veteran and don’t think any new regulations will make any difference in gun violence.

But what does it accomplish to come here and stir up trouble? Neither you are I will ever change any of the folks here to change their mind. If you’re just letting off steam, at least be civil about it.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

OK, here's the situation. I've been here since the beginning. While I went down to Zuccotti when I could, I was not an actual occupier (I'm unaware of any here). My point is that to me, I'm addressing 'us' not 'them'.

Secondly, this forum has been overrun by cooperating hacks. They seem to be mostly globalists and I suspect many are paid posters (by the government, NATO, the Pentagon, intel, who knows). They are extremely threatened by the 2nd Amendment (though they pretend it's toothless). They are also extremely threatened by any discussions of any shared goals on the parts of OWS on the left and the Tea Party on the right. They have also chased away many thoughtful posters.

Third I tend to react in kind. Quantumystic's language is so insulting and uncivil I believe he should be banned from this forum. Perhaps I have been playing into his game by stooping to his level. One kind of forum attack is to create an ugly atmosphere that repels visitors and parttime followers, perhaps that's his/her strategy. (See http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-gentlemans-guide-to-forum-spies-spooks-feds-et/ and http://occupywallst.org/forum/cointelpro-intelligence-agents-techniques-for-dilu/ for more forum suppression attacks if interested). I will change my tactics and stay civil (or at least try).

And fourth, it is clear that the doctrinaire, no think, follow the leader liberals (such as I was to an extent and such as my relatives still are) have not come on board in this post, they seem to be stuck in a time warp. I'm sure I couldn't convince my own family. This is a huge topic, let me just say here that I think its very sad that liberals have such a hard time being flexible and recognizing changing dangers.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

That is a very good post. I think your frustrations are warranted. IMHO, this forum has run its course. I’ve only been here a short time and already weary of all the drama, rants and craziness. To me, it appears maybe a hundred or so regular posters run the show for their personal entertainment. I doubt this forum is representative of the real OWS.

I’m not an OWS’er. Early on I was an OWS sympathizer. It seemed like there were many good ideas the masses could relate to and help create real change. Alas, this has not been the case. The zealots took over. Black blocs breaking windows and OWS encampments causing problems turned off the public. Any original good intentions have been drowned out.

My one and only purpose for joining this forum was to spread the truth and save souls (just kidding). I actually wanted to join the fray about the gun ban. I just thought I might be able to make some people see the futility of it.

So, now that I understand your situation, I concur with your rant. Please carry on. I probably won’t be around much longer. Just seems pointless.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

No one is "disarming" the 99%
but it makes a good headline for the lemmings

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

1►
learn

2►
demand a plan:

http://www.youtube.com/user/maigcoalition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Za8SOVuGHs&list=UUu4Q7iE0z1Jw7yUjs56dvXA&index=1

alex jones – without his straight jacket!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

3►
WRITE CONGRESS:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm
VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006

***


Dear ............................:

[ _ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E_ ]

While some people may want to confiscate guns, here is a much more feasable approach. It will not solve all gun problems, but it will reduce the number of guns and will reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns - and isn't THAT our real goal?

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America with our gun disasters:

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between cars & guns.

1►
all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws thus
being forced to know the law - via the test - means the police know who you are -
and you may be less likely to commit a crime or br careless storing your guns

2►
every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Annual ( fee ) back ground check to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

3►
as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

You are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours,
The owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief

4►
every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

Knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it

peripherally-

Gun fees [ licenses registration fines ] should be high enough to create a
very substantial gun buy-back program

Penalties must be very high in money & jail time - especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & real collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun fees should be higher for more guns & for bigger guns.

The nra fighting against this - will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it

But the nra may be in favor of this when the gun companies understand that a gun owner
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers and
free up police "time" for real crime investigation

We WILL get higher compliance and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback.
Take a position of reducing guns, like assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles -
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.

***


Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: England…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: France…..: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides Per 100,000


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/rft-annual-trend-and-demographic-tables-2011-12.xls
The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

Is the nra claiming that we will fail where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation


Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

VERY IMPORTANT:
The USA 1994 gun "ban" did not ban assault weapons.
It banned the MANUFACTURE of assault weapons.
That is why so many people are buying AR15s before "Obama bans guns"

Scalia - yes that Scalia - has ruled the AR15s are NOT protected by Article 2

LBJ proposed a gun plan similar to the above 4 point plan

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

'Guns' as an OWS "Unity Principle" ?!!! No such thing as an anti-gun OWSer ?!! Errrrr, who's a "shill" ?!

