Des Moines columnist calls for repeal of Second Amendment, death of gun owners - Polidicks

Source: [url]http://www.examiner.com/article/des-moines-columnist-calls-for-repeal-of-second-amendment-death-of-gun-owners[/url] [quote] In an op-ed at the Des Moines Register, retired columnist Donald Kaul called for, among other things, a repeal of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the forced elimination of the NRA as an organization, and the death of gun owners who refuse to give up their arms, Newsbusters reported Monday. "Here, then, is my 'madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore' program for ending gun violence in America," he wrote. "Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a 'well-regulated militia.' We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right," he wrote. "Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did," he added. Kaul said he would also "raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional." After saying he would make "ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony," Kaul announced that he would punish such ownership with the death penalty. "If some people refused to give up their guns, that 'prying the guns from their cold, dead hands' thing works for me," he wrote. After saying he would kill gun owners who refused to give up their guns, Kaul issued a threat against Republican leaders. "Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control," he added. He concluded his violent rant by saying that if killing gun owners, shredding the Constitution and torturing GOP leaders didn't work, he would "adopt radical measures." Kaul's rant is only the latest call for violence against those who support the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms. Since the tragic Newtown shooting, liberals, including a member of the Texas Democratic Party Executive Committee, have called for murdering law-abiding gun owners and supporters of the NRA. By publishing his call for violence against those with whom he disagrees, Kaul proves, yet again, that liberalism has become an ideology of genocidal hate and rage. Readers of the column took the Register to task on the paper's Facebook page. "I just read the column by Donald Kaul. Does your paper really endorse that mindset? I am shocked and dismayed by the utter lack of 'civility' which the left claims to have a monopoly on. The fact that you allow such garbage to be published in your paper shows your contempt of the constitution, and of conservatives who support it," one person wrote. "I am stunned and appalled that your paper would publish, as if it were acceptable, the kind of hate speech spewed by Donald Kaul on Tuesday. I challenge you, Donald Kaul or any other knee-jerk extremist to give me any stats on NRA members who've gone on mass murder shooting sprees," added the Twin Cities Gun Owners and Carry Forum. "I am the 99.9% and I call you out for promoting and furthering the witch hunt against law abiding citizens." "So your paper condones death threats and threats of violence? How liberal of you," another person added. [/quote] This guy's an idiot.

Yeah, I agree this guy is a bit crazy. However, he makes a good point: You don't actually need to own guns personally to uphold the 2nd amendment. They could be owned and controlled as a community. EDIT: I don't agree with anything he says, I am just stating that since many people use the 2nd amendment as a technicality to own guns, this is a technical counterpoint to that. Granted that's if you look at Gun Ownership purely from a "State check against the government" point of view. This means nothing for personal safety.

I'm wondering if this guy legitimately wears tinfoil hats. Because he sounds like the kind of guy who would.

This is one of those people who lives in a happy little bubble of safety, where nothing can possibly affect him. He's a dumbass who needs a good swift kick in the rectum and needs to open his eyes.

do this and there will be blood

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;39057453]Yeah, I agree this guy is a bit crazy. However, he makes a good point: You don't actually need to own guns personally to uphold the 2nd amendment. They could be owned and controlled as a community.[/QUOTE] Woah That's quite a fucking idea. Civilian oversight of local arms, held at a public place? Get around the 2nd amendment and reduce this ridiculous gun proliferation at the same time.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39057465]This is one of those people who lives in a happy little bubble of safety, where nothing can possibly affect him. He's a dumbass who needs a good swift kick in the rectum and needs to open his eyes.[/QUOTE] $20 says he's some fat greasy fuck that lives in his mom's basement.

[QUOTE=Madtoker;39057466]do this and there will be blood[/QUOTE] What, kill all the gun owners? Yeah probably.

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;39057453]Yeah, I agree this guy is a bit crazy. However, he makes a good point: You don't actually need to own guns personally to uphold the 2nd amendment. They could be owned and controlled as a community.[/QUOTE] I'm being robbed at gunpoint! Better get to the community center and fill out the forms required to get my gun, and quick! Brb, mister robber.

[QUOTE=faze;39057485]$20 says he's some fat greasy fuck that lives in his mom's basement.[/QUOTE] [img]http://otherwords.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Donald_Kaul.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;39057453]Yeah, I agree this guy is a bit crazy. However, he makes a good point: You don't actually need to own guns personally to uphold the 2nd amendment. They could be owned and controlled as a community. EDIT: I don't agree with anything he says, I am just stating that since many people use the 2nd amendment as a technicality to own guns, this is a technical counterpoint to that.[/QUOTE] As a technicality? Are you fucking retarded as all hell? It's INTENTIONALLY giving people the right to own firearms. How is it allowed to be so stupid?

as much i am for there being less firearms in society, this guy is more than insane.

