PDA

View Full Version : Shooting at Conn Elementary 27 dead including kids


Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

Haroldthebarrel
01-10-2013, 11:10 AM
Hypothetically speaking.

If there was a guarantee of 100% that there would be no more school shootings if you handed in your gun. Would you do it?

Would you do it for 90%, 80%..... 50% or wouldnt you do it at all?

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 11:19 AM
Or maybe, just maybe...does it mean that this nation was founded on compromise, and the blind adherence to the letter of the Constitution is just as much of a detriment to the country as disregarding it entirely?

Of course its a compromise. And nobody's talking about the 'letter' of the Constitution. Although that's the game the "It only means Militia" people like to play.

But there's little coherence to the Constitutional argument that we should simultaneously be militarizing the police while disarming the public. There's no honest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which allows for that.

Going back to you worrying about what I 'need' in a gun. I own a useless .22 and a Winchester deer rifle (.270) Both have seen better days. But it's not about what I personally need. It's about whether a citizen has the right to present a credible resistance to a (theoretically) corrupt government. That's exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written.

W*GS
01-10-2013, 11:24 AM
It's about whether a citizen has the right to present a credible resistance to a (theoretically) corrupt government. That's exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written.

You're correct. It's a theoretical.

The reality is that we're already paying the cost for this theoretical.

Besides, the RKBA hasn't ever stopped the government from doing the wrong thing, going way back to the Whiskey Rebellion.

houghtam
01-10-2013, 11:53 AM
Of course its a compromise. And nobody's talking about the 'letter' of the Constitution. Although that's the game the "It only means Militia" people like to play.

But there's little coherence to the Constitutional argument that we should simultaneously be militarizing the police while disarming the public. There's no honest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which allows for that.

Going back to you worrying about what I 'need' in a gun. I own a useless .22 and a Winchester deer rifle (.270) Both have seen better days. But it's not about what I personally need. It's about whether a citizen has the right to present a credible resistance to a (theoretically) corrupt government. That's exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written.

There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to protect themselves from our government if they should decide to enslave the populace. Nothing. If you think even an armed populace has a snowball's chance if the government turned on us, you're out of your ever-loving gourd. And it's been that way since Day 1. Furthermore, you keep arguing that the framers wanted guns for the citizens to keep the government from oppressing them, yet again, you neglect to even give treatment to the purposeful inclusion of "well-trained militia" into the Amendment. This is all over and above the fact that the framers themselves, as W*GS pointed out, were the ones to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. "Arm yourselves to protect yourselves from us, because here we come!" doesn't sound like a conclusion that the logical men who wrote the Constitution would have come to.

If there was a guarantee of 100% that there would be no more school shootings if you handed in your gun. Would you do it?

Personally speaking, based on the fact that there is no evidence that owning a gun or possessing one either on your person or in your home actually has any effect on crime, and based on the fact that the majority of gun accidents occur in homes that have guns, I would be in favor of the following legislation:

- Permanent ban on assault weapons
- Permanent ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds
- Permanent ban on rifles over a certain muzzle velocity capable of semi-automatic fire
- Permanent ban of on-site storage of firearms where there is a resident under the age of 18

You can own certain types of firearms, no limit to number of firearms or number of ammunition, just types. You can own them, and if you have children in the home, you can store them off-site at a place like a gun club or Gander Mountain. You can still teach your kids gun safety and take them hunting, and the gun clubs and stores can charge a small nominal fee for secure storage.

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 11:59 AM
You're correct. It's a theoretical.

The reality is that we're already paying the cost for this theoretical.

Besides, the RKBA hasn't ever stopped the government from doing the wrong thing, going way back to the Whiskey Rebellion.

There's a massive Seen vs Unseen fallacy here. It's pretty difficult (impossible) to prove why something that didn't happen didn't happen.

But let's just say that there's a reason that gun bans (including 1994's, and even earlier prohibitions on fully-automatic weapons) only address manufacture and sales instead of confiscation. Your government wants no part of going house to house. Which is good for both sides. Because that apprehension is a last level of protection.

This really comes down to a certain segment of people having far more faith in their government than the Constitution and its authors ever thought prudent. In a lot of ways it's success has bred the complacency that might someday work to undo it.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

-Patrick Henry, having about as much faith in Congress as was warranted. :)

Arkie
01-10-2013, 12:19 PM
They think maybe if the guy goes to reload his clip he gets taken down. Where if he had a 30 round clip he would have kept shooting.

They think that more background checks will lead to less guns being sold to felons and other criminals/crazy people.

I guess outside of that even they admit that really gun deaths probably won't go down much. At least not this round of regulations. The long term plan is to keep chipping away until guns illegal to own period.

Imagine the illegal market with all these guns in the country.

http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/total-gun-ownership.jpg?w=561&h=280

W*GS
01-10-2013, 01:07 PM
This really comes down to a certain segment of people having far more faith in their government than the Constitution and its authors ever thought prudent.

It's more about a certain segment of people having far more paranoia regarding their government than even the Founders thought reasonable.

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 01:22 PM
It's more about a certain segment of people having far more paranoia regarding their government than even the Founders thought reasonable.

Yeah, totally.

"but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29.

Wagz' translation "Trust your government! They know best! (as long as my guy runs it)"

Death throes of the Roman Republic translation...

"Few men desire freedom, the greater part desire just masters."

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 01:29 PM
There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to protect themselves from our government if they should decide to enslave the populace. Nothing.

Exactly. That's what makes invading and governing 3rd world countries like Iraq and Afghanistan so simple and safe. AMIRITE?

How well armed were the Vietnamese?

W*GS
01-10-2013, 01:36 PM
Amazing how Mubarak was overthrown without a massive armed revolution, eh?

If you *really* want to be able to take on the gubmit, you should strongly oppose any restrictions on weaponry - take the 2nd Amendment as absolute.

Forget semi-autos. Full-auto.

RPGs. SAMs. Artillery. Tanks. WMDs.

Go fer it.

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 01:51 PM
Amazing how Mubarak was overthrown without a massive armed revolution, eh?

If you *really* want to be able to take on the gubmit, you should strongly oppose any restrictions on weaponry - take the 2nd Amendment as absolute.

Forget semi-autos. Full-auto.

RPGs. SAMs. Artillery. Tanks. WMDs.

Go fer it.

First you argued from absence of evidence. Then you moved on to say the Founders' didn't really mean what was said. Now you've moved on to ridicule what they said. Is this the last refuge, or will there be another one to follow?

Oh, and Mubarak was overthrown because the military allowed him to be.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-7341749.html

Or did you really believe that the dictatorship simply dissolved in the face of protest signs and thrown rocks?

houghtam
01-10-2013, 01:53 PM
Yeah, totally.



Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29.

Wagz' translation "Trust your government! They know best! (as long as my guy runs it)"

Death throes of the Roman Republic translation...

"Few men desire freedom, the greater part desire just masters."

Do you even know what it means to be "trained in the discipline and use of arms" in the context of 18th century America? You're a fool if you don't think it means something completely different than today.

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 02:04 PM
Do you even know what it means to be "trained in the discipline and use of arms" in the context of 18th century America? You're a fool if you don't think it means something completely different than today.

Red Herring. What does that have to do with Alex pointing to an armed populace being the best antidote to the threat of a standing army?

You keep arguing that we the people pose zero threat to the standing army Hamilton and others said we were supposed to balance.. Essentially you're arguing that the we the people should become even more heavily armed and even better prepared. As I said earlier, the founders believed being ably armed was a civic duty, not just a privilege. Being lax in your duty doesn't nullify the obligation.

W*GS
01-10-2013, 02:15 PM
Go ahead and see how far your fantasies of fighting off the gubmit go with the populace outside of the RKBA purist nujobs.

In the meantime, tell us how we can lessen the ~100,000 deaths and injuries from firearms we have every year.

PS - More guns in more hands in more places ain't the answer.

ant1999e
01-10-2013, 02:30 PM
I would be in favor of the following legislation:

- Permanent ban on assault weapons
- Permanent ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds
- Permanent ban on rifles over a certain muzzle velocity capable of semi-automatic fire
- Permanent ban of on-site storage of firearms where there is a resident under the age of 18

You can own certain types of firearms, no limit to number of firearms or number of ammunition, just types. You can own them, and if you have children in the home, you can store them off-site at a place like a gun club or Gander Mountain. You can still teach your kids gun safety and take them hunting, and the gun clubs and stores can charge a small nominal fee for secure storage.

Has anyone ever told you to GO **** YOURSELF?

houghtam
01-10-2013, 02:31 PM
Go ahead and see how far your fantasies of fighting off the gubmit go with the populace outside of the RKBA purist nujobs.

In the meantime, tell us how we can lessen the ~100,000 deaths and injuries from firearms we have every year.

PS - More guns in more hands in more places ain't the answer.

Cutthemdown gave you your answer. Beavis simply doesn't have an answer. Cut thinks that those deaths and injuries are a small price to pay for the fun and false sense of security gun ownership provides. Beavis thinks they're a small price to pay for the right to be paranoid about a massive government takeover.

Neither stance is based in any sense of rational, reasonable thought, nor are they based on amy sort of statistical evidence, and neither person is really interested in the reduction of violence. They simply want to keep their guns, and need to hide behind those stances because they can't really provide any compelling reason there needs to be those types of weapons available to the general public.

And Beavis, Hamilton wasn't pointing to the necessity of an armed populace in the sense you're thinking of. "Trained in the discipline and use of arms" is the exact phrasing that many of the military drill manuals of the day used.

Militias. Context.

houghtam
01-10-2013, 02:33 PM
Has anyone ever told you to GO **** YOURSELF?

Plenty of tough guys have on message boards. No one to my face, though.

ant1999e
01-10-2013, 02:38 PM
Plenty of tough guys have on message boards. No one to my face, though.

Michigan must be full of pussies then.

houghtam
01-10-2013, 02:56 PM
Michigan must be full of pussies then.

Sooooo...nothing to add to the argument?

Do you feel better, Nancy? Get it out of your system, did you? :approve:

ant1999e
01-10-2013, 03:18 PM
Sooooo...nothing to add to the argument?

Do you feel better, Nancy? Get it out of your system, did you? :approve:

Feel much better. With the bull**** you proposed, i'd happily tell you to go **** yourself to your face. I'm not trying to be a tough guy. The things you propose only punish honest citizens. So what would you expect? If I were to say workers unions should be banned, i would expect you to tell me to go **** myself.

houghtam
01-10-2013, 03:42 PM
Feel much better. With the bull**** you proposed, i'd happily tell you to go **** yourself to your face. I'm not trying to be a tough guy. The things you propose only punish honest citizens. So what would you expect? If I were to say workers unions should be banned, i would expect you to tell me to go **** myself.

What do unions have to do with your perceived need for a high-powered rifle or a 30 round mag? Has there been a recent rash of union members opening fire on school children?

Please. Form a logical argument based on facts and statistics, and then you can discuss things at the grown up table.

ant1999e
01-10-2013, 03:49 PM
What do unions have to do with your perceived need for a high-powered rifle or a 30 round mag? Has there been a recent rash of union members opening fire on school children?

Please. Form a logical argument based on facts and statistics, and then you can discuss things at the grown up table.

I was making a comparison of things each of us find important. You're kinda slow. And i don't "need" a high powered rifle but it is my right to have one.

houghtam
01-10-2013, 03:54 PM
I was making a comparison of things each of us find important. You're kinda slow. And i don't "need" a high powered rifle but it is my right to have one.

Answer this question honestly:

Why shouldn't it be legal for you to own a .50 caliber Browning M2?

Arkie
01-10-2013, 04:08 PM
There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to protect themselves from our government if they should decide to enslave the populace. Nothing.

Are you saying that 300 million people with 300 million guns can't protect themselves if the 535 people making the rules decide to enslave us?

houghtam
01-10-2013, 04:16 PM
Are you saying that 300 million people with 300 million guns can't protect themselves if the 535 people making the rules decide to enslave us?

Try approximately 45% of adults (~100,000,000) with 300,000,000 guns.

It will never happen, not because the government is afraid of all you big bad gun owners...here's a clue: they're not.

It's because there is literally no reason to think that the government is coming after your guns. Just certain, reasonable types of arms and ammo. What would be the benefit? Seriously. Please explain to me what benefit the government could hope to gain from getting rid of all guns? They already own you.

ant1999e
01-10-2013, 04:24 PM
Answer this question honestly:

Why shouldn't it be legal for you to own a .50 caliber Browning M2?

It should be. But since it's fully automatic, it isn't. But banning full auto weapons was going to be the answer. But like government always does, they want to take more.

Requiem
01-10-2013, 04:31 PM
Wah, I want my guns, wah.

houghtam
01-10-2013, 04:39 PM
It should be. But since it's fully automatic, it isn't. But banning full auto weapons was going to be the answer. But like government always does, they want to take more.

Okay, so fully automatic weapons should be legal?

Hilarious!

Can I own an RPG or a mortar an M119 Howitzer in this hillbilly utopia of yours?

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 04:43 PM
In the meantime, tell us how we can lessen the ~100,000 deaths and injuries from firearms we have every year.

I like how you started lumping in 'injuries' to get to 100,000 when 'injuries' are probably 75% of that number.

You're a football guy, right? How many football related injuries do you think there are in a year? I'll give you a hint. Based on injuries alone, your gummint easily has 10x as many reasons to ban football. Well over 1 million injuries per year. In one sport.

Nope, instead something hits a headline, and we start regulating 310 million people because of rare mass killings that happen to .000026% of them. Is it your goal to get that down to .000020%? We're down near lightning-strike territory here.

At what level are you just willing to accept that bad things happen, and you can't stop them all?

houghtam
01-10-2013, 04:49 PM
I like how you started lumping in 'injuries' to get to 100,000 when 'injuries' are probably 75% of that number.

You're a football guy, right? How many football related injuries do you think there are in a year? I'll give you a hint. Based on injuries alone, your gummint easily has 10x as many reasons to ban football. Well over 1 million injuries per year. In one sport.

Nope, instead something hits a headline, and we start regulating 310 million people because of rare mass killings that happen to .000026% of them. Is it your goal to get that down to .000020%? We're down near lightning-strike territory here.

At what level are you just willing to accept that bad things happen, and you can't stop them all?

I'm sure the families of the victims at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, etc. would sure like to have that extra .000006% back. This wasn't an accident. To compare it to people voluntarily putting themselves in harm's way (as you and many of the people on this board like to remind us when an NFL player wants to sue a league they claim is giving them disinformation) is sickening.

You're basically saying that children assume the risk of being shot when they go to school, and there's nothing we can do about it, so...go get you some learnin', Billy!

Arkie
01-10-2013, 04:57 PM
Try approximately 45% of adults (~100,000,000) with 300,000,000 guns.

It will never happen, not because the government is afraid of all you big bad gun owners...here's a clue: they're not.

It's because there is literally no reason to think that the government is coming after your guns. Just certain, reasonable types of arms and ammo. What would be the benefit? Seriously. Please explain to me what benefit the government could hope to gain from getting rid of all guns? They already own you.

Who are "they" anyway? We the people excluded them from our constitutional republic. They used to kings, noblemen, etc. We used to be the peasants. The government is nothing more than a vehicle to serve those who control it. Wall Street Lobbyists control it today. That's who "they" are. It wasn't always like this. The republic is supposed to serve you, not own you. Wall Street owns you.

ant1999e
01-10-2013, 05:03 PM
Okay, so fully automatic weapons should be legal?