Your gun obsessions are affecting your judgement it seems & try to "weed out government shills" with :

Your opinion as per last line above, was just about the funniest (and rather alarming!) thing that I've read here in quite a while so thanx for the lulz !!! Seriously mate, please consider - has over 300 million guns in circulation brought Americans one tiny step closer to a fairer, saner more reasonable society ?!! Go on 'ndg' - is it because you're from 'Crooklyn' that you are so attached to your shooters ?!

fiat lux, fiat pax et fiat justitia ...

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

So you reduce support for the 2nd Amendment to being pro-gun? The Bill of Rights specifies limits on governmental power.

If you think OWS has any chance of appealing to the heartland, of uniting disparate critics of the status quo without standing united behind the constitution you are dreaming.

William K. Black's analysis is so obviously correct, how can his arguments not carry the day? Our governance has gone criminogenic. We are ruled by criminals, who have illegitimately seized the reigns of power. And you want only they and their house slaves to have firearms? The kindest interpretation would be that you are king of the useful fools.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

I dare you to quote the 2nd Amendment but ... In Full !

Go ahead and try your unkindest interpretation of me !!

Guns =/= Liberty, Light, Logic or Love ; Guns = Fear !!!

veritas vos liberabit ...

[-] -2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

The Nazis are on the march (the NDAA for example) and you want only Nazis to have guns. What a colossal idiot. Or a paid shill.

Who benefits from your suggestions?

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Are you gearing up for a civil war ?! Fascism arrived already & "idiot/shill" ?!!

Your responses here are paranoid and hysterical & you need to get a grip !!!

temet nosce ...

[-] -3 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

You are a pitiful little child or a NWO police stater.

By the way, in this day and age civilian firearms would not be offensive (obviously), but defensive.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn: “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

how much is wayne paying you?

[-] -2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

How much is Cass paying you?

Let me make something very clear to you, the 99% is not going to be disarmed, period. I don't know who you are, a paid traitor or just a fool, but I wanted to convey that.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

As if gun owners are preventing govt from violating our rights. gun rights have only expanded while every other right has been abridged. gun owners were useless in stopping our rights violations.

http://www.upworthy.com/think-you-have-zero-privacy-wrong-its-way-less-than-zero?c=upw1

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

So why do you government shills care so much about the 2A then if it's so worthless?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

My comment establishes my opinion that the government has abridged all our rights (except gun rights, which have been expanded). As such I am not shilling FOR the gov, but rather FOR the rights of the people. I have not expressed an opinion that the 2nd Amend is worthless. You are either dishonestly raising a straw man (false argument) to knock down, or you are woefully inadequate in interpreting simple comments. I have suggested that gun owners who claim "they have guns to protect our rights" have been useless. I hope I have cleared that up for you.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

OK, so why hasn't the unconstitutional, anti-American, unPatriotic atrocity NDAA been rolled out in the flesh. How come we don't see posters and our own neighbors get picked up and disappeared? You don't think widespread gun ownership might have something to do with it?

Besides, gun owning citizens don't have anywhere close to offensive capability. In today's world, citizens' firearms are defensive in purpose.

But actually, I don't believe you are honest. Gun rights have certainly not been expanded. So-called 'assault rifles' are nothing of the kind, just because they are scary looking black plastic. No military would consider using them. Selectfire weapons have been illegal for decades, I have no problem with that.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Gun rights HAVE been expanded in that the Fed level has expanded the right to carry on trains as well as national parks. In addition many states have expanded right to carry in public. So you are incorrect. Gun rights HAVE expanded. And in so far as NDAA indef detention, our neighbors HAVE been picked up and disappeared. Many we never hear about, others that come out later. And the so called "rights concerned" gun owners made not one sound (and still do not) when these rights were abridged. Because they don't care about rights. They're full of shit!!!! They just "loves thar guns". What a joke.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Name one stateside U.S. citizen that has been picked up and disappeared.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I remember many Muslim American citizens picked up under the NDAA years ago. I went to protests outside the prison in brooklyn. As a result of the protests (there were many others) the practice was curtailed. Although I can't say it hasn't happened at all since the nature of disappearing is only known if the person has people who miss them. BTW, at our protests there were NO gun owners. And there never is any gun owners at these protests against our abridged rights. Because gun owners do not care about rights only about their guns.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

OWS is nonviolent and will remain so. Of course there are no open guns at Occupy functions.

