Pretty much the way it should be done.

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1640719306685132802/vid/480x270/qSwMD4-84N9hn33-.mp4?tag=16

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>Pretty much the way it should be done.

>https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1640719306685132802/vid/480x270/qSwMD4-84N9hn33-.mp4?tag=16

In Uvalde, the school district police officers sat on their hands as no
one made a decision.

Huh. Did you notice: The police officer had found a guy to unlock the
door and didn't destroy it? Those police officers did not appear to
destroy the school in trying to get to the shooter.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 12:23:28 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:

> Pretty much the way it should be done.
>
> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1640719306685132802/vid/480x270/qSwMD4-84N9hn33-.mp4?tag=16

'180-degree difference': How the Nashville school shooting police response compares to Uvalde

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/03/28/nashville-uvalde-school-shooting-police-response-time-timeline-comparisons-vastly-different/70057436007/

I note that Bing concealed the URL for the article, to make it
look like it came from Bing.com

On 3/28/23 2:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Pretty much the way it should be done.
>
>
> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1640719306685132802/vid/480x270/qSwMD4-84N9hn33-.mp4?tag=16

The way it should done is to repeal the Second Amendment and not allow
such mentally troubled people to have access to weapons of war. Your
response doesn't show one flying fuck of remorse for even more school
children killed, and it's eunuchs like you that are the problem.

Hope this helps.

In article <amUUL.368493$cKvc.29723@fx42.iad>,
trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

> On 3/28/23 2:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > Pretty much the way it should be done.
> >
> > https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1640719306685132802/vid/480x270/qSwMD4
> > -84N9hn33-.mp4?tag=16

> have access to weapons of war.

A Marine K-bar knife is a 'weapon of war'. So is a Colt revolver. So are
bayonets, hands, and feet, Hutt, you bloviating turdpile.

> The way it should done is to repeal the Second Amendment

Let's should be absolutely clear about what Hutt, the 600-Pound Virgin,
is arguing for here: He is a) agreeing with Jefferson that "laws and
institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind",
b) contending that "progress" suggests that the individual right to keep
and bear arms is now counterproductive, and c) concluding that it is
time therefore to make a "change in law and constitution"-- in other
words, to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

This, it is true, is not a mainstream position on the American Left-- at
least, it is not one that is argued openly. But it is a reasonably
popular one on social media, it has strong support within the
left-leaning parts of the political commentariat, it is loaded into
'progressive' dog whistles when politicians like President Obama and
Hillary Clinton refer to "Australia" and other nations with partial or
total bans on personally-owned firearms, and it enjoys indirect approval
from around one quarter of the American public. When the likes of Hutt
and Bill Maher and Keith Ellison say that we need to get rid of the 2nd
Amendment, they are not speaking in a vacuum but reflecting the views of
a small but vocal portion of the American population. And they mean it.
That being so, here's the million-dollar question: What the hell are
they waiting for? Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it.

Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter
and Usenet, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some
Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news
cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there
and begin the movement in earnest. Don't fall back on excuses. Don't
play cheap motte-and-bailey games. And don't pretend that you're okay
with the 2nd Amendment in theory, but you're just appalled by the Heller
decision. You're not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the
amendment's drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists
of their era and beyond: That "right of the people" means "right of the
people", as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in
the common law that preceded it. A 2nd Amendment without the supposedly
pernicious Heller "interpretation" wouldn't be any impediment to
regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective
repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it
would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take
those words out of the Constitution.