Hilarious!

Can I own an RPG or a mortar an M119 Howitzer in this hillbilly utopia of yours?

So where do you draw the line? First it was full auto. Now it's semi auto. A kid brought a shot gun to school today. Are shot guns next?

houghtam
01-10-2013, 05:13 PM
So where do you draw the line? First it was full auto. Now it's semi auto. A kid brought a shot gun to school today. Are shot guns next?

I already posted where I draw the line.

There is no reasonable explanation for a citizen to own certain types of weapons, let alone a heavy machine gun. "Because the government might come and get us" isn't a reasonable explanation, and, statistically speaking, neither is "to keep my family safe at home".

cutthemdown
01-10-2013, 10:53 PM
People already can't own machine guns Houghtam. That implies full automatic weapon. I agree no need for us to have full auto which is just a waste of ammo anyways.

cutthemdown
01-10-2013, 10:54 PM
now California wants to go even further then they already have. Never mind what they have done so far didn't do much. I'm glad i have what guns i need already because pretty soon you won't be able buy them anymore.

Bacchus
01-11-2013, 06:49 AM
now California wants to go even further then they already have. Never mind what they have done so far didn't do much. I'm glad i have what guns i need already because pretty soon you won't be able buy them anymore.

That's bull****, the only thing the gun laws will do are better background checks, and an assault weapons ban and maybe and extended clip ban. Nothing radical just common sense.

W*GS
01-11-2013, 06:49 AM
We're down near lightning-strike territory here.

Very poor analogy. Very very poor.

At what level are you just willing to accept that bad things happen, and you can't stop them all?

These "bad things" don't happen anywhere near as frequently elsewhere as they do here - so what exactly does the RKBA as interpreted gain us? Freedom? Oh yeah - the freedom to get shot at school, at the mall, at the movies, at work, on the road, etc., etc.

Elway 4 Life
01-11-2013, 07:07 AM
That's bull****, the only thing the gun laws will do are better background checks, and an assault weapons ban and maybe and extended clip ban. Nothing radical just common sense.

Agreed. I would like them to incorporate some sort of gun safety course before you can take your purchased firearm home as well.

Obama/Biden need to make the decision soon because a lot of these guns companies as well as ammo manufacturer's are gouging all these morons that are running to go get them some weapons before they caint no more.

Gun sales are at records highs nationwide right now. People are fearful that if they don't get something now then its gonna be to late. I agree with you Bacc, they will ban AR's and huge capacity clips and a better more thorough process.

BroncoInferno
01-11-2013, 07:38 AM
So where do you draw the line?

You tell us. Where do you draw the line? If you could get your hands on one, should you be able to own a WMD? A tank? An Apache helicopter? All would follow under the broad umbrella of "arms." If not, why not?

cutthemdown
01-14-2013, 12:59 PM
You tell us. Where do you draw the line? If you could get your hands on one, should you be able to own a WMD? A tank? An Apache helicopter? All would follow under the broad umbrella of "arms." If not, why not?

The law drawn so far away from those weapons already bringing them up is so foolish and not even close to a real argument.

Hey i would like to buy a semi auto rifle that shoots a .223 bullet......but could you make it look cool with a collapsable stock and a pistol grip? ARRRRRRRRRG WHAT DO YOU WANT A ****ING TANK OR A NUCLEAR BOMB!

how can you not see that doesn't match up inferno?

cutthemdown
01-14-2013, 01:00 PM
Thats the difference between an AR and just a regular ranch .223 style rifle. A friggin pistol grip, collapsable stock...... big friggin deal it shoots the same bullet in a semi auto fashion. There is no practical difference.

BroncoInferno
01-14-2013, 01:56 PM
The law drawn so far away from those weapons already bringing them up is so foolish and not even close to a real argument.

Hey i would like to buy a semi auto rifle that shoots a .223 bullet......but could you make it look cool with a collapsable stock and a pistol grip? ARRRRRRRRRG WHAT DO YOU WANT A ****ING TANK OR A NUCLEAR BOMB!

how can you not see that doesn't match up inferno?

You're missing the point. I assume most people are sane and don't want a nuclear weapon. The problem is, if you agree that there are "arms" that a citizen should not possess, then you are implicitly agreeing that there is a debate to be had about where to draw the line. But the NRA gun nuts only want to complain about attempts at gun control...they will by and large side-step the issue of where to draw that line. What should the applied standard be when determining whether or not a citizen should be able to possess a particular weapon? Ant was blistering houghtam for his suggestions, but I'm curious to know where he would personally draw the line, and on what basis.

houghtam
01-14-2013, 02:35 PM
You're missing the point. I assume most people are sane and don't want a nuclear weapon. The problem is, if you agree that there are "arms" that a citizen should not pocess, then you are implicitly agreeing that there is a debate to be had about where to draw the line. But the NRA gun nuts only want to complain about attempts at gun control...they will by and large side-step the issue of where to draw that line. What should the applied standard be when determining whether or not a citizen should be able to possess a particular weapon? Ant was blistering houghtam for his suggestions, but I'm curious to know where he would personally draw the line, and on what basis.

Thank you, Mr. Secratary of Explaining Things.

^5

cutthemdown
01-14-2013, 02:45 PM
You're missing the point. I assume most people are sane and don't want a nuclear weapon. The problem is, if you agree that there are "arms" that a citizen should not pocess, then you are implicitly agreeing that there is a debate to be had about where to draw the line. But the NRA gun nuts only want to complain about attempts at gun control...they will by and large side-step the issue of where to draw that line. What should the applied standard be when determining whether or not a citizen should be able to possess a particular weapon? Ant was blistering houghtam for his suggestions, but I'm curious to know where he would personally draw the line, and on what basis.

I disagree because we have tons of gun laws already. Not like it hasn't been debated over and over. You could say same thing about dems refusing to cut the budget to raise debt limit. Earlier they were bargaining so does that imply they already agreed cuts were needed?

cutthemdown
01-14-2013, 02:50 PM
I draw the line on any weapons that explode, are fully automatic, or has a clip more then 30 rounds. I support a background check to see if you are a felon. The only real issue IMO is the mental illness. I see the point for checking to see if people are crazy. But i worry a list like that is something people will do anything to stay off of including just never seeking help for fear of ending up on some list that says you are unfit. I worry people won't seek mental professionals out for help.

BroncoInferno
01-14-2013, 02:54 PM
I disagree because we have tons of gun laws already. Not like it hasn't been debated over and over. You could say same thing about dems refusing to cut the budget to raise debt limit. Earlier they were bargaining so does that imply they already agreed cuts were needed?

That doesn't answer my question: where are the gun nuts willing to draw line regarding the ownership of "arms?" And what is their rationale for drawing that line? Or are they not willing to draw any line at all (i.e. anything can be owned under the umbrella of "arms")? I hear plenty of complaints about "infringing on their rights," but basically nothing regarding what "arms" control (if any) they are willing to accept. Tell us what's acceptable in your view and explain the rationale, and we can work from there.

DenverBrit
01-14-2013, 04:16 PM
Alex Jones: Angry little man with guns, motor mouth, anti-First Amendment and a Troofer.

What a ****ing loon he is.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gWQPZ-taYBs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Pee Wee Herman, debates Alex jones.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/REtG3ZJFNcM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ant1999e
01-14-2013, 08:00 PM
You're missing the point. I assume most people are sane and don't want a nuclear weapon. The problem is, if you agree that there are "arms" that a citizen should not possess, then you are implicitly agreeing that there is a debate to be had about where to draw the line. But the NRA gun nuts only want to complain about attempts at gun control...they will by and large side-step the issue of where to draw that line. What should the applied standard be when determining whether or not a citizen should be able to possess a particular weapon? Ant was blistering houghtam for his suggestions, but I'm curious to know where he would personally draw the line, and on what basis.
We have enough gun laws. I have no problem closing the gun show loophole but that's it. Full auto are banned. An assault rifle is just a rifle that LOOKS scary but it is just a rifle. Shoots one round at a time. Pistols are semi automatic. Shotguns as well. Hunting rifles. Do we ban them next?
Laws and bans don't prevent bad people from doing bad things.
Just be honest, the real agenda is to rid the law abiding civilians in the US of any firearms.

ant1999e
01-14-2013, 08:03 PM
That doesn't answer my question: where are the gun nuts willing to draw line regarding the ownership of "arms?" And what is their rationale for drawing that line? Or are they not willing to draw any line at all (i.e. anything can be owned under the umbrella of "arms")? I hear plenty of complaints about "infringing on their rights," but basically nothing regarding what "arms" control (if any) they are willing to accept. Tell us what's acceptable in your view and explain the rationale, and we can work from there.

Already there, fully automatic. Where are you anti gun pussies willing to stop?

cutthemdown
01-15-2013, 03:56 AM
That doesn't answer my question: where are the gun nuts willing to draw line regarding the ownership of "arms?" And what is their rationale for drawing that line? Or are they not willing to draw any line at all (i.e. anything can be owned under the umbrella of "arms")? I hear plenty of complaints about "infringing on their rights," but basically nothing regarding what "arms" control (if any) they are willing to accept. Tell us what's acceptable in your view and explain the rationale, and we can work from there.

They aren't nuts. There is nothing crazy about liking to own firearms. The line that is drawn is fine right now. We already have sensible gun laws. Its not the laws fault people sometimes murder or commit suicide with a gun.

What is acceptable is nothing that blows up on impact, nothing that is fully automatic.

DivineLegion
01-17-2013, 12:12 AM
We have enough gun laws. I have no problem closing the gun show loophole but that's it. Full auto are banned. An assault rifle is just a rifle that LOOKS scary but it is just a rifle. Shoots one round at a time. Pistols are semi automatic. Shotguns as well. Hunting rifles. Do we ban them next?
Laws and bans don't prevent bad people from doing bad things.
Just be honest, the real agenda is to rid the law abiding civilians in the US of any firearms.

This is an uninformed argument I hear WAY to much. Military personnel fire their weapons in single shots, its not the number of bullets per trigger pull that is the problem, it's the number of shots a shooter can discharge in a minute. That is where these weapons become extremely lethal. The "scary" accessories you are referencing are not purely aesthetic either. The pistol grip handle reduces recoile allowing a shooter better control over the course of continuous discharge, sights greater accuracy over distance, adjustable stocks for variable environmental manipulation (ie. you can shorten the weapon for tighter confines), and the muzzle of an AR 15 is designed to regulate the heat of the weapon by controlling discharge for continuos firing. Don't even get me started on magazines, that's just obvious. Semiautomatic weapons are a problem no matter their design. When the second amendment was incorporated into the constitution, the term arms was used in reference to muskets. It would take a skilled soldier up to a minute to reload a musket. The writers of the second amendment had no way of conceiving what an "arm" would become, seeing as the idea of individualized semiautomatic weapons came into play 100 years after its ratification. In order to orchestrate a mass murder on the scale of those seen in the United States over the previous decade in the late 1700s, one would have to enlist the services of a small army.

Fedaykin
01-17-2013, 03:31 AM
This is an uninformed argument I hear WAY to much. Military personnel fire their weapons in single shots, its not the number of bullets per trigger pull that is the problem, it's the number of shots a shooter can discharge in a minute. That is where these weapons become extremely lethal. The "scary" accessories you are referencing are not purely aesthetic either. The pistol grip handle reduces recoile allowing a shooter better control over the course of continuous discharge, sights greater accuracy over distance, adjustable stocks for variable environmental manipulation (ie. you can shorten the weapon for tighter confines), and the muzzle of an AR 15 is designed to regulate the heat of the weapon by controlling discharge for continuos firing. Don't even get me started on magazines, that's just obvious. Semiautomatic weapons are a problem no matter their design. When the second amendment was incorporated into the constitution, the term arms was used in reference to muskets. It would take a skilled soldier up to a minute to reload a musket. The writers of the second amendment had no way of conceiving what an "arm" would become, seeing as the idea of individualized semiautomatic weapons came into play 100 years after its ratification. In order to orchestrate a mass murder on the scale of those seen in the United States over the previous decade in the late 1700s, one would have to enlist the services of a small army.

What bull****. We on the mane all know that all semi-automatic weapons are of equal power. The military just uses assault rifles because they make them more intimidating.

ant1999e
01-17-2013, 07:50 AM
This is an uninformed argument I hear WAY to much. Military personnel fire their weapons in single shots, its not the number of bullets per trigger pull that is the problem, it's the number of shots a shooter can discharge in a minute. That is where these weapons become extremely lethal. The "scary" accessories you are referencing are not purely aesthetic either. The pistol grip handle reduces recoile allowing a shooter better control over the course of continuous discharge, sights greater accuracy over distance, adjustable stocks for variable environmental manipulation (ie. you can shorten the weapon for tighter confines), and the muzzle of an AR 15 is designed to regulate the heat of the weapon by controlling discharge for continuos firing. Don't even get me started on magazines, that's just obvious. Semiautomatic weapons are a problem no matter their design. When the second amendment was incorporated into the constitution, the term arms was used in reference to muskets. It would take a skilled soldier up to a minute to reload a musket. The writers of the second amendment had no way of conceiving what an "arm" would become, seeing as the idea of individualized semiautomatic weapons came into play 100 years after its ratification. In order to orchestrate a mass murder on the scale of those seen in the United States over the previous decade in the late 1700s, one would have to enlist the services of a small army.

Pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns are all semi automatic. So is it the scary pistol grip and collapsible stock you're worried about?
Tell me who is the 2nd amendment protecting us from?

ant1999e
01-17-2013, 07:53 AM
What bull****. We on the mane all know that all semi-automatic weapons are of equal power. The military just uses assault rifles because they make them more intimidating.

The military uses semi automatic weapons because they are better equipped for self defense.

DivineLegion
01-17-2013, 08:42 AM
Pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns are all semi automatic. So is it the scary pistol grip and collapsible stock you're worried about?
Tell me who is the 2nd amendment protecting us from?

All semiautomatic weapons pose a greater threat, however shotguns and pistols are limited because of recoil. Some pistols should only be in the hands of law enforcement, just ask a police officer next time you get a chance. Nothing about weapons is scary to me personally, because I understand them. I don't condone the right of Joe Shmoe with no idea what he's doing playing with them, or worse someone who does and wants to massacre innocent children. You are inclined to believe what you want, but if its the Government you are afraid of you should just leave. If the US decided to come down on its citizens, anyone willing to resist would be annihilated, so you can pretend your suped up .22 is going to save your life, but its not.

BroncoBeavis
01-17-2013, 09:06 AM
All semiautomatic weapons pose a greater threat, however shotguns and pistols are limited because of recoil. Some pistols should only be in the hands of law enforcement, just ask a police officer next time you get a chance.


This right here shows someone who has zero understanding of the second amendment's intentions.


You are inclined to believe what you want, but if its the Government you are afraid of you should just leave. If the US decided to come down on its citizens, anyone willing to resist would be annihilated, so you can pretend your suped up .22 is going to save your life, but its not.