I believe the Muslims picked up took place years under the post 9/11 hysteria and before NDAA.

Are you downvoting me, in this discussion?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I haven't downvoted you or anyone else. Indef detention existed long before the codified language in the defense budget. The policy was implemented immediately after 9/11. The protests ensued at the same time (pre OWS) by people concerned about rights. NOT GUN OWNERS!!! Gun owners DO NOT care about rights. Only their guns and the profits of gun mfg. It's all bullshit. Gun advocates are simply working to preserve the profits of gun makers. Most know it. Some aren't smart enough to figure that fact out. But the main hint they ignore is that gun owners have done NOTHING!, made NOT ONE PEEP regarding the rights violations that have occured. Period. Done. Sorry. They don't care about rights. Only gun profits.

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (195) 1 year ago

Americans should study the English Revolution to understand the origins of United States and the context of the founding fathers who were Englishmen before they were revolutionaries. Here are the seeds of our Bill of Rights.

The English Revolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V97MLZag3kM

Trial of the King Killers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOigjcG4TYk

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

I'll check the links out. Thanks.

Is there anything in written form that goes with them?

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (195) 1 year ago

You're welcome -

Wikipedia English Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Revolution

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Thanks.

[-] 1 points by RobertHod (1) 1 year ago

Excellent observation! Public unity principles based in observing our shared needs cannot fail us. That our government follow laws IS A NEED.

That we need to, agree on our needs, is a need:-)!

If nothing else to go where the shills cannot go just to be free of their BS obsufucation of our cognitions, whoever sent them.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

You understand my point exactly.

[-] 1 points by RobertHod (1) 1 year ago

I've seen some of that here. Some posting about ART5 and preparatory amendment. The poster took it right to the roots of natural law by relating freedom of speech to survival. A very relative agreement the shills cannot allow. I'll try and find the thread.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Well what's interesting is that Scalia stated that our 2nd Amendment right is "not unlimited" - what he seeks is to redefine "infringed" (as in "shall not be infringed") so as to mean "invalidated" and not "transgressed."

To transgress is to exceed one's own limits to over-run the safe boundaries of another; the second amendment is couched in property rights language - it was intended to be "owned" - a right owned can only be forfeited through due process, and the certainty of illegal activity, as the remaining rights enumerated clearly express.

We own it both individually and collectively; they cannot take it, without due process, and they cannot try the collective because most do not infringe or violate those laws intended to protect.

Clearly, if we allow government to take a sledge to that which is written in stone, all crumbles; we will no longer be the US of America. This is anti-Americanism in its most extreme and we will be the "lessers" as a result; clearly not, then, a government "of" the people but a government by those most powerful.

Which is clearly what the Left wants because they presently have an agenda that the majority do not favor; it can only be force-lawed, and that requires militaristic might expressed in non-violent manner, we must therefore be disarmed.

Like sheep to the slaughter... misguided but for one shepherd.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

I was with you until you got to the Left agenda. Which agenda, there are millions of them? Here, we've never been able to agree on OWS priorities. On the street, in the actual occupations, they never did either.

If you are calling Obama a leftist, you are being played. If anything, he's a closet Republican. Obamacare theory was developed by the Republican thinktank, the Heritage Foundation, specifically to counter "socialistic" medicare. Fox says otherwise, but they are liars.

The government/the Pentagon is waging allout information warfare against the American people. Fox herds the rights, CNN the center, DemNow the progressives. They are all players, all liars. The goal is divide and conquer, plus guiding dissent along acceptable lines.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But the main tenets thereof regardless of origin would generally be labeled "Leftist." Of course, if labeling as Republican will serve to alienate I'm all for it.

[-] 0 points by occupycampbellco (34) from Newport, KY 1 year ago

I agree. Occupy MUST come out with a statement endorsing the Bill of Rights in full.