[QUOTE=scout1;39057483]Woah That's quite a fucking idea. Civilian oversight of local arms, held at a public place? Get around the 2nd amendment and reduce this ridiculous gun proliferation at the same time.[/QUOTE] But what's the point of guns if you don't have them ready at a moment's notice? It's gonna be a less efficient version of the police where they arrive to collect reports and rarely make arrests unless they catch the person in the act.

[QUOTE=Higginz511;39057501]What, kill all the gun owners? Yeah probably.[/QUOTE] No i mean theres a lot of people really passionate about this kind of thing and when you upset a population of people with guns its not gonna be pretty

[QUOTE=Ybbats;39057536]As a technicality? Are you fucking retarded as all hell? It's INTENTIONALLY giving people the right to own firearms. How is it allowed to be so stupid?[/QUOTE] Excuse me, I was going by the original interpretation of strictly the 2nd amendment (using guns as check against a rampant government/military). What I didn't know is that the supreme court apparently clarified the position in 2008 and 2010 to cover personal defense, not just militia stuff. For the former, community owned guns cover that necessity. It's still ass-stupid for personal defense, I'd agree.

[QUOTE=faze;39057485]$20 says he's some fat greasy fuck that lives in his mom's basement.[/QUOTE] was this random and disrespectful comment mandatory yeah he's overly radical but we don't need to call him a greasy nerd

[QUOTE=Ownederd;39057617]was this random and disrespectful comment mandatory[/QUOTE] After his disrespectful comments toward myself and fellow gun owners, yes.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39057465]This is one of those people who lives in a happy little bubble of safety, where nothing can possibly affect him. He's a dumbass who needs a good swift kick in the rectum and needs to open his eyes.[/QUOTE] I donno man, I bet he has a pretty good view of the world from his gated community.

[QUOTE=faze;39057633]After his disrespectful comments toward myself and fellow gun owners, yes.[/QUOTE] eye for an eye "this guy made an insanely dumb comment so i can make one too" no, stop

[QUOTE=Ownederd;39057692]eye for an eye "this guy made an insanely dumb comment so i can make one too" no, stop[/QUOTE] I was comparing his ignorance to the real world to a very comparable stereotype. So sue me.

[quote]"Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control," he added.[/quote] Maybe someone should do that to him, see if he learns anything from it.

Don't know how you'd kill gun owners if you didn't have a gun yourself.

[quote] By publishing his call for violence against those with whom he disagrees, Kaul proves, yet again, that liberalism has become an ideology of genocidal hate and rage.[/quote] Nice article, OP.

[QUOTE=cat man;39057761]Nice article, OP.[/QUOTE] Every ideology is at times, I'd say in this man's case it definitely is.

As an Iowa resident, I ask that you please do not judge the population of the state for this man's comments. The Register is a respectable, mostly politically neutral paper.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;39057854]The whole point of the 2nd amendment is that so the populace has enough weapons (without qualification) to take on the government. Reducing the amount of weapons in society completely defeats the purpose of amendment as it makes it's intended goal harder to complete.[/QUOTE] But everyone knows (even gun owners) that the original goal is meaningless these days. Hence why no one really cares that you can't get anti-aircraft missiles or machine guns.

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;39057583] For the former, community owned guns cover that necessity. It's still ass-stupid for personal defense, I'd agree.[/QUOTE] Not exactly. It says the right of the people not the right of the community. They can repeal the amendment when we don't have a military. I have no idea how so many people can change the meaning of the words. Like how they turn it into hunting all the time. It says a very clear statement. If we have a [B]military[/B] then the [B]people[/B][I](not the military/militia)[/I] have the right to keep and bear arms and [B]it shall not be infringed[/B]. If we no longer have a military then we will talk about changing the constitution.

[QUOTE=faze;39057705]I was comparing his ignorance to the real world to a very comparable stereotype. So sue me.[/QUOTE] Stop that.

I miss when the Sanius Squad would post in these gun threads :( Why did they stop?

[QUOTE]liberalism has become an ideology of genocidal hate and rage[/QUOTE] Just a bit contradictory... [editline]1st January 2013[/editline] Btw, basing your support of firearms solely on the 2nd amendment is quite dumb, especially these days. It's a shame more people can't be empiricists regarding these sort of things, if using lenient gun control produces better results then so be it. Ultimately ideology is just a short cut or guideline to achieving a subjective idea of the greater good, so it's pointless being a slave to it. You can liken it to blindly following a religion