Yeah, that's why Afghanistan is going so swimmingly, AMIRITE? Our government imposes its will with ease. LOL

BTW, I'm sure it would help your average Cop quite a bit from time to time if he could set aside the 4th amendment as well. Imagine how good they could 'protect' us if they could just conduct random searches and seizures through violent neighborhoods. I mean after all, our government would never abuse their power or anything. They're just here to protect us, so that Amendment should probably get the axe too, while we're at it. LOL

Obushma
01-17-2013, 09:18 AM
You are inclined to believe what you want, but if its the Government you are afraid of you should just leave. If the US decided to come down on its citizens, anyone willing to resist would be annihilated, so you can pretend your suped up .22 is going to save your life, but its not.

Tell that to the Vietnamese who were running supply lines on schwins. Hilarious!

BroncoBeavis
01-17-2013, 09:38 AM
Tell that to the Vietnamese who were running supply lines on schwins. Hilarious!

It's crazy how some people so woefully overestimate the capability of the federal government.

"You can't resist or they'll NUKE ya!"

LOL

DivineLegion
01-17-2013, 09:59 AM
Yes, gorilla warfare in lands storied with military conflict compared to the lazy apethtic culture of the United States. Great historical analysis there guys, with the way our culture operates, I would invision a modern civil war to facililitate more like a German occupied France.

Afghanistan hasn't had a successful occupation since the Persian Empire, Alexander couldn't control the tribes, the Mongols couldn't control the tribes, the Ottomans couldn't control the tribes, tge Soviets couldn't control the tribes, and neither can the United States. Vietnam is the exact same. Both countries occupy untamable terrain, highly capable populaces, and a knack for brutal warfare.

BroncoBeavis
01-17-2013, 10:31 AM
Afghanistan hasn't had a successful occupation since the Persian Empire, Alexander couldn't control the tribes, the Mongols couldn't control the tribes, the Ottomans couldn't control the tribes, tge Soviets couldn't control the tribes, and neither can the United States. Vietnam is the exact same. Both countries occupy untamable terrain, highly capable populaces, and a knack for brutal warfare.

Good historical perspective. Now how about that American Revolution against the most powerful nation on the planet? Possibly the most powerful empire the world had ever seen. How did that go?

The 2nd was written in the hopes that that spirit of resistance would never be undermined. The fact that you'd like it effectively repealed because we're too apathetic to use it is one of the more ironic things I've ever read.

And "highly capable populaces" LOL

We're held at bay by a militant minority with third grade educations who believe they're defending their homeland. We won't win there (like in Vietnam) because it means more to them than it does to us. Which is no different than what would happen if your government started rolling over neighborhoods with tanks.

Sure you can kill a lot of people that way. But you can't govern them.

ant1999e
01-17-2013, 10:33 AM
I don't condone the right of Joe Shmoe

Well shyt, I guess that's the end of the argument. DivineLegion doesn't condone it, we must give it up. Hilarious! Who the hell do you think you are Obama?

BroncoBeavis
01-17-2013, 10:40 AM
Well shyt, I guess that's the end of the argument. DivineLegion doesn't condone it, we must give it up. Hilarious! Who the hell do you think you are Obama?

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.

-Thomas Jefferson

peacepipe
01-17-2013, 11:25 AM
This whole thing is over what amts to a molehill, none of the executive orders/actions will be found unconstitutional,nor will assault weapons ban,mag capacity limits,universal background checks be found unconstitutional either. It's just a matter of what can get through Congress.

ant1999e
01-17-2013, 11:32 AM
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/

When the president surrounds himself with children while giving his announcement that reasonable gun control measures are necessary, bear in mind that those ‘assault rifles‘ the government is sure to be going after were not even used in the Newton, Connecticut elementary shooting. As NBC admits in the video above, four handguns were used to carry out that despicable atrocity. This directly contradicts other reports.

Pete Williams, who is NBC’s chief Justice correspondent, reported the following in the video posted above:

This continues to be a very complex investigation and there is a lot of contradictory information out there, but we have some new information this morning (one month ago) from a couple of federal officials and state officials.

They say now that there were actually four handguns inside the school, not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.

We knew that Adam Lanza, the man said to be the gunman here, also had an ‘assault-style’ AR-15 -style rifle that he had had taken to the school, it was in the car he drove there, his mother’s car, but we have been told by several officials that he had left that in the car.

The correspondent makes it clear over and over again that he confirmed this information with federal and state officials. Now, a lot of media reports contradict this one, but somebody’s lying. The report that an ‘AR-15-style’ assault rifle was in the trunk of murderer Adam Lanza’s car is up for dispute as well. If one examines footage from police breaking into Lanza’s car, one sees police clearing a round from a “long gun of some type” that does not appear to be ‘AR-15 style’ or ‘assault-style.’

Whether or not the mainstream media are intentionally spreading disinformation about the Sandy Hook elementary tragedy, there is one thing for certain: not only are violent crime rates at a modern low and going down, but only 323 homicides were committed by rifles in 2011. That includes hunting rifles, assault rifles, military style rifles, semi-automatic rifles and whatever label one comes up with, regardless of magazine or clip capacity.

In a nation of 311 million people, the odds of being killed by a rifle is about one homicide per million people, which is far less than the odds of being murdered by a blunt object. But we don’t hear the media arguing about regulating hammers and clubs. Again, when 99.7% of registered gun owners are law-abiding, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control.

Meck77
01-17-2013, 11:36 AM
When the second amendment was incorporated into the constitution, the term arms was used in reference to muskets. It would take a skilled soldier up to a minute to reload a musket. The writers of the second amendment had no way of conceiving what an "arm" would become, seeing as the idea of individualized semiautomatic weapons came into play 100 years after its ratification. In order to orchestrate a mass murder on the scale of those seen in the United States over the previous decade in the late 1700s, one would have to enlist the services of a small army.

It's all relative. Back then the military had muskets and so did the average joe rancher. The military has assault weapons so does joe rancher. If we want to scale back capabilities of weapons then why not ask the government to adhere to same laws they intent to put on the public?

Also as far as your reference to police. They are some of the worst criminals on the streets. Had a cop as tenant once. His wife turned out to be a hooker and they were stealing goods from the GOOD WILL. The ****ing goodwill! When I evicted the COP they left a pile of stolen goods. I tried to report it his cop boss who turned a blind eye.

DivineLegion
01-17-2013, 11:39 AM
Good historical perspective. Now how about that American Revolution against the most powerful nation on the planet? Possibly the most powerful empire the world had ever seen. How did that go?

The 2nd was written in the hopes that that spirit of resistance would never be undermined. The fact that you'd like it effectively repealed because we're too apathetic to use it is one of the more ironic things I've ever read.

And "highly capable populaces" LOL

We're held at bay by a militant minority with third grade educations who believe they're defending their homeland. We won't win there (like in Vietnam) because it means more to them than it does to us. Which is no different than what would happen if your government started rolling over neighborhoods with tanks.

Sure you can kill a lot of people that way. But you can't govern them.

Capable is relative to their ability to wage warfare (gorilla warefare to be specific), not their ability to read and write. Ironically the Americans turned the tides of the revolution when they altered their strategic outline to fit a more Gorilla approach, something I don't see modern Americans being capable of.

It's not that I don't want Americans to uphold their right, I never said that, what I was arguing is the responsibility of Americans rights. There is no practical argument for assult weapons or high capacity magazines. Hand guns, rifles, and shotguns are great, Military style assult weapons? Come on. Do you understand the ballistic conciquences of a .323 ordinance? There is 0 practicality for such a tool in any capacity in the United States. Those rounds are designed for anti-personnel purposes only.

ant1999e
01-17-2013, 11:47 AM
This whole thing is over what amts to a molehill, none of the executive orders/actions will be found unconstitutional,nor will assault weapons ban,mag capacity limits,universal background checks be found unconstitutional either. It's just a matter of what can get through Congress.

Yeah, limiting the rights given to us by the US Constitution is just a mole hill.

BroncoBeavis
01-17-2013, 11:59 AM
Capable is relative to their ability to wage warfare (gorilla warefare to be specific), not their ability to read and write.

Funny that you don't think either arms or education are at all helpful to an insurgency. What exactly do these Afghani fighters have going for them? Do their balls hang super low?

There is no practical argument for assult weapons or high capacity magazines. Hand guns, rifles, and shotguns are great, Military style assult weapons? Come on. Do you understand the ballistic conciquences of a .323 ordinance? There is 0 practicality for such a tool in any capacity in the United States.

I assume you're talking .223, but tell me, if there's no practicality, then why this?

http://www.14news.com/story/20608248/assault-rifle-shortage-affecting-law-enforcement

BroncoBeavis
01-17-2013, 12:01 PM
It's all relative. Back then the military had muskets and so did the average joe rancher. The military has assault weapons so does joe rancher. If we want to scale back capabilities of weapons then why not ask the government to adhere to same laws they intent to put on the public?

Any time you hear "But only Cops need that!" you know you have someone who doesn't believe in 2nd Amendment rights. It's that simple.

peacepipe
01-17-2013, 12:09 PM
Yeah, limiting the rights given to us by the US Constitution is just a mole hill.

Our 1st amendment rights are regulated,FCC controls what can or cannot be said on TV,you can't yell fire in a movie theatre,so on & so on. With rights do come responsibilities. Supreme Court,more specificly your boy scalia ,ruled that the 2nd is not unlimited & can be regulated.

peacepipe
01-17-2013, 12:28 PM
In the DC vs Heller case.

3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)

BroncoBeavis
01-17-2013, 01:21 PM
Our 1st amendment rights are regulated,FCC controls what can or cannot be said on TV

Misconception. FCC controls what can or cannot be said over publicly licensed airspace. If you fully own the means of communication, it has no jurisdiction over your freedom to say what you want.

you can't yell fire in a movie theatre,so on & so on.

You can't? Well then how can you shoot people in a movie theater? I was under the mistaken impression there were laws against both.

peacepipe
01-17-2013, 01:28 PM
Misconception. FCC controls what can or cannot be said over publicly licensed airspace. If you fully own the means of communication, it has no jurisdiction over your freedom to say what you want.



You can't? Well then how can you shoot people in a movie theater? I was under the mistaken impression there were laws against both.

Over airwaves,or in person its free speech that's being regulated.

BroncoBeavis
01-17-2013, 01:50 PM
Over airwaves,or in person its free speech that's being regulated.

No it isn't. You don't have a Constitutional right to RF spectrum. It wouldn't be possible to allow truly 'free' speech there.

A better analogy would be the internet. Does the FCC control what you say here?

ant1999e
01-17-2013, 03:24 PM
No it isn't. You don't have a Constitutional right to RF spectrum. It wouldn't be possible to allow truly 'free' speech there.

A better analogy would be the internet. Does the FCC control what you say here?

Not yet but if peacepipe and his buddies have anything to do with it...

Fedaykin
01-17-2013, 03:57 PM
No it isn't. You don't have a Constitutional right to RF spectrum. It wouldn't be possible to allow truly 'free' speech there.

A better analogy would be the internet. Does the FCC control what you say here?

No one has a consitutional right to RF, but they do have a constitutional right to say whatever they want once they have purchased spectrum.

What you're saying is the equivalent of "no one has a constitutional right to pen & paper" therefor the government can curtail freedom of speech in books.

DivineLegion
01-17-2013, 04:30 PM
Funny that you don't think either arms or education are at all helpful to an insurgency. What exactly do these Afghani fighters have going for them? Do their balls hang super low?



I assume you're talking .223, but tell me, if there's no practicality, then why this?

http://www.14news.com/story/20608248/assault-rifle-shortage-affecting-law-enforcement

Their balls do indeed hand super low. They live hard lives with different values on life, and individuality. The same mentality that made the Japanese dangerous in the pacific theater. Americans don't posses that mentality as citizens, Texans maybe, but the largest population sources in the us are to diplomatic to crawl in tunnels.

I was referring to .223, I mistyped that on my phone.


Your article is in reference to an officer who is more than likely opperating in a tactical unit, not your average street cop. Yes, swat teams use paramilitary tactics, however their targets are often high risk, high threat criminals.

BroncoBeavis
01-17-2013, 04:33 PM
No one has a consitutional right to RF, but they do have a constitutional right to say whatever they want once they have purchased spectrum.

What you're saying is the equivalent of "no one has a constitutional right to pen & paper" therefor the government can curtail freedom of speech in books.

It's amazing to me you can't spot the difference between use of public resources vs private resources for speech.

You're allowed under the first amendment to communicate whatever you want. You're not automatically allowed public resources to do so.

On a semirelated note... how about this?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/08/23/wiki-weapon-project-aims-to-create-a-gun-anyone-can-3d-print-at-home/

Should this "speech" be banished?

Fedaykin
01-17-2013, 06:32 PM
It's amazing to me you can't spot the difference between use of public resources vs private resources for speech.

You're allowed under the first amendment to communicate whatever you want. You're not automatically allowed public resources to do so.

On a semirelated note... how about this?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/08/23/wiki-weapon-project-aims-to-create-a-gun-anyone-can-3d-print-at-home/

Should this "speech" be banished?

Total bull****. Now you're saying the government has the right to curtail someone's speech if they are doing it in a public park.

Wow you're an idiot.

peacepipe
01-17-2013, 06:57 PM
Whatever,the fact of the matter is a conservative SC has ruled it can be regulated,

ant1999e
01-17-2013, 07:00 PM
Total bull****. Now you're saying the government has the right to curtail someone's speech if they are doing it in a public park.

Wow you're an idiot.

Don't you need a permit to hold a public rally?

ant1999e
01-17-2013, 07:04 PM
Our 1st amendment rights are regulated,FCC controls what can or cannot be said on TV,you can't yell fire in a movie theatre,so on & so on. With rights do come responsibilities. Supreme Court,more specificly your boy scalia ,ruled that the 2nd is not unlimited & can be regulated.

I guess government can curtail speech.

nyuk nyuk
01-17-2013, 08:59 PM
Our 1st amendment rights are regulated,FCC controls what can or cannot be said on TV,you can't yell fire in a movie theatre,so on & so on. With rights do come responsibilities. Supreme Court,more specificly your boy scalia ,ruled that the 2nd is not unlimited & can be regulated.

This is a half-truth. Note part of the ruling was that Washington DC was told to shove their total gun ban where the sun doesn't shine. They even had to chuck their trigger lock requirement.

peacepipe
01-17-2013, 09:46 PM
This is a half-truth. Note part of the ruling was that Washington DC was told to shove their total gun ban where the sun doesn't shine. They even had to chuck their trigger lock requirement.

e: 3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Aalso, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)

BroncoBeavis
01-17-2013, 10:41 PM
Total bull****. Now you're saying the government has the right to curtail someone's speech if they are doing it in a public park.

Wow you're an idiot.

Piss poor analogy. It'd be more like curtailing someone's speech thats taxpayer funded. RF frequencies aren't anything like a public park. They can't be shared in any useful sense.

And what does any of it have to do with what I'm allowed to own in the privacy of my own home? Or is it just another in an endless line of red herrings?

Fedaykin
01-18-2013, 03:49 AM
Piss poor analogy. It'd be more like curtailing someone's speech thats taxpayer funded. RF frequencies aren't anything like a public park. They can't be shared in any useful sense.


RF spectrum is leased to private entities via spectrum auctions. The taxpayer makes money off it and it is how RF is indeed "shared".


And what does any of it have to do with what I'm allowed to own in the privacy of my own home? Or is it just another in an endless line of red herrings?