That doesn't mean we all have to agree on how a part of the Bill of Rights might be interpreted. Just as long as we support the Bill of Rights.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

If we don't stand for the Constitution we stand for nothing.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Yes indeed.It is not about gun control but rather people control.I for one think that what we need is corporate control.By the people.Why anyone thinks it is a good idea that we should allow the people that are owned by the corporations to disarm us is beyond my understanding.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Absolutely corporations should be controlled by the people, subordinate to the people. And it is absolutely mind boggling that so many people are willing to cede control to an obviously corrupt government.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Like sheep people have a need to feel safe.If you use public saftey as your argument most people will ceed everything.Every argument to take our liberty has always been cloaked in that manner.It is true that we must be reasonable in all things.It is reasonable to expect that the end of a right begins with an errosion of it's premise.An example being free speech was ok during the newspaper age,but not intended for todays computer society.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

They'd love to shut down these freewheeling conversations on the internet. I understand that the early radio days were like that, and then they were able to shut that down.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

They have no need to shut them down.We all are well known to the monitors.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Yes, it's a two edged sword -- for both us and them.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Sandy0621 (175) 1 year ago

Gun ownership or gun control, it's too divisive an issue.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

What do you mean? It is the issue of the day as the NWOers and the NDAA police staters seek to disarm the 99%.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

some people just want reasonable gun laws asshole.

[-] 1 points by Sandy0621 (175) 1 year ago

I mean with the level of emotion over recent shootings the country is split on what to do about guns and the second amendment. It isn't something you are going to be able to unify people behind.

Besides the idea that an armed group of citizens could hold out against either the police or the military is not realistic, it's a childish fantasy.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

The gun debate is a distraction to take eyes away from their failures, on both sides, and a distraction from the corporatism and corruption. It riles up republicans and gun advocates who love to be riled up and satisfies democrats who have been continually disappointed. It's the standard distraction. The proposal doesn't ban guns. It actually won't do anything to curb gun violence in the USA either. It's a failure as well as a distraction.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

If it was merely a distraction why would the government shills and the corpoRAT paid forum thugs be concentrating so hard on this issue? For complete corpoRAT control of all worker units (us), the 2nd Amendment would have to be destroyed.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I stand by my previous comment.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

Short of draconian measures, there is NO way that we can get rid of hundreds of millions of guns from our society. I believe that we should instead improve the training of the people so they know how to use their weapons well and keep them under control. Second Amendment has the "well regulated" part in it, so training people well is definitely constitutional.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

I strongly agree with you. I could talk all day about this. Untrained and unknowledgeable gun owners are a pet peeve of mine.

I’m a gun enthusiast and own many guns of all types. I’m amazed at the lack of knowledge many gun owners exhibit. There’s probably tens of millions of gun owners who are a danger to themselves and others due to lack of knowledge and training.

Such as the young lady who buys a gun, goes to the range with a friend, shoot 50 rounds and never shoots it again. The businessman who buys a gun, get his ccl, but never carries it because he won’t pay for a comfortable holster.

Most gun training is geared toward seasoned shooter who already knows how to handle a gun. What I’d like to see is a couple of weeks of gun safety training, better understanding of guns ( recoil management, muzzle flip management, how to move and shoot and an explanation of the various calibers and their good and bad points. Last but probably most important is an in depth review of gun laws, with case studies. A lot of people are now in jail simply because they pulled a gun at the wrong time.

I think most gun owners would support more required training.

[-] 0 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

Good. Maybe gun accidents and losses of gun ownership can be reduced without infringing Second Amendment right. Tightening gun laws without training people can send people to jail for no good reasons so a training period can help people get used to the new laws before they come into effect.

Gun owners like you can certainly provide constructive suggestions how to cut down on societal ills resulting from our free-wheeling culture of guns without stepping on our constitutional rights.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Personally I'd like to get back to a people's army, with a year of required national service, with alternate choices such as Peace Corps or Americorp for the nonmilitary inclined. However most individuals, or at least most males, would likely chose the military I think. I see a peoples' peace army not today's king's army.

That said, I don't believe "well regulated" meant the same thing in the colonial period as today. It certainly did not mean 'well regulated by the state', but more of 'meeting the high standards' required of a fighting man (with the militia being the body of males of fighting age).

Alexander Hamilton: "To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

George Washington: " . . . by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got."

Both quotes from "The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment" http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html .

[-] 0 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

Those who want to own guns and ammunition should be required to join a gun club to learn how to use and control them well. It does not have to be the state being directly involved. We do testings for driving licenses so users of guns and ammunition should also be required to have the proper training.