This will involve hard work, of course. You can't just sit online and
preen to those who already agree with you. No, siree. Instead, you'll
have to go around the states-- traveling and preaching until the soles
of your shoes are thin as paper. You'll have to lobby Congress, over and
over and over again. You'll have to make ads and shake hands and twist
arms and cut deals and suffer all the slings and arrows that will be
thrown in your direction. You'll have to tell anybody who will listen to
you that they need to support you; that if they disagree, they're
childish and beholden to the "gun lobby"; that they don't care enough
about children; that their reverence for the Founders is mistaken; that
they have blood on their goddamn hands; that they want to own firearms
only because their penises are small and they're not "real men". And
remember, you can't half-ass it this time. You're not going out there to
tell these people that you want "reform" or that "enough is enough".
You're going there to solicit their support for erasing one of the
articles within the Bill of Rights itself. Make no mistake: It'll be
unpleasant strolling into Pittsburgh or Youngstown or Pueblo and telling
blue-collar Democrat after blue-collar Democrat that he only has his
guns because he's not as well-endowed as he'd like to be. It'll be tough
explaining to suburban families that their established conception of
American liberty is wrong. You might even suffer at the polls because of
it. But that's what it's going to take. So do it. Start now. Off you go.

And don't stop there. No, no. There'll still be a lot of work to be
done. As anybody with a passing understanding of America's
constitutional system knows, repealing the 2nd Amendment won't in and of
itself lead to the end of gun ownership in America. Rather, it will
merely free up the federal government to regulate the area, should it
wish to do so. Next, you'll need to craft the laws that bring about
change-- think of them as modern Volstead Acts-- and you'll need to get
them past the opposition. And, if the federal government doesn't
immediately go whole hog and pass the bans you want, you'll need to
replicate your efforts in the states, too, 45 of which have their own
constitutional protections. Maybe New Jersey and California and Hawaii
will go quietly. Maybe. But Idaho won't. Florida won't. Louisiana won't.
Kentucky won't. Texas sure as hell won't. You'll need to persuade those
sovereignties not to sue and drag their heels, but to do "what's right"
as defined by you. Unfortunately, that won't involve vague talk of
holding "national conversations" and "doing something" and "fighting
back against the NRA". It'll mean going to all sorts of groups-- unions,
churches, PTAs, political meetings, bowling leagues-- and telling them
not that you want "common-sense reforms", but that you want their guns,
full stop, as in Australia or Britain or Japan. Obviously, the
Republicans aren't going to help in this, so you'll need to commandeer
the Democratic party to do it. That means you'll need their presidential
candidates on board. That means you'll need to make full abolition of
personal firearms ownership the stated policy of the Senate and House
caucuses. That means you'll need the state parties to sign pledges
promising not to back away if it gets tough. And if they won't, you'll
need to start a third party and accept all that that entails.

And when you've done all that and your vision is inked onto parchment,
you'll still need to enforce it. No, not in the namby-pamby,
eh-we-don't-really-want-to-fund-it way that Prohibition was enforced or
the way immigration law is enforced now. I mean enforce it... with
actual force. When Australia took its decision to Do Something, the
Australian citizenry owned between 2 and 3 million guns. Despite the
compliance of the people and the lack of an entrenched gun culture, the
government got maybe three-quarters of a million of them-- somewhere
between a fifth and a third of the total. That wouldn't be good enough
here, of course. There are around 400 million privately owned guns in
America, which means that if you picked up one in three, you'd only be
returning the stock to where it was in 1994. Does that sound difficult?
Sure! After all, this is a country of 330 million people spread out
across 3.8 million square miles, and if we know one thing about the
American people, it's that they do not go quietly into the night. But
the government has to have their guns. It has to. Hutt says so. The 2nd
Amendment has to go.

You're going to need a plan. A state-by-state, county-by-county,
street-by-street, door-to door plan. A detailed roadmap to abolition
that involves the military and the police and a whole host of
informants-- and, probably, a hell of a lot of blood, too. Sure, the
ACLU won't like it, especially when you start going around poorer and
browner neighborhoods. Sure, there are probably between 20 and 30
million Americans who would rather fight a civil war than let you into
their houses. Sure, there is no historical precedent in America for the
mass confiscation of a commonly owned item-- let alone one that was
until recently constitutionally protected. Sure, it's slightly odd that
you think that we can't deport 11 million illegal aliens but we can
search 123 million homes for illicit firearms. But that's just the price
we have to pay. Times have changed. It has to be done: For the children;
for America; for the future. Hey hey, ho ho, the 2nd Amendment has to
go. Let's do this thing.

When do you get started, Hutt, you throbbing shitweasel?