That the FCC "regulates"* free speech on the free airwaves, or local governments regulate free speech in public parks speaks directly to the concept that no "right" is absolute. There is a limit to every "right". You can be required to get a permit for a rally, or enforce public disturbance laws if you grab a bullhorn and start yelling at people on a street corner or be prosecuted if you yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

And by the way, the FCC does not limit its censorship based on "shared resources". It censors only things that are not subscriber based and thus cannot be easily controlled by consumers wishing to avoid it. Hence freely available television and radio channels are subject to FCC censorship, but cable and satellite (which uses open air RF spectrum just like terrestrial broadcats) are not. That's why all the "adult" material is generally only available under subscriber based services like HBO and SiriusXM.

Additionally, the FCC cannot actually prevent any broadcaster from broadcasting whatever legal material they want (basically anything that is not deemed "obscene"). They have only been given the authority to slap people on the wrist when "indecent" material (read: sex and dirty language) is broadcast outside of the "acceptable" times. There's absolutely no reason a free over-the-air channel can't play soft core porn, just like Skinimax, as long as they don't do it between 6AM and 10PM.

Saying the government can't regulate anything you do in your own home is ridiculous. The idea of private ownership with regards to "rights" has to do with differentiating between what the government is limited by vs what a non-goverment entity is limited by. The government has to respect your right to free speech, but a private entity doesn't. In other words, the government must respect free speech, even on public airwaves, but the private entities using that spectrum don't have to.


Of course, the common theme here is that _your_ rights end where mine begin -- it has nothing to do with "what you are allowed to own in the privacy of your own home".

* Your right to broadcast porn or other adult content ends where it becomes too easy for my children to view it in the circumstance that I don't want them to.

* Your right to your religious belief ends when you attempt to force those beliefs on others.

Likewise, your right to posses firearms ends when you cross the line from sportsmen activities and self defense into offensive capability -- something even the NRA agrees with which is why anything "on the bubble" they try their darndest to frame as a "sportsmen's weapon" or a "self defense" weapon. That's what leads to idiocy like people claiming an AR-15, Mini-14 or other similar rifle is a legitimate "hunting weapon" and why the NRA puts out bullsh*t adds claiming people wanting those types of weapons bans are 'going after sportsmen'!

BroncoBeavis
01-18-2013, 06:36 AM
RF spectrum is leased to private entities via spectrum auctions. The taxpayer makes money off it and it is how RF is indeed "shared".



That the FCC "regulates"* free speech on the free airwaves, or local governments regulate free speech in public parks speaks directly to the concept that no "right" is absolute. There is a limit to every "right". You can be required to get a permit for a rally, or enforce public disturbance laws if you grab a bullhorn and start yelling at people on a street corner or be prosecuted if you yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

And by the way, the FCC does not limit its censorship based on "shared resources". It censors only things that are not subscriber based and thus cannot be easily controlled by consumers wishing to avoid it. Hence freely available television and radio channels are subject to FCC censorship, but cable and satellite (which uses open air RF spectrum just like terrestrial broadcats) are not. That's why all the "adult" material is generally only available under subscriber based services like HBO and SiriusXM.

Additionally, the FCC cannot actually prevent any broadcaster from broadcasting whatever legal material they want (basically anything that is not deemed "obscene"). They have only been given the authority to slap people on the wrist when "indecent" material (read: sex and dirty language) is broadcast outside of the "acceptable" times. There's absolutely no reason a free over-the-air channel can't play soft core porn, just like Skinimax, as long as they don't do it between 6AM and 10PM.

Saying the government can't regulate anything you do in your own home is ridiculous. The idea of private ownership with regards to "rights" has to do with differentiating between what the government is limited by vs what a non-goverment entity is limited by. The government has to respect your right to free speech, but a private entity doesn't. In other words, the government must respect free speech, even on public airwaves, but the private entities using that spectrum don't have to.


Of course, the common theme here is that _your_ rights end where mine begin -- it has nothing to do with "what you are allowed to own in the privacy of your own home".

* Your right to broadcast porn or other adult content ends where it becomes too easy for my children to view it in the circumstance that I don't want them to.

* Your right to your religious belief ends when you attempt to force those beliefs on others.

Likewise, your right to posses firearms ends when you cross the line from sportsmen activities and self defense into offensive capability -- something even the NRA agrees with which is why anything "on the bubble" they try their darndest to frame as a "sportsmen's weapon" or a "self defense" weapon. That's what leads to idiocy like people claiming an AR-15, Mini-14 or other similar rifle is a legitimate "hunting weapon" and why the NRA puts out bullsh*t adds claiming people wanting those types of weapons bans are 'going after sportsmen'!

Wow that's a lot of typing to keep going down a piss poor rabbit trail you created. So which public park have you gone to where when you go there you lease a chunk of it where from that point forward nobody else is allowed to use?

And if the mechanism is all about truly policing speech (instead of controlling allocation of very limited resources) why does the FCC do nothing to control what's posted on the internet?

Elway 4 Life
01-18-2013, 07:12 AM
This whole gun arguement is getting so far out of hand. People are fighting about the wrong issues. Let's take the last 3 big gun violence incidents. The Aurora, Sandy Hook, and AZ congresswoman all had one thing in common, the shooters were absolutely bananas. This is more of an issue in my eyes. The parents should have never had weapons of any kind unlocked and readily available. Everyone in there lives should have practiced much better SA.

I live in Killeen, TX. which is right next to Ft Hood the largest military installation in the free world and see the effects of mental issues daily. Hell with gun laws we need to get a better grasp on the mental issues that are rampant in this country. PTSD is a huge issue with soldiers coming back and there is currently nothing being done to get these guys help. This administration needs to attack this issue with the ferocity that its attacking guns.

peacepipe
01-18-2013, 07:26 AM
This whole gun arguement is getting so far out of hand. People are fighting about the wrong issues. Let's take the last 3 big gun violence incidents. The Aurora, Sandy Hook, and AZ congresswoman all had one thing in common, the shooters were absolutely bananas. This is more of an issue in my eyes. The parents should have never had weapons of any kind unlocked and readily available. Everyone in there lives should have practiced much better SA.

I live in Killeen, TX. which is right next to Ft Hood the largest military installation in the free world and see the effects of mental issues daily. Hell with gun laws we need to get a better grasp on the mental issues that are rampant in this country. PTSD is a huge issue with soldiers coming back and there is currently nothing being done to get these guys help. This administration needs to attack this issue with the ferocity that its attacking guns.

They are looking into it,it is part of the 23 executive actions that he signed. Universal background checks would address a lot of what you're saying. Does no good to strengthen laws regarding the mentally Ill if they can just go to a gun show & by a gun without a BG check.

Elway 4 Life
01-18-2013, 08:14 AM
They are looking into it,it is part of the 23 executive actions that he signed. Universal background checks would address a lot of what you're saying. Does no good to strengthen laws regarding the mentally Ill if they can just go to a gun show & by a gun without a BG check.

I'm not talking strengthening the laws for the mentally ill, I'm talking about getting the mentally ill more help. My wife and I have a good friend who works for the MHMR (Mentally Handicapped Mentally Retarded) here in Killeen and was told that in April they are closing it down because the funding has been cut. Now there is only going to be 2 MHMR within a 4 county radius which encompasses approximately 1.3 million people. That's 31 employees to cover 1.3 million. 3 offices are closing total in those 4 counties. That's the issue not gun laws or laws regarding mental issues.

Just so I'm clear I support background checks and a ban on these ridiculously huge ammo clips. I can go either way on a ban of AR's but that's about it.

BroncoBeavis
01-18-2013, 08:15 AM
They are looking into it,it is part of the 23 executive actions that he signed. Universal background checks would address a lot of what you're saying. Does no good to strengthen laws regarding the mentally Ill if they can just go to a gun show & by a gun without a BG check.

Of course if there's no federal record of a person being mentally ill, there's not much point in doing a background check at all. But it gives politicians something to mug in front of the camera about. And their favorite voters a way to feel like 0+0 equals 1.

peacepipe
01-18-2013, 08:30 AM
Of course if there's no federal record of a person being mentally ill, there's not much point in doing a background check at all. But it gives politicians something to mug in front of the camera about. And their favorite voters a way to feel like 0+0 equals 1.

There's always a point in doing a BG check. Just cause the fed may or may not have a record of who has been ruled mentally I'll doesn't mean there shouldn't be universal BG checks.

BroncoBeavis
01-18-2013, 08:40 AM
There's always a point in doing a BG check. Just cause the fed may or may not have a record of who has been ruled mentally I'll doesn't mean there shouldn't be universal BG checks.

See this is what people are talking about when they talk about the naked opportunism. Our politicians seize on a tragedy to start crafting things they way they had already predetermined before the event ever happened. Even if there's zero evidence that their personal preference would've done a single thing to prevent the tragedy they're marketing. It's like they're just waiting for something bad to happen so they can use it as a tool to their own ends.

Would the checks have stopped either the Aurora or Sandy Hook shooters? I'm sorry, but if some crackpot like that can walk into a store and buy a gun, background check and all, it seems like a pretty fruitless exercise to force every used gun sale between grandpa and dad to go through a background check.

At the end of the day, this is all it is.

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

Meck77
01-18-2013, 08:43 AM
I think this! I think that!

There are 300+ Million Americans! What is "right" for you might not be right for someone else.

How about this?! Let's let the voters in each STATE decide their own laws! If you like your guns move to AZ or WY!

If you like tight guns laws move to that state! Just be prepared to wait for a "good guy with the a gun" to save your ass if you find yourself in trouble!

peacepipe
01-18-2013, 08:52 AM
See this is what people are talking about when they talk about the naked opportunism. Our politicians seize on a tragedy to start crafting things they way they had already predetermined before the event ever happened. Even if there's zero evidence that their personal preference would've done a single thing to prevent the tragedy they're marketing. It's like they're just waiting for something bad to happen so they can use it as a tool to their own ends.

Would the checks have stopped either the Aurora or Sandy Hook shooters? I'm sorry, but if some crackpot like that can walk into a store and buy a gun, background check and all, it seems like a pretty fruitless exercise to force every used gun sale between grandpa and dad to go through a background check.

At the end of the day, this is all it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
Obama said in his announcement that there is no perfect solution, but just because there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean that you just sit on your thumbs & do nothing.

Meck77
01-18-2013, 08:55 AM
Obama said in his announcement that there is no perfect solution, but just because there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean that you just sit on your thumbs & do nothing.

Allowing States to decide is doing something. The people in DC are not in touch with ALL of America.

BroncoBeavis
01-18-2013, 08:57 AM
just sit on your thumbs & do nothing

No, we mustn't do nothing. Until bad things cease to be, we must DO SOMETHING!

How about cars that can't violate the speed limit? That'd save more lives than background checks. Do Something?

peacepipe
01-18-2013, 09:05 AM
No, we mustn't do nothing. Until bad things cease to be, we must DO SOMETHING!

How about cars that can't violate the speed limit? That'd save more lives than background checks. Do Something?

It's well worth it if it just save one life. You somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of guns sold with no background check via internet or gun shows. Background checks don't stop law abiding citizens from getting a gun.

Meck77
01-18-2013, 09:08 AM
It's well worth it if it just save one life.

What a crock. I hear them using this one more and more.

Let's get rid of baseball bats then (most commonly used weapon). Who needs baseball! Millions of kids can find something else to do. It's worth it if it saves one life right?

peacepipe
01-18-2013, 09:12 AM
What a crock. I hear them using this one more and more.

Let's get rid of baseball bats then (most commonly used weapon). Who needs baseball! Millions of kids can find something else to do. It's worth it if it saves one life right?

Bull****, common sense seems to be something you don't grasp. Background checks don't stop law abiding citizens from getting a gun.

BroncoBeavis
01-18-2013, 09:17 AM
It's well worth it if it just save one life..


So what you're saying is that cars that can only go 65mph are a top priority then. And motorcycles should definitely be banished forever.

peacepipe
01-18-2013, 09:22 AM
So what you're saying is not only cars that can only go 65mph is a top priority then. And motorcycles should definitely be banished forever.

No I'm saying that because we have laws regarding speeding,that there is a lot less deaths/accidents than if we had no laws on speeding.
Are you saying we should get rid of prisons,any/all laws regarding any crime because it isn't 100% perfect in deterring crime.

BroncoBeavis
01-18-2013, 09:23 AM
Bull****, common sense seems to be something you don't grasp. Background checks don't stop law abiding citizens from getting a gun.

I haven't purchased any firearms, yet I own 2. I'd say a good chunk of firearms in this country are purchased and given to children who then take them into adulthood.

Do you want to background check 12 year olds?

Meck77
01-18-2013, 09:23 AM
Bull****, common sense seems to be something you don't grasp..

Letting PEOPLE vote to determine their own laws isn't common sense?

BroncoBeavis
01-18-2013, 09:26 AM
No I'm saying that because we have laws regarding speeding,that there is a lot less deaths/accidents than if we had no laws on speeding.

Yes, there's a law against speeding, but you have the freedom to ignore it (I guess until the "If it saves one Life'ers" have their way)

There's also a law against shooting people. You're gonna get this sooner or later. I just know it. :)

chadta
01-18-2013, 02:40 PM
No I'm saying that because we have laws regarding speeding,that there is a lot less deaths/accidents than if we had no laws on speeding.


if only we had laws against killing people

Fedaykin
01-18-2013, 02:44 PM
Wow that's a lot of typing to keep going down a piss poor rabbit trail you created. So which public park have you gone to where when you go there you lease a chunk of it where from that point forward nobody else is allowed to use?

And if the mechanism is all about truly policing speech (instead of controlling allocation of very limited resources) why does the FCC do nothing to control what's posted on the internet?

Typical. I point out why you have no ****ing clue what you are talking about, and all you can retort with is bullsh*t posturing.

The FCC functions both as a spectrum steward and a censoring organization. Their censorship role is extremely limited, and NOT based on the ownership of the medium. They walk a very fine line in terms of free speech, and we've accepted as a society that information distributed in a manner that children have easy access to is acceptable to censor. Which is, of course, why information that takes special effort (i.e. a subscription) to access is not.

The FCC doesn't do jack for censoring the internet because;

1.) They have no authority to censor foreign content nor to prevent people from accessing lawful material.

2.) The "protect the children" loophole currently employed for freely distributed tv/radio broadcasts has not yet been successfully played -- though not from lack of trying by various interests.

Of course, the whole point, as I said, is that no "right" is absolute. Not even the the most important: the "right" to life;

BroncoBeavis
01-18-2013, 03:50 PM
Typical. I point out why you have no ****ing clue what you are talking about, and all you can retort with is bullsh*t posturing.

The FCC functions both as a spectrum steward and a censoring organization. Their censorship role is extremely limited, and NOT based on the ownership of the medium.

OK, genius. So why can't the FCC touch cable?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/02/can_the_fcc_regulate_hbo.html

The FCC's regulatory powers extend only to over-the-air broadcasters, who transmit their programs via the publicly owned spectrum. In order to obtain the FCC's permission to use slivers of that spectrum, broadcasters agree to abide by the commission's rules, which include indecency standards. Cable, on the other hand, travels to American homes via privately built and maintained hardware. (The same goes for satellite services like the DISH Network, whose orbiting hardware is privately launched.) So, cable channels needn't strike a bargain with the FCC in order to operate.

cutthemdown
01-18-2013, 07:12 PM
No I'm saying that because we have laws regarding speeding,that there is a lot less deaths/accidents than if we had no laws on speeding.
Are you saying we should get rid of prisons,any/all laws regarding any crime because it isn't 100% perfect in deterring crime.