[-] 2 points by Freebird (158) 1 year ago

Respectfully, please be careful when you use the term "should be required". This means begging the gov to point guns at people to force them to do something that most people would do anyways. Millions of people belong to gun clubs and take fire arms safety classes without being bullied by the gov. And remember, ANYTHING the gov takes over, they destroy, either through incompetence or malice. :)

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Let me just say that 'the government is not the infection, but has been infected' (source forgotten). We, the people, need to take it back.

[-] 0 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

Perhaps the government should require the gun clubs to monitor the ownership transfer of the guns and ammunition of their members and only have those records be subpoenaed through a court order if a gun is suspected to be involved in the commitment of a crime.

Right now, our federal government can monitor the national financial data through our federal reserve system WITHOUT delving into people's individual bank accounts directly so something like that may work for guns, too.

[-] 2 points by Freebird (158) 1 year ago

Private gun clubs do this already. A quick google search pulled up one of many stories on the Aurara theatre shooter ...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/aurora-shooting-suspect-rejected-from-gun-club-1.888711

His university shrink knew about him too. Yet the gov did - what - about him? They had plenty of warning. I will trust the average joe before the gov any day. Whatever the gov takes over, they fuck up.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

Whatever the gov takes over, they fuck up.
We all know the "gov" moon landing was a fake
We all know the "gov" internet is a fake
We all know the "gov" WW2 was lost
ditto the TVA & interstate highway system & medicare & medicaid

[-] 0 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

The government does not have to be involved in the gun clubs directly just like your bank feeds information about your bank account in the aggregate to the federal reserve ultimately. There was no government taking over your bank.

You can actually have the gun clubs keep the ballistic records of the guns and government supplies them with the request for a match search with a warrant. Government needs not see who owns what until there is a match.

[-] 2 points by Freebird (158) 1 year ago

Most banks are required to report transactions over 10k to gov. That was NOT voluntary, it was imposed by gov. Realtors are now forced to report trans over 10k, to "protect" us from terrorists and drug money launderers. A gov scam to control every aspect of the economy. They have stolen/mis-spent every cent this country has produced and will not stop till there is nothing left to steal.

[-] -1 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

Our government cannot control every aspect of the economy. If it could, our economy would not be emerging: All Cleaned Up

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

Government monitors AUTOMATIC machine guns
why not semi-autos?
you want gun clubs to perform police functions?
what a bout the person who does not belong to a gun club?


Do you believe the gun nuts and gun manufacturers when tell you to buy more because Obama it gona get you guns?

[-] 1 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

My model is that the government should not be outgunned by a single individual because the government has legitimate interest in carrying out law enforcement. AUTOMATIC machine guns can outgun many police departments.

Semi-automatics are not as powerful as the government's guns but enough of them TOGETHER can still take down the enforcers if they should go rogue. That is the underpinning of the enforcers' "playing fair" and contributes to the stability of the U.S. I do not believe in human beings "playing fair" of their own accord. I do believe that they understand what the gun barrel says when they are staring down it.

There can be the grandfathering of membership in a gun club. There is simply no way short of draconian measures to enforce the rule of gun club membership for past owners of guns and ammunition so it makes sense to let bygones be bygones. This is exactly why I do not believe that gun control laws will be effective when all is said and done -- there are already so many unaccounted for guns and ammunition in the U.S.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

license all owners; register all guns

[-] 1 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

The "all" is the downfall in your statement. Not everyone needs to speak up about their ownership or their guns. We have outlawed illegal drugs for many decades. Are we rid of them yet? No. Even the almighty government has its limits.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26450) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

prohibition does not work - well except to promote illegal black market and foster violence.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

It is unfortunately often true, based on what I know of history.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

are you saying guns are addictive?
we DO outlaw illegal guns - such as bazookas and grenade launchers
fully automatic machine guns are almost illegal
How many of the gun control advocates say "outlaw" guns ?

[-] 1 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

The big difference is that bazookas, grenade launchers, and fully automatic machine guns are NOT as widespread yet as what we call guns. Imagine that on the average, EVERY American citizen, regardless of their age, wealth, gender, religion, ethnicity etc. owns a gun. Yes, even babies can get their FAIR share of guns and ammunition! That is not far from the truth.

