Originally Posted by mkporter
A few points:
a) 1. I don't give a **** about what you are willing to accept from me on anything.
b) My comments were in response to your declaration that people were right to be paranoid about their guns because of Obama. You apparently started reading (or at least started highlighting) after I stated this point directly. I noted that Obama has shown absolutely no desire to do anything about gun control, despite many high profile gun related mass killings. 2. I ask again, why should people be paranoid about Obama and their guns?
c) 3. Again, please note, I didn't make the argument that restricting gun rights was the correct answer to the mass killings, only that the political pressure caused by these events makes gun control discussions inevitable and unavoidable. The response would pretty much have been the same with W. still in the white house.
Exactly. So a discussion of where the line should be should not be considered so radical. No one is suggesting we go and take everyone's guns away. 4. Some people are just asking if a Bushmaster AR-15 with a 30 round magazine falls into the category of weapons you listed above.
Valid point. I was being a little hyperbolic to demonstrate a point, and I over stated.
5.And here's where you lose me again. If the purpose of owning a weapon is to protect yourself from the federal government, then you're fighting a losing battle. You've already ceded the rights above to own firepower that might help you in anyway against the feds. A fed comes knocking, and you shoot him? You are finished. Plain and simple.
6. The protections against our government turning tyrannical are not contained in the second amendment. They are contained in the right to vote, the checks and balances in the three branches of government, civilian leadership of the military, the freedom of speech and assembly, and the due process of law. The second amendment was written at a time when we didn't have a strong national military, and external threats required that we had "well-regulated" militias.
7. I'd also like to point out that you've refused at every turn to discuss the math I presented on the bullet purchase (you know, your original outrage), and at this point, I will only accept a response from you on this. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.
1. So, you only want more gun legislation without dealing with the violence fed to the masses from the entertainment industry? Again, and again and again, if more gun restrictions are going to be in place with these new laws the Obama is drawing up (Biden is actually doing it) then YOU MUST acknowledge that there are other issues that coincide with these shootings like the violence in movies, tv and video games. If you don't agree with this, we have nothing to discuss. A simple yes or no will suffice.
2. Obama via Biden is in the process of writing legislation for more restrictive gun laws and he's talked about this in several speeches including his state of the union address, right? Correct me if I'm wrong here, Also democrates like that woman from CA (feinstein?) has legislation on the books for gun restrictions.
3. See point one. I know what you are saying, now try to understand what I am saying.
4. The legislation that is being written affects much more than this one gun, it's much more pervasive. If it passes it will make millions of people criminals because they already own these weapons. How are the feds going to enforce this? Are they going to go to everyone's house who owns these type of guns and ask for them? Are they going to grandfather in the weapons already out there and just enforce new gun sales? How are they going to regulate all this stuff. IMHO, it's just an excuse for more spending by the feds as they will now have to substantially increase their numbers to enforce this crap. In other words, it's just more taxes and more waste by the feds.
5. How can I lose you on this simple point--the feds are changing the rules!!! You want to say "well this has never happened in the past, that is, I'm not afraid of the feds abusing their power because it (as far as I know) has never happened to anyone, I'm more afraid of my neighbor the Big Brother!" The feds are expanding, see the DHS as EXAMPLE A. All I'm saying is that this is another stepping stone into the a statist type of government where personal freedoms are abandoned.
6. There are many checks and balances against the federal governement, one of which is the right to bear arms. The others are as you mentioned like the first amendment. One of the most important checks and balances against tyranny is the right of the states. However, that has been eroded too over the years and now the feds overrule the states on everything. Point being theres been a steady erosion of the rights of the people and the states for many years. Obama is now using executive orders in ways that were never used by any previous president. Yes, executive orders have been used in the past but not for the reasons the president is using them. Obama is setting new precedent in the ways he is using executive orders and I and many others see this as yet another erosing of democracy.
7. You didn't acknowledge my point where I said if you are going to force more gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens you also have to force restricitions on the entertainment industry that promotes gun violence. Tell me yes or no on that!
As for the numbers you discussed, I'm still not buying it. When you read the article the feds state that these 1.6 billion rounds are needed for training. Tell me why then they are buying hollow point ammo? When you go to the gun range you shoot FMJ ammo, not hollow point ammo. Hollow point ammo is much more expensive because it is designed to break apart upon impact doing much more damage to flesh. So, in fact, the feds are buying a lot of ammo for killing people, not for training.
I've answered your question, now answer mine.