We also have lots of gun laws. What kind you can own, where you can shoot them at, and the biggie, no shooting people.

cutthemdown
01-18-2013, 07:14 PM
Already democrats in the Senate seem really cool to any assault weapons ban. Bring it on Obama. Clinton often said it was the big assault weapons ban legislation he pushed that caused his big midterm defeat giving Congress to the Repubs. Its going to happen again.

W*GS
01-18-2013, 07:20 PM
Clinton often said it was the big assault weapons ban legislation he pushed that caused his big midterm defeat giving Congress to the Repubs. Its going to happen again.

No, it was the NRA that said that they dictated the outcome of the 1994 midterms. The facts say otherwise.

The NRA isn't as powerful as they like to believe.

peacepipe
01-18-2013, 07:23 PM
We also have lots of gun laws. What kind you can own, where you can shoot them at, and the biggie, no shooting people.

I don't expect an assault weapons ban to pass, & Obama doesn't expect that it will pass either. What's likely to pass is universal background checks & maybe mag capacities.

cutthemdown
01-18-2013, 07:56 PM
I don't expect an assault weapons ban to pass, & Obama doesn't expect that it will pass either. What's likely to pass is universal background checks & maybe mag capacities.

So in other words something that would not have stopped any of the recent mass shootings that spurred the whole issue of gun control in the first place. Typical big govt BS then that in the end does nothing.

But hey i heard Obama is giving 10 million for some scientists can at the CDC can study guns. So at least some people get a job out of it eh?

peacepipe
01-18-2013, 08:10 PM
So in other words something that would not have stopped any of the recent mass shootings that spurred the whole issue of gun control in the first place. Typical big govt BS then that in the end does nothing.

But hey i heard Obama is giving 10 million for some scientists can at the CDC can study guns. So at least some people get a job out of it eh?

Obama said plain as day in his announcement that passing these laws won't stop these things from ever happening again,but if they stop one it is worth doing.

Meck77
01-18-2013, 09:03 PM
So in other words something that would not have stopped any of the recent mass shootings that spurred the whole issue of gun control in the first place. Typical big govt BS then that in the end does nothing.

But hey i heard Obama is giving 10 million for some scientists can at the CDC can study guns. So at least some people get a job out of it eh?

It is retarded. It's clear what we need to do to protect our schools. The good guys with the guns just need to react quicker and waste these lunatics faster. It's that simple. Defining who the good guys are with the guns is another story.

Went to a neighborhood community meeting on stopping violence today in Denver. Obviously the big topic was guns. The police were realistic and brutally honest. They said they can't always get to incidents fast enough and recommended people educate themselves and I didn't know this but they offer citizen police training. 14 weeks. They teach people laws, you get to ride with cops, and they even train you to shoot safely and effectively.

Bottom line. The cops in Denver are ready to train more good guys with guns and that means YOU.

You guys wasting your time yapping about gun control go ahead. When some asshole forces his way into your home and attacks your wife or daughter go ahead and try to save them with your laptop. I'm blowing their mother ****ing head off.

nyuk nyuk
01-18-2013, 09:05 PM
People need to stop being so swept up in emotion and media hysteria that they're willing to roll back the Constitution. This event doesn't nearly justify this kind of behavior.

peacepipe
01-18-2013, 09:10 PM
People need to stop being so swept up in emotion and media hysteria that they're willing to roll back the Constitution. This event doesn't nearly justify this kind of behavior.

It isn't rolling back the constitution,universal background checks won't stop you from buying a gun. As has been pointed out the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.

nyuk nyuk
01-18-2013, 09:17 PM
It isn't rolling back the constitution,universal background checks won't stop you from buying a gun. As has been pointed out the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.

And people like James Holmes will get through, anyway, and criminals will still get their hands on guns as they STEAL THEM.

Yet again, all you're doing is harassing legal gun owners. Now you're also pandering to big business by blocking off private gun sales by forcing expensive background checks on personal sales.

Scalia's ruling stated that even trigger locks were unconstitutional. Have fun with that.

peacepipe
01-18-2013, 09:30 PM
It is retarded. It's clear what we need to do to protect our schools. The good guys with the guns just need to react quicker and waste these lunatics faster. It's that simple. Defining who the good guys are with the guns is another story.

Went to a neighborhood community meeting on stopping violence today in Denver. Obviously the big topic was guns. The police were realistic and brutally honest. They said they can't always get to incidents fast enough and recommended people educate themselves and I didn't know this but they offer citizen police training. 14 weeks. They teach people laws, you get to ride with cops, and they even train you to shoot safely and effectively.

Bottom line. The cops in Denver are ready to train more good guys with guns and that means YOU.

You guys wasting your time yapping about gun control go ahead. When some a-hole forces his way into your home and attacks your wife or daughter go ahead and try to save them with your laptop. I'm blowing their mother ****ing head off.
No one is comming to take your guns away,no one is saying you can't own a gun. So if someone breaks into my house I'll blow a hole in his chest or head or both if necessary.

cutthemdown
01-18-2013, 10:52 PM
It isn't rolling back the constitution,universal background checks won't stop you from buying a gun. As has been pointed out the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.

I have a problem with a guy in Alaska having to pay money for a background check just to buy his buddies shotgun. Its just more big govt that needs to be handled at the state level. If people in NY or CA want stricter laws I am all for that. But if people in Alaska don't i don't think they should be forced by the federal govt to do so. Trying to put big city rules for big city problems into rural america where guns are a way of life is another big DC joke.

Also the clip size is a total joke. Reducing clip sizes will do absolutley nothing to make your kids safer or you safer. If it doesn't make us safer why do it?

peacepipe
01-18-2013, 11:13 PM
I have a problem with a guy in Alaska having to pay money for a background check just to buy his buddies shotgun. Its just more big govt that needs to be handled at the state level. If people in NY or CA want stricter laws I am all for that. But if people in Alaska don't i don't think they should be forced by the federal govt to do so. Trying to put big city rules for big city problems into rural america where guns are a way of life is another big DC joke.

Also the clip size is a total joke. Reducing clip sizes will do absolutley nothing to make your kids safer or you safer. If it doesn't make us safer why do it?
1. Your guy in Alaska needs to include it in the cost of the gun.
2. Federal law reigns supreme over state laws,don't like it,too ****ing bad.
3. It isn't a big city problem it's an American problem.

cutthemdown
01-18-2013, 11:28 PM
1. Your guy in Alaska needs to include it in the cost of the gun.
2. Federal law reigns supreme over state laws,don't like it,too ****ing bad.
3. It isn't a big city problem it's an American problem.


Exactly more big DC politics making things more expensive for Americans.

I know once a federal law passed it trumps all which is why we have to fight big govt at the federal level.

if you don't see a difference between rural America and the big cities you are out of touch. No way we need the same gun laws for NYC that a place like Alaska or Montana need. Thats why its better to let the states handle background checks or what clip size people can have. The feds just make whatever gun needs to be illegal everywhere illegal. That type of gun is anything fully automatic and nothing more. But saying i can't have a 30 round clip in my .22 semi auto is pretty lame. I happen to live in CA so you can only have 10 but if I moved to Montana I would expect new laws that reflect where i live. Not laws made by Obama while he plays golf with a bunch of advisors trying to figure out how to keep the focus off how crappy he has handled the economy. Wasting time on gun control when they need to be cutting spending and doing a budget is exactly what Obama wants.

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 12:15 AM
Exactly more big DC politics making things more expensive for Americans.

I know once a federal law passed it trumps all which is why we have to fight big govt at the federal level.

if you don't see a difference between rural America and the big cities you are out of touch. No way we need the same gun laws for NYC that a place like Alaska or Montana need. Thats why its better to let the states handle background checks or what clip size people can have. The feds just make whatever gun needs to be illegal everywhere illegal. That type of gun is anything fully automatic and nothing more. But saying i can't have a 30 round clip in my .22 semi auto is pretty lame. I happen to live in CA so you can only have 10 but if I moved to Montana I would expect new laws that reflect where i live. Not laws made by Obama while he plays golf with a bunch of advisors trying to figure out how to keep the focus off how crappy he has handled the economy. Wasting time on gun control when they need to be cutting spending and doing a budget is exactly what Obama wants.
States rights is a dead issue, this is one country,not 50 seperate plots of land doing there own thing. I didn't realize how big of a fan you are of the EU.

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 12:21 AM
And people like James Holmes will get through, anyway, and criminals will still get their hands on guns as they STEAL THEM.

Yet again, all you're doing is harassing legal gun owners. Now you're also pandering to big business by blocking off private gun sales by forcing expensive background checks on personal sales.

Scalia's ruling stated that even trigger locks were unconstitutional. Have fun with that.

3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Aalso, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)
What part of this,don't you understand? You do realize this is part of the SC decision in DC vs heller

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 12:23 AM
And people like James Holmes will get through, anyway, and criminals will still get their hands on guns as they STEAL THEM.

Yet again, all you're doing is harassing legal gun owners. Now you're also pandering to big business by blocking off private gun sales by forcing expensive background checks on personal sales.

Scalia's ruling stated that even trigger locks were unconstitutional. Have fun with that.

Harassing who? I AM A GUN OWNER.

ant1999e
01-19-2013, 02:31 AM
Now all of the sudden the libs are gun owners and support the 2nd Amendment.Hilarious!

Meck77
01-19-2013, 06:12 AM
States rights is a dead issue, this is one country,not 50 seperate plots of land doing there own thing. I didn't realize how big of a fan you are of the EU.

Hilarious!

Guess you haven't heard of a place called Colorado. We set plenty of our own laws and the feds sit and watch!

Peacepipe you really need to travel a bit more. There are huge cultural, religious, and political differences from state to state. One size does not fit all in America. It's what makes this country great!


So peacepipe is a gun owner. It's the ole I got what I want but restrict the other guy.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 06:22 AM
Obama said plain as day in his announcement that passing these laws won't stop these things from ever happening again,but if they stop one it is worth doing.

Speeding kills 10,000 per year. Should we make cars that refuse to go faster than 65? I bet you could find a cop who loves the idea.

cutthemdown
01-19-2013, 07:14 AM
Hilarious!

Guess you haven't heard of a place called Colorado. We set plenty of our own laws and the feds sit and watch!

Peacepipe you really need to travel a bit more. There are huge cultural, religious, and political differences from state to state. One size does not fit all in America. It's what makes this country great!


So peacepipe is a gun owner. It's the ole I got what I want but restrict the other guy.

Its really important to respect those differences are we won't be able to stay united.

Arkie
01-19-2013, 07:33 AM
It isn't rolling back the constitution,universal background checks won't stop you from buying a gun. As has been pointed out the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.

Then it shouldn't be unlimited for anybody. Giving more powerful weapons to the authorities creates a police state.

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 07:42 AM
Then it shouldn't be unlimited for anybody. Giving more powerful weapons to the authorities creates a police state.

Bull****.

Rohirrim
01-19-2013, 07:46 AM
Everybody should be packing, and showing it! God knows, that's what made the Old West the peaceful place that it was.

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 07:48 AM
Hilarious!

Guess you haven't heard of a place called Colorado. We set plenty of our own laws and the feds sit and watch!

Peacepipe you really need to travel a bit more. There are huge cultural, religious, and political differences from state to state. One size does not fit all in America. It's what makes this country great!


So peacepipe is a gun owner. It's the ole I got what I want but restrict the other guy.

Still one country. Do you want us to become the EU.

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 07:59 AM
Hilarious!

Guess you haven't heard of a place called Colorado. We set plenty of our own laws and the feds sit and watch!

Peacepipe you really need to travel a bit more. There are huge cultural, religious, and political differences from state to state. One size does not fit all in America. It's what makes this country great!


So peacepipe is a gun owner. It's the ole I got what I want but restrict the other guy.

No law abiding person is being restricted from buying a gun.
Now,do you mean to say that if a convicted child molester were not able to buy a gun you would be upset.

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 08:05 AM
Its really important to respect those differences are we won't be able to stay united.

There's a lot of political,cultural differences between Brooklyn & queens NY should we divide the state of NY into separate states?no.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 08:15 AM
Still one country. Do you want us to become the EU.

All the states have different speed limits too. Better squash that down to 65. Maybe 55. That is if you care about the children. LOL

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 08:20 AM
Then it shouldn't be unlimited for anybody. Giving more powerful weapons to the authorities creates a police state.

They don't believe in such things. Their government loves them and only wants to take care of them.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 08:21 AM
Still one country. Do you want us to become the EU.

Guess we can assume you've never read any of the federalists or anti federalists.

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 08:22 AM
All the states have different speed limits too. Better squash that down to 65. Maybe 55. That is if you care about the children. LOL

You guys are getting desperate.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 08:33 AM
You guys are getting desperate.

Desperate is "if it saves one life". But with speed limits universally imposed we can save thousands every year. Many many times what an "assault" rifle ban or background checks could ever accomplish.

Its not arguable. Why do you focus on saving 10s or hundreds when you can save thousands?

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 08:49 AM
Desperate is "if it saves one life". But with speed limits universally imposed we can save thousands every year. Many many times what an "assault" rifle ban or background checks could ever accomplish.

Its not arguable. Why do you focus on saving 10s or hundreds when you can save thousands?

Tell me who get denied a gun because of universal background checks?

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 08:55 AM
Tell me who get denied a gun because of universal background checks?

Why do you always ask questions but never answer them. Why do we build cars capable of breaking the law?

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 09:03 AM
Why do you always ask questions but never answer them. Why do we build cars capable of breaking the law?
You're deflecting,answer the question.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 09:23 AM
You're deflecting,answer the question.

Whose question came first? Your whine of deflection is what it accuses.

Why are you so eager to infringe on Constitutional freedoms while ignoring others that have far more impact in lives and cost? Only explanation I have is that chipping away at the 2nd is such an ingrained part of your political marching orders that you're incapable of questioning it anymore.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 09:28 AM
http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2FGun_facebook_post.jpg

DO SOMEFIN!

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 09:32 AM
Whose question came first? Your whine of deflection is what it accuses.

Why are you so eager to infringe on Constitutional freedoms while ignoring others that have far more impact in lives and cost? Only explanation I have is that chipping away at the 2nd is such an ingrained part of your political marching orders that you're incapable of questioning it anymore.
No one is infringing,it's 100% constitutional to have universal background checks.
Answer the question.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 09:38 AM
No one is infringing,it's 100% constitutional to have universal background checks.
Answer the question.

And then what happens when the next mass murder that background checks do nothing to prevent comes along?

Will background checking hour Uncle Jim still make you feel better or will you just move reliably on to item B or C of the hiptard repeal the 2nd by increment agenda?

If the government is to act I prefer it to have meaningful benefit. Not just put everyone through a dog and pony show so the delusional can pretend they've fixed evil for awhile.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-19-2013, 09:39 AM
Oh these new gun laws won't do much unfortunately, but it's a good start i guess? And I'll get roasted for this but clinging to the second amendment in today's day is BS. the intention of it was to form a militia, it even says that right in it. We haven't had those or a need for them in centuries. Now people want them for...why do people want assault weapons anyway?