We can try regulating guns but that may not affect the volume of guns and ammunition much. I can see the benefit of starting to address the issue of illegal firearms because we have to START somewhere. My point is to target handguns and casual transfers of ownerships of guns and ammunition. By and large, handguns, not the so-called assault weapons are involved in gun-related crimes.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

ALL guns and owners should be licensed just like fully automantic machine guns are.
An annual $100 license fee & annua l $100 registration fee &
$10,000+ fee for breaking the law will fund a buy back program to reduce the number of guns.


Very theoretical:
100,000,000 owners & 300,000,000 guns = 400,000,000 fees
assume half are "legalized" = 200,000,000 x $100 = $20,000,000,000
and assume of the 200,000,000 "illegals" we catch 100,000 per year
100,000 x $10,000 = $ 1,000,000,000
so annually we would have a pool of $21,000,000,000 to buy back guns
Assuming the program costs $1,000,000,000 per year to run it & If we pay an average of $200 per gun & we have a $20,000,000,000 "fund" $20,000,000,000 / 200 = 100,000,000 guns bought back per year

[-] 2 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

It can work if we can enforce it after pushing it through to become a law. There is a fairness issue here. We could be making guns largely available to the people who can afford to own them legally. Trying to buy back guns does not always work if the owners do not sell. Buybacks can certainly reduce the number of guns at large and reduce the carnage.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

This worked in Australia

[-] 2 points by grapes (3261) 1 year ago

Let us give it a try here, too.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

You are correct of course. While I am a strong advocate of improved gun training. I think it mandatory would be an issue. The problem is probably 25% of all gun owners arn't gun people, they just own guns. A armed and untrained person is a danger to everyone.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

manditory to drive a car - you have to pass a test

[-] 0 points by Freebird (158) 1 year ago

Would you not agree that "moral" people don't have to be "forced" by the gov to do the right thing, and immoral people don't give a shit what anybody thinks.

In other words, good people don't need "laws", and bad people don't obey laws.

Faith in the force of gov is foolish. It doesn't work. Faith in the free market, your fellow man, is more prudent.

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 1 year ago

What I'm trying to say, is that the gov is only effective in bullying around law abiding people, cause they aren't the problem. But they get their rocks off imposing legislation, making a big show, on people who don't break the law. Meanwhile, the psychopaths carry on, preying on law abiding people and the gov Is impotent to stop them, cause they just don't care about laws.

Most shootings are by drug gangs, and the gov is the problem by making some drugs illegal. The average gun owner is not the problem.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

the owner of the guns used at Sandy Hook was an "average" gun owner

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I love little discussions like these. They are so informative. Doncha think?

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Yes , I do agree with you. If you are not a danger to others you should be left to live your life as you wish. It’s just that I’m bugged that so many gun owners are ignorant about guns and gun laws.

I’m a gun enthusiast and own many guns of all types. It rankles me to see the stupid and dangerous things some untrained gun owners do. I mean simple stuff, like waving a gun around, keeping your finger off the trigger, not checking if a gun is loaded when picking it up This is real basic gun safety stuff that too many gun owners haven’t learned.

Also simple knowledge of gun laws will keep gun owners out of jail. Things like you can’t shoot someone when they’re running away, you can’t pull a gun just to intimidate someone. A lot of gun owners don’t realize that any time you pull a weapon, whether you use it or not, whether you are justified or not, the case will go to a grand Jury and you’ll be out probably spend $5000 in attorney fees. Even if the cops don’t arrest you it still go to the Grand Jury and they will decide if you were right to use a gun.

[-] 0 points by Freebird (158) 1 year ago

Good points, all. I would argue that YOU, bigjoe, along with every other concerned citizen, as a voluntary collective, would be more effective to address these concerns, than any gov legislation or agency. Have faith in your fellow man, not gov. :)

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

What I’d like to see gun manufactures subsidize gun training, making it cheap enough the mass of gun owners could afford it. There are some very good gun training schools, but also cost prohibitive for a lot of folks. They certainly have enough money. The NRA does promotes some level of training, but it has taken a back seat to their lobbying efforts.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26450) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Oh hell send everyone through boot-camp

[-] 1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

I actually think it would be a good thing to bring back the draft.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26450) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Would make the public pay better attention

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

What are you talking about? What does the draft have to do with paying attention.

I'm out of here for now. Too much of this liberal crap give me a headache.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26450) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sorry - I know you are cerebrally challenged at the best of times - later toe.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Woot! Bring back the AWB!!

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

bring back the WPA