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 09:46 AM
And then what happens when the next mass murder that background checks do nothing to prevent comes along?

Will background checking hour Uncle Jim still make you feel better or will you just move reliably on to item B or C of the hiptard repeal the 2nd by increment agenda?

If the government is to act I prefer it to have meaningful benefit. Not just put everyone through a dog and pony show so the delusional can pretend they've fixed evil for awhile.

No one is saying there is a perfect fix,but it is constitutional.

peacepipe
01-19-2013, 09:48 AM
Oh these new gun laws won't do much unfortunately, but it's a good start i guess? And I'll get roasted for this but clinging to the second amendment in today's day is BS. the intention of it was to form a militia, it even says that right in it. We haven't had those or a need for them in centuries. Now people want them for...why do people want assault weapons anyway?

They have this fear of the gov & believe they one day they'll have to turn and use them against our own troops.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 09:52 AM
Oh these new gun laws won't do much unfortunately, but it's a good start i guess? And I'll get roasted for this but clinging to the second amendment in today's day is BS. the intention of it was to form a militia, it even says that right in it. We haven't had those or a need for them in centuries. Now people want them for...why do people want assault weapons anyway?

It also says freedom of the press even though most media doesn't use presses anymore. So I guess the media is controllable by the government so long as using a press isn't involved.

Your selective reinterpretation of the Constitution in effect renders it null and void. Read more into the ratification debates and the federalist papers. This idea that the 2nd Amendment was only for militias is pure gleeful self-delusion. Of the kind that could be used to tear down the Bill of Rights completely.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 09:54 AM
They have this fear of the gov & believe they one day they'll have to turn and use them against our own troops.

You've never read much Jefferson have you.

You guys must love the Patriot Act. And probably wish it went way further. Imagine how many baddies our benevolent government could dispatch if only they could put an unannounced ear on a few phone calls and get a few email sneak peeks every now and again. Its our beloved government so we all know there's be nothing to fear. And of course we can assume that wiretapping and electronic communication was never contemplated at the Constitutional convention. And vehicle search and seizure? No problem. Doesn't say anything about cars in the 4th Amendment.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-19-2013, 11:02 AM
It also says freedom of the press even though most media doesn't use presses anymore. So I guess the media is controllable by the government so long as using a press isn't involved.

Your selective reinterpretation of the Constitution in effect renders it null and void. Read more into the ratification debates and the federalist papers. This idea that the 2nd Amendment was only for militias is pure gleeful self-delusion. Of the kind that could be used to tear down the Bill of Rights completely.

Lol press is a malleable term. Self delusion? It says it right in the amendment. Plus that was a document that was designed for a life much different than our current one. If you want a shotgun to shoot a deer, fine I don't care. If you want a pistol to protect your house, I don't care. I don't see why you need military grade weapons. The root of this problem is America's Ancient Greek like obsession with equating strength and power with violence. We are epically proud of our wars and basically pray to our military strength. Hell, listen to our national anthem

But don't worry Beavis, the anti gun people lost this argument a long time ago. All you crazy people will get to keep your bull****

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 11:59 AM
Lol press is a malleable term.

So is Militia.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

Not that it matters, because it wasn't written to mean what you say it does.

Self delusion? It says it right in the amendment.

It's a prefatory clause that only forwards a rationale for the individual right. It was clearly meant that way by those who wrote it, and interpreted that way all the up until the progressive era when a certain breed of progressive started finding creative ways to try to subvert the established constitutional order.

Plus that was a document that was designed for a life much different than our current one. If you want a shotgun to shoot a deer, fine I don't care. If you want a pistol to protect your house, I don't care. I don't see why you need military grade weapons. The root of this problem is America's Ancient Greek like obsession with equating strength and power with violence. We are epically proud of our wars and basically pray to our military strength. Hell, listen to our national anthem

Basically see above. Just because you don't like what you perceive your country to be doesn't give you the right to start changing the rules mid-game. If you don't like it, work to amend the constitution. Dis-interpreting the Constitution the way you do does the whole document harm, not just the parts you personally don't like.

But don't worry Beavis, the anti gun people lost this argument a long time ago. All you crazy people will get to keep your bull****

Like I've said, I don't own anything anyone would plan on banning anytime in the near future. My largest objection is with people happy to watch the undermining of the clear intent of Constitution in order to see their own personal wishlist fulfilled. When you undermine the Constitution simply because it's too hard to legitimately amend to your liking, you're undoing the bonds that tie the country together.

Fedaykin
01-19-2013, 12:11 PM
Now all of the sudden the libs are gun owners and support the 2nd Amendment.Hilarious!

As I've said before, I enjoy my 2nd amendment rights more than 99.9% of the chicken hawks on this board. I probably own more fireams, do my own reloading, have a concealed carry permit, am hunter, etc.

I'm just not idiotic enough to think my rights are unlimited (or that they should be unlimited) or that there is any legit purpose, whatsoever, for me to posses firearms which have primarily an offensive purpose (i.e. assault rifles, grenade launchers, etc.)

Fedaykin
01-19-2013, 12:29 PM
OK, genius. So why can't the FCC touch cable?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/02/can_the_fcc_regulate_hbo.html


See: Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation

The entirety of the FCCs mandate rests on a 'think of the children' defense relating to the easy availability of "indecent" material to children in their homes via TV and radio broadcasts.

(this is the famous George Carlin, 7 Dirty Words supreme court case btw)

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 12:30 PM
As I've said before, I enjoy my 2nd amendment rights more than 99.9% of the chicken hawks on this board. I probably own more fireams, do my own reloading, have a concealed carry permit, am hunter, etc.

I'm just not idiotic enough to think my rights are unlimited (or that they should be unlimited) or that there is any legit purpose, whatsoever, for me to posses firearms which have primarily an offensive purpose (i.e. assault rifles, grenade launchers, etc.)

Concealed carry? Must carry a handgun? The kind of guns that kill probably 20x more people than assault rifles?

Anyway, you were saying something about hypocrisy or rational limits or something. Please go on.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 12:41 PM
See: Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation

The entirety of the FCCs mandate rests on a 'think of the children' defense relating to the easy availability of "indecent" material to children in their homes via TV and radio broadcasts.

(this is the famous George Carlin, 7 Dirty Words supreme court case btw)

That's nice and all. But that only dealt with public RF broadcasting. Nevermind that it's been undermined by numerous other decisions in the 35 years since. For instance

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/06/22/the-supreme-courts-fcc-ruling-a-decision-but-no-f-ing-closure/

But also good news for TV-decency crusaders! Because the court decided that there was no need for it to take on the broader issue of whether it was the FCC’s constitutional prerogative at all to regulate obscene speech on the airwaves. (Reminder: “airwaves” here means specifically broadcast networks, not cable, because the public owns the air, not cable lines.)

Fedaykin
01-19-2013, 12:42 PM
Concealed carry? Must carry a handgun? The kind of guns that kill probably 20x more people than assault rifles?

Anyway, you were saying something about hypocrisy or rational limits or something. Please go on.


What part of "legitimate defensive or sporting purpose" do you fail to understand?

Just like a car has a legit purpose other than running people down on the road.

Fedaykin
01-19-2013, 12:45 PM
That's nice and all. But that only dealt with public RF broadcasting. Nevermind that it's been undermined by numerous other decisions in the 35 years since. For instance

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/06/22/the-supreme-courts-fcc-ruling-a-decision-but-no-f-ing-closure/

Look at the case law I cited. DISH network, Sirius, etc. ALL USE THE RF SPECTRUM so the idiotic analogy your previously quoted source breaks down entirely. Guess what, ABC owns its broadcasting equipment to, the only difference between DISH and ABC is that DISH's RF broadcast equipment is in orbit and ABC's RF broadcast equipment is terrestrial.

Oh, and DISH is a subscriber service (EDIT, preventing the unwanted "intrusion" of their signal in the home where 'the children' can easily view it), and ABC is not.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 01:00 PM
Look at the case law I cited. DISH network, Sirius, etc. ALL USE THE RF SPECTRUM so the idiotic analogy your previously quoted source breaks down entirely. Guess what, ABC owns its broadcasting equipment to, the only difference between DISH and ABC is that DISH's RF broadcast equipment is in orbit and ABC's RF broadcast equipment is terrestrial.

Oh, and DISH is a subscriber service (EDIT, preventing the unwanted "intrusion" of their signal in the home where 'the children' can easily view it), and ABC is not.

Hey, I think you're starting to get somewhere with yourself.

You're finally getting it. My personal first amendment freedoms do not protect my ability to bombard the air in other peoples' houses with my own personal messages. I think you're finally starting to grasp the difference between the FCC regulating what travels through public airspace and the government taking away what you can currently legally own in your own home.

Apples and Kittens when you think about it. But you did give it a try. Good effort.

Fedaykin
01-19-2013, 01:02 PM
Hey, I think you're starting to get somewhere with yourself.

You're finally getting it. My personal first amendment freedoms do not protect my ability to bombard the air in other peoples' houses with my own personal messages. I think you're finally starting to grasp the difference between the FCC regulating what travels through public airspace and the government taking away what you can currently legally own in your own home.

Apples and Kittens when you think about it. But you did give it a try. Good effort.

You've been trying to claim that it is use of RF spectrum that is the crux, rather than what I'm saying that it's about access by children (which happens to be what the law says as well, but go figure).

But nice try.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 01:04 PM
What part of "legitimate defensive or sporting purpose" do you fail to understand?

The part where you never made that argument???

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 01:08 PM
You've been trying to claim that it is use of RF spectrum that is the crux, rather than what I'm saying that it's about access by children (which happens to be what the law says as well, but go figure).

But nice try.

Not true. See Playboy v. US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Playboy_Entertainment_Group

Fedaykin
01-19-2013, 01:09 PM
The part where you never made that argument???

"Likewise, your right to posses firearms ends when you cross the line from sportsmen activities and self defense into offensive capability -- something even the NRA agrees with

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3784126&postcount=836

"I'm just not idiotic enough to think my rights are unlimited (or that they should be unlimited) or that there is any legit purpose, whatsoever, for me to posses firearms which have primarily an offensive purpose"

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3784691&postcount=905

(EDIT) The former quote, explicitly making the statement you say I didn't, was directly squarely at you. Reading must be difficult for you. I'll try to use more simple language in the future.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 01:22 PM
"Likewise, your right to posses firearms ends when you cross the line from sportsmen activities and self defense into offensive capability -- something even the NRA agrees with

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3784126&postcount=836

"I'm just not idiotic enough to think my rights are unlimited (or that they should be unlimited) or that there is any legit purpose, whatsoever, for me to posses firearms which have primarily an offensive purpose"

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3784691&postcount=905

(EDIT) The former quote, explicitly making the statement you say I didn't, was directly squarely at you. Reading must be difficult for you. I'll try to use more simple language in the future.

So you're really arguing that concealed handguns have a sporting purpose and no offensive purpose? Good luck with that.

Fedaykin
01-19-2013, 01:27 PM
Not true. See Playboy v. US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Playboy_Entertainment_Group

Hey thanks, another nice piece of support for my position.

That piece showcases a situation where the FFC tried to assert authority to do something based on 'protecting the children' from inadvertent exposure to indecent material (via signal bleed) that the supreme court didn't accept because they found it unconstitutional given that that were other reasonable means to prevent that inadvertent access.

Has exactly nada to do with RF spectrum use.

Fedaykin
01-19-2013, 01:32 PM
So you're really arguing that concealed handguns have a sporting purpose and no offensive purpose? Good luck with that.

:facepalm:

I'm done with you until you can actually learn some reading comprehension.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 01:45 PM
Hey thanks, another nice piece of support for my position.

That piece showcases a situation where the FFC tried to assert authority to do something based on 'protecting the children' from inadvertent exposure to indecent material (via signal bleed) that the supreme court didn't accept because they found it unconstitutional given that that were other reasonable means to prevent that inadvertent access.

Has exactly nada to do with RF spectrum use.

Please read the decision and apply some critical thinking. Cable has, as a fully contained and private transmission method, the advantage of people being able to select the signals which do or don't enter their house. This is not possible with radio transmission which is why the FCC (as mandated by the Court) treats it differently. RF is a privileged avenue into your home that you have no control over. Arguing that this first amendment "restriction" confers something upon the second amendment might only apply if we were talking about the right to shoot through your neighbors' windows.

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 01:51 PM
:facepalm:

I'm done with you until you can actually learn some reading comprehension.

What I'm gathering is that you assume that whatever you do with your firearms is right and protected yet what anyone else does is up for question. I'd be willing to bet a large majority of gun murders in this country involve concealed handguns. Yet to you that's all good Cuz that's just how you roll. LOL

SonOfLe-loLang
01-19-2013, 02:17 PM
So is Militia.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

Not that it matters, because it wasn't written to mean what you say it does.



It's a prefatory clause that only forwards a rationale for the individual right. It was clearly meant that way by those who wrote it, and interpreted that way all the up until the progressive era when a certain breed of progressive started finding creative ways to try to subvert the established constitutional order.



Basically see above. Just because you don't like what you perceive your country to be doesn't give you the right to start changing the rules mid-game. If you don't like it, work to amend the constitution. Dis-interpreting the Constitution the way you do does the whole document harm, not just the parts you personally don't like.



Like I've said, I don't own anything anyone would plan on banning anytime in the near future. My largest objection is with people happy to watch the undermining of the clear intent of Constitution in order to see their own personal wishlist fulfilled. When you undermine the Constitution simply because it's too hard to legitimately amend to your liking, you're undoing the bonds that tie the country together.

If assault rifles are the bond that holds our country together, then thats a sad ****ing country. This country loves guns, it loves violence, and that stuff isn't going anywhere. But don't give me this **** about how the constitution was something brought on by a higher power (i know you didn't say it, but you seem to hate when people question it) Humans created it. Humans that couldn't predict what our future would look like and didn't really intend to. When the constitution was written, militias were important! Now, we have a fully functioning military. When we are at war, town militias aren't called upon. And if there's a draft, the military provides the weaponry. I know this country loves their guns, and if you want to hunt or protect your family, fine, if that makes you feel better.

But regardless, as I said, I don't think the supply is really the problem here...though it doesn't help. I think we're a culture that equates power and strength with violence and ammunition, and until we start looking at our past differently, and stop priding ourselves on military power, nothings gonna change. And since I dont think that'll ever change, we're stuck with this uniquely american problem forever. But hiding behind an antiquated amendment is absurd. I sincerely doubt the founding fathers would have felt similarly if they already had the most powerful military in the world at their disposal.

W*GS
01-19-2013, 02:37 PM
Worse, lobbies such as the National Rifle Association tell members that by bearing arms they are a bulwark against tyranny: an appeal to narcissism, built on a belief that American democracy is a fragile sham. (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569415-vice-presidential-dealmaking-cannot-fix-bigger-crisis-dysfunctionality-joe-biden)

BroncoBeavis
01-19-2013, 03:47 PM
If assault rifles are the bond that holds our country together, then thats a sad ****ing country. This country loves guns, it loves violence, and that stuff isn't going anywhere. But don't give me this **** about how the constitution was something brought on by a higher power (i know you didn't say it, but you seem to hate when people question it) Humans created it. Humans that couldn't predict what our future would look like and didn't really intend to. When the constitution was written, militias were important! Now, we have a fully functioning military. When we are at war, town militias aren't called upon. And if there's a draft, the military provides the weaponry. I know this country loves their guns, and if you want to hunt or protect your family, fine, if that makes you feel better.

It's not the assault rifle ban in and of itself so much as the complete departure from reason based on headline and emotion.

But hiding behind an antiquated amendment is absurd. I sincerely doubt the founding fathers would have felt similarly if they already had the most powerful military in the world at their disposal.

Again, as I've quoted repeatedly... the founders feared a strong American federal military more than anything. State militias and an armed populace were meant to be a check on it, not a cog in it.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

James Madison, aka the dude that wrote the 2nd Amendment.

W*GS
01-19-2013, 08:50 PM
Again, as I've quoted repeatedly... the founders feared a strong American federal military more than anything. State militias and an armed populace were meant to be a check on it, not a cog in it.

How would an armed populace be anything more than a minor irritation to the US military?

Don't assume that every proud NRA member and/or gun owner would fight on the side of the rebels. A tyrant is likely to be dressed in a suit, wrapped in the flag, wearing a Christian cross and bearing messages of patriotism.

cutthemdown
01-19-2013, 09:11 PM
Liberals thinking that their ownership of guns gives them some right to then infringe of other gun rights is pretty funny to me. Just because you own a gun does not give you an inside track on whether or not its right to ban assault weapons. It's against the constitution whether you own a firearm or not.

DenverBrit
01-19-2013, 09:20 PM
Again, as I've quoted repeatedly... the founders feared a strong American federal military more than anything. State militias and an armed populace were meant to be a check on it, not a cog in it.


And yet we spend absurd amounts on the military.

Cutting their budget would be a better solution than arming every idiot/wacko/gangster/militia/terrorist etc. We would all be safer.

If the Founders could see how we've created such a monolithic military industrial complex, they'd wondered wtf we were doing. Corruption and influence peddling on behalf of the military wasn't what they had in mind.

Eisenhower warned the nation when he finally left office, but instead of paying attention, we kept feeding it.

Now the argument is more guns to counterbalance the domestic military threat??

Insane!!

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/717376/original.jpg

W*GS
01-19-2013, 09:30 PM
Americans are just too irresponsible with firearms.

cutthemdown
01-19-2013, 09:32 PM
No DenverBrit the sane argument has nothing to do with fighting a war againt our own military. The Constitution and the founders knew the reasons for owning guns could change over time that is why they made the clause the right to bear arms period with no conditions on it. It's your right for whatever you feel it is needed for. If you own guns just because you like to collect them you are protected. If you own guns for sport you are protected. If you own guns because you fear an oppresive govt you are protected and on and on and on.

cutthemdown
01-19-2013, 09:35 PM
LOL China and Russia aren't forthcoming on how much they spend. China spending a whole hell of a lot more then 120 billion a yr. Most likely they aren't counting money spemt on research and development. They are trying to build submarines and advanced jets so you know they are spending more then they say. Go ahead though liberals bury your heads in the sand, you are great at that.

DenverBrit
01-19-2013, 10:17 PM
No DenverBrit the sane argument has nothing to do with fighting a war againt our own military. The Constitution and the founders knew the reasons for owning guns could change over time that is why they made the clause the right to bear arms period with no conditions on it. It's your right for whatever you feel it is needed for. If you own guns just because you like to collect them you are protected. If you own guns for sport you are protected. If you own guns because you fear an oppresive govt you are protected and on and on and on.

And yet, when the Framers wrote the 2nd Amendment they had that purpose in mind.

From the Lectric Law Review:

Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

And.....

Thomas Jefferson had written in the Declaration of Independence that if a government failed to protect its citizens and instead became the enemy, the citizens had the right to overthrow it! So one reason the citizens wanted to be armed was not just for defense against external enemies. They wanted protection from their own government!

Noah Webster

Noah Webster believed that having an armed public would prevent the government from becoming corrupted because the people would have more power than the government itself. He wrote:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/2nd-amendment.html

ant1999e
01-19-2013, 11:10 PM
John f. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann [From the 1974 Gun Digest, article titled Gun Laws]

cutthemdown
01-20-2013, 01:23 AM
The right to bear arms wasn't written with a specific threat in mind IMO. Sure they had ideas of what the threats would be but they wrote it to protect gun rights for us for a reason. The world is a dangerous place sometimes and a man has a right to protect himself from other people, other govts, wild animals. Also a gun is a tool for hunting and I'm sure that was also on their minds. So they wrote it into the Constitution because they felt it would be a right eventually govt would try to infringe on. Looks like they were pretty smart.

Fedaykin
01-20-2013, 01:57 AM
Liberals thinking that their ownership of guns gives them some right to then infringe of other gun rights is pretty funny to me. Just because you own a gun does not give you an inside track on whether or not its right to ban assault weapons. It's against the constitution whether you own a firearm or not.

Good thing no one claimed that. Idiot.

cutthemdown
01-20-2013, 04:33 AM
As I've said before, I enjoy my 2nd amendment rights more than 99.9% of the chicken hawks on this board. I probably own more fireams, do my own reloading, have a concealed carry permit, am hunter, etc.

I'm just not idiotic enough to think my rights are unlimited (or that they should be unlimited) or that there is any legit purpose, whatsoever, for me to posses firearms which have primarily an offensive purpose (i.e. assault rifles, grenade launchers, etc.)

As i was saying just because you think you know everything a gun is supposed to be owned for doesn't make it so. No one is saying anything should be unlimited. We have tons of gun laws already is what we are saying. Trying to make a rifle illegal because they design the stock to look military and put a piston grip on it is a joke. How does that make anyone safer? I'm stuck in CA with a 10 clip limit. If a state wants to make that law fine but this isn't for the feds to decide. What people in Alaska need and what people in CA need might not be the same. Why can't people understand the value of states rights in situations like this?

Also your whole statement is a joke. Weapons are defensive and offensive based on how they are used. Even anti aircraft guns are sometimes turned not at the sky but at people or troops. What was designed as a defensive weapon now is offensive. Then you say there isn't a legitmate purpose to assault rifles? BS the purpose is whatever the user decides within law he wants to use it for. Even just outright recreation and target shooting is completely legitmate.

DenverBrit
01-20-2013, 09:36 AM
The right to bear arms wasn't written with a specific threat in mind IMO. Sure they had ideas of what the threats would be but they wrote it to protect gun rights for us for a reason. The world is a dangerous place sometimes and a man has a right to protect himself from other people, other govts, wild animals. Also a gun is a tool for hunting and I'm sure that was also on their minds. So they wrote it into the Constitution because they felt it would be a right eventually govt would try to infringe on. Looks like they were pretty smart.

I was responding to your comment:

No DenverBrit the sane argument has nothing to do with fighting a war againt our own military.

Which was incorrect. The US military was very much in mind when the second amendment was drafted.

Several States also drafted language in 1776 and clarified it further.

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776)

The Founders saw standing armies in time of peace as 'dangerous to Liberty.'

We have not only allowed 'standing armies' in peace time, but built a military industrial complex that has become monolithic.

BroncoBeavis
01-20-2013, 10:19 AM
How would an armed populace be anything more than a minor irritation to the US military?

Have you paid any attention to how the last few American wars have gone? You don't have to stand out in the road and shoot at tanks to be a thorn in the military's side.

Don't assume that every proud NRA member and/or gun owner would fight on the side of the rebels. A tyrant is likely to be dressed in a suit, wrapped in the flag, wearing a Christian cross and bearing messages of patriotism.

Don't assume every member of the US military and national guard is going to be down with rolling thunder through residential neighborhoods on US soil. Especially since gun rights states tend to be heavily overrepresented among the ranks.

http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/assets_c/2010/10/Military_capita3%5B1%5DEDIT-thumb-482x372-34510-thumb-482x372-34511.jpg

W*GS
01-20-2013, 10:19 AM
Given that the NRA is all for armed guards patrolling all schools, they can create and fund such a program themselves - with 4+ million members, that ought not to be a problem. They'll have to take out liability insurance as well.

I'd be interested to see how the NRA vets applicants.

Meck77
01-20-2013, 10:31 AM
As difficult as it was for our forefathers to predict a couple hundred years into the future it's not easy for us to predict what our future looks like 10, 20, 50 years from now.

If the current couple thousand year trend continues the holy war will continue. Americas entanglement will continue to worsen and who knows. Perhaps the holy war does spread onto our soil. Not in a conventional war but more than likely an internal threat. Maybe just maybe we will need our high capacity clips and assault rifles.

Hell for that matter property/our country is already under assault along the borders. Our Federal government is so concerned about making things safe yet criminals are walking right through every damn day virtually unchallenged. It's a disgrace that our federal government is turning a blind eye.

I've mentioned my friend a who works under Obama a lot lately but it is some true inside perspective. I asked him about Obamas policy regarding the border. He responded "He's a city guy, we don't even visit the border, and it's frustrating." Obama doesn't even have the balls to visit AZ, Texas. His concern the last few years was votes and we all know where he spent his time.

Forget the future. I need high capacity clips right now to protect my land from prairie dogs! As soon as your burn through a dozen or so rounds they get gun shy. Better to get a few dozen shots off quickly!:)

cutthemdown
01-20-2013, 10:48 AM
I was responding to your comment:



Which was incorrect. The US military was very much in mind when the second amendment was drafted.

Several States also drafted language in 1776 and clarified it further.



The Founders saw standing armies in time of peace as 'dangerous to Liberty.'

We have not only allowed 'standing armies' in peace time, but built a military industrial complex that has become monolithic.

Sorry I was only trying to say by specific threat they didn't know exactly who might be the threat. Our own military, another country, or just for hunting and protection etc. I agree that our founders did not trust big govt with big armies.

My point was also more that know, in todays age, just because our guns would be useless against our modern military doesn't mean we no longer have a right to them, or a need. The founders wrote the constitution to be able to fit more then one scenario.

Good points though brit but im not saying i know what founders were thinking but I bet your right and they did feel maybe our own govt could become oppressive. Still most likely they felt the citizens my be needed to fight the British or French etc and they will need to be armed.

W*GS
01-20-2013, 10:51 AM
Have you paid any attention to how the last few American wars have gone?

Yep - opponents far more heavily armed and with good leadership and excellent tactics, none of which apply to your average American gun owner.

You don't have to stand out in the road and shoot at tanks to be a thorn in the military's side.

That would be stupid - but typical of what a gun owner would do.

It would take quite some time and a hell of a lot of work to get a gun owner up to Taliban level. They've had decades to figure it out.

If the gun owners really want to be a citizen militia to be able to serve as an effective counterweight to the US military, they're going to have to take that responsibility a hell of a lot more seriously. That doesn't mean lots of rounds down at the range, either.

Don't assume every member of the US military and national guard is going to be down with rolling thunder through residential neighborhoods on US soil. Especially since gun rights states tend to be heavily overrepresented among the ranks.

Don't assume that the gun owners will be fighting on the rebels' side, either.

cutthemdown
01-20-2013, 10:56 AM
Given that the NRA is all for armed guards patrolling all schools, they can create and fund such a program themselves - with 4+ million members, that ought not to be a problem. They'll have to take out liability insurance as well.

I'd be interested to see how the NRA vets applicants.

Great realistic idea. Then also we can say since its liberals who want to cool the earth they can pay all the extra for solar subsides. Then since conservatives like defense they can pay more tax for the military industrial complex. Uh oh though liberals wanted the healthcare plan you have to pay for all the poor people who need help buying coverage. Oooops and the food stamp welfare babies as well.

Oh and they dont vet applicants because there is no reason. What threat can giving a person an NRA card be? Thats like saying I wonder if save the whales vets people who join up to make sure they are worthy.

W*GS
01-20-2013, 11:34 AM
Great realistic idea.

Thanks!

Then also we can say since its liberals who want to cool the earth they can pay all the extra for solar subsides. Then since conservatives like defense they can pay more tax for the military industrial complex. Uh oh though liberals wanted the healthcare plan you have to pay for all the poor people who need help buying coverage. Oooops and the food stamp welfare babies as well.

Now, now, let's not get carried away. The NRA thinks armed guards in schools will fix the problem. Let's have them show their civic responsibility and take on the task themselves.

Oh and they dont vet applicants because there is no reason. What threat can giving a person an NRA card be? Thats like saying I wonder if save the whales vets people who join up to make sure they are worthy.

When you're talking folks with firearms patrolling schools, yeah, you better check 'em out. I don't doubt there's a few NRA members and/or gun owners who are forbidden being around children. The NRA wouldn't want those folks in schools.

W*GS
01-20-2013, 01:42 PM
5 injured after firearms go off at Ohio, N.C., Indiana gun shows (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting/index.html)

Uh-oh.

cutthemdown
01-20-2013, 10:04 PM
Why is the comparison unreasonable? It's unreasonable because your proposal was unreasonable. You could easily say that green energy is a liberal ideal. They should pay for all of its subsidies from their own paychecks.

cutthemdown
01-20-2013, 10:15 PM
Oh and since liberals are the ones who like welfare you can pay for that also ok.

Pony Boy
01-21-2013, 09:50 AM
5 injured after firearms go off at Ohio, N.C., Indiana gun shows (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting/index.html)

Uh-oh.

Innocent school children were gunned down by a mad man in ... a federal gun-free zone.

Uh-oh.

W*GS
01-21-2013, 09:55 AM
Innocent school children were gunned down by a mad man in ... a federal gun-free zone.

Uh-oh.

Ms. Lanza didn't properly secure her weapons. 20 kids paid the price for her irresponsibility.

Uh-oh.

broncocalijohn
01-21-2013, 10:00 AM
Americans are just too irresponsible with firearms.

Which group? Those with guns legally or those that obtained them illegally? I know when the assualt rifle ban talk in the 1990s cam about and it was reported that less than .05% of legal assualt rifles were used in a crime. There are millions of guns and people protect themselves with them everyday. How do you calculate the few retards as "Americans are just too irresponsible with firearms".

W*GS
01-21-2013, 10:08 AM
Which group? Those with guns legally or those that obtained them illegally? I know when the assualt rifle ban talk in the 1990s cam about and it was reported that less than .05% of legal assualt rifles were used in a crime. There are millions of guns and people protect themselves with them everyday. How do you calculate the few retards as "Americans are just too irresponsible with firearms".

These "few retards" account for ~100,000 injuries and deaths every year. They're busy.

What about the "few retards" who injured a total of five people at three gun shows (!) over the weekend?

broncocalijohn
01-21-2013, 10:13 AM
These "few retards" account for ~100,000 injuries and deaths every year. They're busy.

What about the "few retards" who injured a total of five people at three gun shows (!) over the weekend?

Without rehashing this whole thread, what is your solution? I am totally in favor of gun safety before someone buys their first gun. You add 100k injuries and deaths. Are these accidental injuries and deaths or does your statistic include injuries and death that were because of self defense? Also, how many of those that were accidental injuries or deaths were from illegal obtained guns? Please provide link.

Pony Boy
01-21-2013, 10:14 AM
Ms. Lanza didn't properly secure her weapons. 20 kids paid the price for her irresponsibility.

Uh-oh.

No, but don't you see that shouldn't matter because the federal government had passed legislation to make that a gun-free zone ......... so WTF, how could a gun show up in a gun-free zone? It's just like clips that hold over ten rounds, once the Feds pass a law it will be impossible for them to ever be used by a mad-man again. Federal legislation is a thing of beauty ..........we need more and more and more.

W*GS
01-21-2013, 10:31 AM
Without rehashing this whole thread, what is your solution? I am totally in favor of gun safety before someone buys their first gun.

How would that be enforced? Ideas?

You add 100k injuries and deaths. Are these accidental injuries and deaths or does your statistic include injuries and death that were because of self defense?

According to the CDC, there were

11,078 firearm homicides in 2010;
19,392 firearm suicides in 2010;
73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries in 2010.

There isn't sufficient data to determine self-defense deaths and injuries from what I could find.

Also, how many of those that were accidental injuries or deaths were from illegal obtained guns? Please provide link.

Since the NRA has forbidden most research into gun violence, because they perceive it as a threat, data are hard to come by.

Obama has changed that. Then we can get the facts and go from there.

W*GS
01-21-2013, 10:32 AM
No, but don't you see that shouldn't matter because the federal government had passed legislation to make that a gun-free zone ......... so WTF, how could a gun show up in a gun-free zone? It's just like clips that hold over ten rounds, once the Feds pass a law it will be impossible for them to ever be used by a mad-man again. Federal legislation is a thing of beauty ..........we need more and more and more.

Since all laws are broken by someone, they serve no purpose.

broncocalijohn
01-21-2013, 10:41 AM
No, but don't you see that shouldn't matter because the federal government had passed legislation to make that a gun-free zone ......... so WTF, how could a gun show up in a gun-free zone? It's just like clips that hold over ten rounds, once the Feds pass a law it will be impossible for them to ever be used by a mad-man again. Federal legislation is a thing of beauty ..........we need more and more and more.

Yeah, the 10 round gun clip isnt going to slow someone down too much. I don't own these type of guns but I figured out that if you want a lot of bullets strafing an area, why not tape two clips butt to butt and when one is out, flip it over and start shooting within 4 seconds. Hell, tape another one to the side and you got 30 shots off and you waste maybe 8 to 10 seconds in between. It is a difference but is it a huge difference?

broncocalijohn
01-21-2013, 10:46 AM
How would that be enforced? Ideas?

How hard would it be for any new gun buyer to take a safety class within the two week period they get their gun (In California). Everywhere else that doesn't have the restriction would be to take the class before purchasing the gun. I would favor the class be taken before anyways so they can also teach you what type of gun is best used for home safety, hunting, etc. I had to take a day long class to get my hunting license so not sure how hard it would be for individuals to take a gun safety class. They can also have a shortened class to renew every 10 years. I would not make it where they lose their guns but they couldn't purchase more if they don't renew.

W*GS
01-21-2013, 10:51 AM
How hard would it be for any new gun buyer to take a safety class within the two week period they get their gun (In California). Everywhere else that doesn't have the restriction would be to take the class before purchasing the gun. I would favor the class be taken before anyways so they can also teach you what type of gun is best used for home safety, hunting, etc. I had to take a day long class to get my hunting license so not sure how hard it would be for individuals to take a gun safety class. They can also have a shortened class to renew every 10 years. I would not make it where they lose their guns but they couldn't purchase more if they don't renew.

How would that work? Get a signoff from someone (who?) that Joe Blow had taken the course and would now be allowed to buy a gun?

W*GS
01-21-2013, 10:53 AM
It all depends on whether or not one finds ~100,000 injuries and deaths from the use of guns each and every year acceptable, or not.

Whether the 2nd Amendment is an impenetrable barrier against any kind of gun control, or if we can craft laws that recognize it but realize it's neither absolute nor unlimited.

I don't know the answers. Ideas?

BroncoBeavis
01-21-2013, 11:00 AM
These "few retards" account for ~100,000 injuries and deaths every year. They're busy.

We learn a lot of neat stuff from Wags. For instance, nations of 300 million with say 250 million private firearms would be much easier for our military to control than a nation of 30 million illiterates holding a million or so guns. Because Afghanis have Superhuman Nutsacks.

And now of course, without Firearms, there would be no more suicide. Or accidents.

1.2 million football related injuries last year Wags. Most of them children. How in the world can you live with yourself if you really care about the children? LOL

W*GS
01-21-2013, 11:05 AM
We learn a lot of neat stuff from Wags. For instance, nations of 300 million with say 250 million private firearms would be much easier for our military to control than a nation of 30 million illiterates holding a million or so guns. Because Afghanis have Superhuman Nutsacks.

Afghanis have a lot more and a lot more powerful weaponry than yer typical gun-totin' 'Merkin. They also have decades of experience in asymmetrical warfare.

The Swiss take their RKBA seriously and responsibly. Of course, that means actual militia service, mandatory military service, and a token professional military. If the NRA and the other gun rights groups advocated those things, instead of just more guns in more hands in more places, they'd be more credible.

BroncoBeavis
01-21-2013, 12:06 PM
Afghanis have a lot more and a lot more powerful weaponry than yer typical gun-totin' 'Merkin. They also have decades of experience in asymmetrical warfare.

The Swiss take their RKBA seriously and responsibly. Of course, that means actual militia service, mandatory military service, and a token professional military. If the NRA and the other gun rights groups advocated those things, instead of just more guns in more hands in more places, they'd be more credible.

Please. Most estimates put the Taliban at a troop strength of around 40,000. Which by other estimates is made up of about 20% hard core jihadists with the rest just along for the ride because they had no real alternative, or at least any better opportunity to make a living.

In a full on civil insurrection in the US, you'd see many times that many people fighting with actual military background and training. In a nation 15 times the size.

Simply put, our military does not currently have anything resembling the means to impose its will on the US population by force. It's not even up for rational debate.

W*GS
01-21-2013, 12:31 PM
Simply put, our military does not currently have anything resembling the means to impose its will on the US population by force. It's not even up for rational debate.

It's quite debatable.

Who says the gun owners will all fight against the military?

BroncoBeavis
01-21-2013, 01:28 PM
It's quite debatable.

Who says the gun owners will all fight against the military?

Didn't say they would. Hypotheticals are funny like that. Like I've said, things would be pretty bleak on either side if military suppression became a thinkable option.

Not every free gun owner would fight. Probably not even half. But the military wouldn't stay completely cohesive and just follow orders in such a dire situation either. It's pretty dumb to even try to guess what would've had to happen in the lead-up.

But it's plain enough to anyone with eyes that a military struggling to keep a couple third-rate 3rd world countries under wraps isn't up to the task of occupying a well-educated country with the 3rd most populous (and by far best armed) citizenry in the world.

And as far as a Constitutional argument goes, like I said earlier... If you're saying current gun restrictions have rendered America easily occupied, then you're essentially arguing that current restrictions have gone too far and violate the clear intent of the Constitution and it's authors and ratifiers.

I don't necessarily believe that to be the case. The main thinking in my argument is that our Constitutional rights should never hinge on headline politics and child-flanked political grandstanding.

W*GS
01-21-2013, 02:18 PM
But it's plain enough to anyone with eyes that a military struggling to keep a couple third-rate 3rd world countries under wraps isn't up to the task of occupying a well-educated country with the 3rd most populous (and by far best armed) citizenry in the world.

Again, the Afghanis have a few decades of experience in fighting asymmetric war, lots more better weapons, and a safe haven in Pakistan. The same cannot be said of Americans.

Chances are that the rebels would be painted as traitors and anti-American subversives. There may be a few holdouts here and there, but they wouldn't pose any serious threat to a tyrannical regime.

And as far as a Constitutional argument goes, like I said earlier... If you're saying current gun restrictions have rendered America easily occupied, then you're essentially arguing that current restrictions have gone too far and violate the clear intent of the Constitution and it's authors and ratifiers.

In that case, you better push to rescind the current gun control laws, to put us on a more-even footing with our potential overlords.

Sad, though, that you think our democracy is a fragile sham. Why?

I don't necessarily believe that to be the case. The main thinking in my argument is that our Constitutional rights should never hinge on headline politics and child-flanked political grandstanding.

What are your ideas to reduce the death toll we suffer from thanks to the use of guns? Any? Acceptable? The price of freedom?

BroncoBeavis
01-21-2013, 04:40 PM
Again, the Afghanis have a few decades of experience in fighting asymmetric war, lots more better weapons, and a safe haven in Pakistan. The same cannot be said of Americans.

Chances are that the rebels would be painted as traitors and anti-American subversives. There may be a few holdouts here and there, but they wouldn't pose any serious threat to a tyrannical regime.

A truly tyrannical regime would have far more people resisting than the few thousand hard core and military-grade-level armed Taliban fighters. This is evidenced by the fact that most of our casualties in Afghanistan come from opportunistic IEDs, not from direct engagement.

In that case, you better push to rescind the current gun control laws, to put us on a more-even footing with our potential overlords.

Sad, though, that you think our democracy is a fragile sham. Why?

Democracy isn't the goal. Never was. Freedom was the goal. Our founders viewed pure democracy as a potential danger in and of itself. Which is why they structured a Federal Republic designed to reign in some of the worst excesses of it. Democracy is not the same as freedom. They valued individual liberty far more than any form of pure democracy. See Federalists 9 and 10. This is a common mistake in modern progressivism. Checking boxes on a ballot is not freedom. For every 51%, there's a 49.

What are your ideas to reduce the death toll we suffer from thanks to the use of guns? Any? Acceptable? The price of freedom?

I've pointed to many actions that would save far more lives than the current slate of proposals in DC. Yet you won't give explicit support to any. Do you care less?

I've said repeatedly, my personal issue isn't so much with the proposals but with the complete lack of reasoning behind them. There is a certain segment of our population that simply don't view arms as a right, or a priority, and so to them it's "free" to force others to give them up. So it becomes their low-hanging fruit. An easy first priority.

Truth be told, this is a terrible example of exactly the kind of factionism the antifederalists predicted would be our eventual downfall.

Meck77
01-27-2013, 11:13 PM
Obama is saying things like America wants increased gun control yet his own party doesn't agree.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22458876/some-democrats-may-stand-way-obama-feinstein-gun

peacepipe
01-28-2013, 12:00 AM
Obama is saying things like America wants increased gun control yet his own party doesn't agree.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22458876/some-democrats-may-stand-way-obama-feinstein-gun

Yeah a couple red state Democrats are representative of the entire party.but then again what seperates the dems from rethugs is that we allow room for disagreement in our party.

cutthemdown
01-28-2013, 06:36 AM
Yeah a couple red state Democrats are representative of the entire party.but then again what seperates the dems from rethugs is that we allow room for disagreement in our party.

if Fienstien can't convince all democrats how do you expect her to convince enough republicans to get it passes. Also Dems never seem to offer anything juicy to repubs to get them to vote their way. I doubt any deal gets done, the assault weapons ban won't even make it to house IMO.

peacepipe
01-28-2013, 08:34 AM
if Fienstien can't convince all democrats how do you expect her to convince enough republicans to get it passes. Also Dems never seem to offer anything juicy to repubs to get them to vote their way. I doubt any deal gets done, the assault weapons ban won't even make it to house IMO.if rethugs would back off their my way or the highway approach to negotiations,they would.
As I've said an AR ban is highly unlikely,but universal background checks will likely pass.

cutthemdown
01-28-2013, 11:46 AM
We already have those in CA and i don't think they have made us safer. Most criminals don't care if they got caught without having went through a background check. When they finally get caught doing something they always have more to worry about then a charge like that.

That is funny to me though. Typical Dem stir people up like you are doing something big, then just pass a background check and tell people they are safer now. maybe create an agency that is tasked with background checks so you can hire a few more govt workers. In the end that is all this govt intrusion into our lives does. Create more jobs for the machine.

peacepipe
01-28-2013, 11:59 AM
We already have those in CA and i don't think they have made us safer. Most criminals don't care if they got caught without having went through a background check. When they finally get caught doing something they always have more to worry about then a charge like that.

That is funny to me though. Typical Dem stir people up like you are doing something big, then just pass a background check and tell people they are safer now. maybe create an agency that is tasked with background checks so you can hire a few more govt workers. In the end that is all this govt intrusion into our lives does. Create more jobs for the machine.

Yeah,but the seller would give **** if he's selling a gun to someone who doesn't pass a background check.
Again no one is saying that this will bring an end to all gun violence but to do absolutely nothing is not an option.

cutthemdown
01-28-2013, 02:05 PM
Yeah,but the seller would give **** if he's selling a gun to someone who doesn't pass a background check.
Again no one is saying that this will bring an end to all gun violence but to do absolutely nothing is not an option.

The only reason doing nothing isn't an option is because dems have decided they have to make it look like they did something. Also they never waste a chance to make more paperwork and some federal employee to look it over.

If you want to make people safer keep criminals locked up. The re-offending rate for people who commit violent crime is high.

You act like the only think we are saying no to is a background check. I don't mind that but i would rather just see a federal law that says all states must set up a background checking procedure and be done with it. The tacking on of things like pistol grip, clip size, flash suppressor, foldable stock is a joke it won't make things enough safer or at all to be worth it for the law abiding citizens who want those options. What isn't an option is letting the liberals start whittling away at the right for us to own firearms.

peacepipe
01-28-2013, 03:01 PM
The only reason doing nothing isn't an option is because dems have decided they have to make it look like they did something. Also they never waste a chance to make more paperwork and some federal employee to look it over.

If you want to make people safer keep criminals locked up. The re-offending rate for people who commit violent crime is high.

You act like the only think we are saying no to is a background check. I don't mind that but i would rather just see a federal law that says all states must set up a background checking procedure and be done with it. The tacking on of things like pistol grip, clip size, flash suppressor, foldable stock is a joke it won't make things enough safer or at all to be worth it for the law abiding citizens who want those options. What isn't an option is letting the liberals start whittling away at the right for us to own firearms.
I can agree to some extent as long as there is a minimum set of standards that meet fed requirements,like, you buy a gun from whoever you got go through a background check.

cutthemdown
01-28-2013, 08:26 PM
I can agree to some extent as long as there is a minimum set of standards that meet fed requirements,like, you buy a gun from whoever you got go through a background check.

I think background checks like Calif does are reasonable. Things like pistol grip or stock are silly. i guess grenade launcher also but i was thinking is there really a way to buy grenades? I'm trying to think of one time you here in the news a man with a grenade launcher blew up something today etc. Right? I mean do you really think we need a law saying no grenade launchers? but whatever I can go along with a backgrounc check for every sale of a gun at a dealer or store. But between family members and friends i think it should be easier. maybe just something you download, fill out, and mail back to govt.

But i won't argue its reasonable to make sure felons and people with diagnosed with mental illness dont get guns. I do worry though that if it got to the point govt has access to your mental health records people would be reluctant to seek help. What do you think about that issue peace?

Meck77
11-30-2013, 06:31 AM
And the kids figure out how to protect themselves..........Less government = Good.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/10/24/students-invent-simple-but-brilliant-way-to-thwart-school-shootings/?iid=obnetwork

houghtam
11-30-2013, 07:08 AM
And the kids figure out how to protect themselves..........Less government = Good.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/10/24/students-invent-simple-but-brilliant-way-to-thwart-school-shootings/?iid=obnetwork

No, we were told that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Not "ideas".

What a bunch of pussies.

:)