The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-07-2013, 03:23 AM   #201
Agamemnon
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 02:00 PM   #202
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,372

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post
Then why don't they ? Please explain
Democrats in the Senate such as majority leader Harry Reid will not allow a senate vote on an assault weapons ban, because they will be voted out of office if they do. It's not the NRA. It's not republican obstructionism. It's spineless democrats who are too chicken shiat to lose their elected office. How can that be if 90% of the population wants an assault weapons ban?
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 02:15 PM   #203
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 22,978

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Democrats in the Senate such as majority leader Harry Reid will not allow a senate vote on an assault weapons ban, because they will be voted out of office if they do. It's not the NRA. It's not republican obstructionism. It's spineless democrats who are too chicken shiat to lose their elected office. How can that be if 90% of the population wants an assault weapons ban?
No, it isn't that. A vote on that issue on its own merits wouldn't pass in Congress and they wouldn't have the # of votes to keep it moving forward or even have the ability to bring it to debate. The population itself may overwhelmingly be in favor of a ban on assault weapons, but that doesn't mean their Congressional representatives are.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 02:24 PM   #204
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,372

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
No, it isn't that. A vote on that issue on its own merits wouldn't pass in Congress and they wouldn't have the # of votes to keep it moving forward or even have the ability to bring it to debate. The population itself may overwhelmingly be in favor of a ban on assault weapons, but that doesn't mean their Congressional representatives are.
Harry Reid will never vote for an assault weapons ban. The reason he won't is because the majority of his constituents will vote him out if he does.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 03:18 PM   #205
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 22,978

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Harry Reid will never vote for an assault weapons ban. The reason he won't is because the majority of his constituents will vote him out if he does.
He has taken a lot of unpopular votes that would go against what his constituents believe, yet he keeps getting elected.

So once again, nope.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 05:19 PM   #206
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,372

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
He has taken a lot of unpopular votes that would go against what his constituents believe, yet he keeps getting elected.

So once again, nope.
Lol. Why won't he vote for an assault weapons ban then? I've been told 90% of the population wants it, and Reid ain't skeered of his constituency. He's the majority leader of the senate so he pretty much runs the show in his house of congress. Why won't he go on record and vote against assault weapons or high capacity mags?
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 05:58 PM   #207
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 22,978

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

I already stated that. It was dropped from the current bill because they don't believe that having that amendment in there will allow them to get the number of votes necessary to pass the legislation they are already going for. It seems that they would rather start making progress somewhere and get what they can now, than have something like that be a poison pill to the overall bill. Happens a lot with legislation.

Do you think that it would get the majority vote in Congress? I highly doubt it. Stating that Reid won't bring it to a vote now because he will get voted out is absurd. Primary reason? He isn't even up for contest in 2014. Lol. Derp.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 06:13 PM   #208
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,372

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
I already stated that. It was dropped from the current bill because they don't believe that having that amendment in there will allow them to get the number of votes necessary to pass the legislation they are already going for. It seems that they would rather start making progress somewhere and get what they can now, than have something like that be a poison pill to the overall bill. Happens a lot with legislation.

Do you think that it would get the majority vote in Congress? I highly doubt it. Stating that Reid won't bring it to a vote now because he will get voted out is absurd. Primary reason? He isn't even up for contest in 2014. Lol. Derp.
Why won't Reid specifically vote for an assault weapons ban and magazine restriction?
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 06:20 PM   #209
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 22,978

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Why won't Reid specifically vote for an assault weapons ban and magazine restriction?
I have already given my answer.

Do you know how legislation is introduced and formed in Congress?
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 06:43 PM   #210
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,372

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
I have already given my answer.

Do you know how legislation is introduced and formed in Congress?
Lol. You are so desperate to act like you know your head from your ass it's cute. Someday when you have accomplished anything in your life, get back to me and explain why Harry Reid said an assault weapons ban would not have 40 votes "using the most optimistic numbers" in a Democrat controlled senate. Because that's what he said, much to the lamentation of Dianne Fienstein. Study it out (when possible) between bong hits down in granny's basement.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...-bill/2000119/
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 07:43 PM   #211
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 22,978

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Lol. You are so desperate to act like you know your head from your ass it's cute. Someday when you have accomplished anything in your life, get back to me and explain why Harry Reid said an assault weapons ban would not have 40 votes "using the most optimistic numbers" in a Democrat controlled senate. Because that's what he said, much to the lamentation of Dianne Fienstein. Study it out (when possible) between bong hits down in granny's basement.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...-bill/2000119/
I have already read the article(s) regarding Reid's statements and I have re-iterated those points he has made on the Senate not having enough votes to be able to pass it. I think there are quite a few easy reasons for him to come to that conclusion. Most are self-evident, but apparently beyond your comprehension. It isn't my fault that you have a very limited understanding of the legislative process. That is your own fault.

As you have stated, you think he is scared to bring it to a vote because if he does, he will be voted out. Probably one of the most absurd conclusions one could come to (and quite simple minded) considering he isn't up for re-election and has voted against the will of his people on issues that effect the state of Nevada far more than a ban on assault weapons.

The only person acting desperate in this thread is you. Hence reaching for the low-ball personal attacks when you can't come up with the cognitive capacity to approach a political argument from a higher mental standpoint than a seventh grader who just prepped for his first Lincoln-Douglas debate session.

Continue to rock on with your awesome guns in your mega mansion. But don't worry, if your arm falls off after patting yourself on the back too much, I am sure you could surgically repair it yourself.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 08:17 PM   #212
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
The population itself may overwhelmingly be in favor of a ban on assault weapons, but that doesn't mean their Congressional representatives are.
.....and that doesn't concern you?
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 08:00 AM   #213
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZONA View Post
The constitution allows Congress to raise and support an army for no longer than two years, according to section 8. As opposed to the language of the next line which is to provide and maintain an provide for a navy.
The Continental Congress established the Continental Army in 1775 to fight the revolution. The Legion of the Unites States was established in 1792- 1796 to fight the Native Americans, which means it was established and renewed once.
The Congress re-raised the army for the war of 1812 and Mexican-American War from 1846-1848.
Once again for the Civil War Congress called up the state militias to form an army.
It was not until the late 19th / early 20th century that the current standing army was formed.
Taken from section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the United States Constitution.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.


So you see, back in the day, there was no standing full time military force. A well regulated militia was necessary for the defense of the United State. There is a full time standing military today. The military IS the well regulated militia. The militia is no longer the "people".


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms was because the "people" were the militia, the military. The full time standing military today is the well regulated militia. They keep and bare arms. The people should not keep and bare arms, they are not the militia anymore and it's not necessary for the security of the sate. The military is what's necessary for the security of the state. There's no way you could manage and regulate everybody now who has a gun. For god sake we don't even do back ground checks on half the people who buy guns. That's NOT WELL REGULATED.


This post is such epic bull****, it's unbelievable. Any explanation for why every Supreme Court ruling going back to the beginning as well as every founding father's comment on the topic regards the 2nd Amendment as an individual right?

There was actually a debate between the anti-federalists and federalists about standing armies, the RKBA and militias. To paraphrase:

Anti-Federalists: "Under this Constitution, a strong central government with a standing army would be a threat to the people's liberty."

Federalists: "Nah, so long as the people themselves have the right to keep and bear arms, they'll be able to act as a counterbalance to a strong federal government with a standing army."

Zona: "You know, we really don't need the right to keep and bear arms anymore now that we have a strong central government with a standing army!"

You have the history of the 2nd Amendment exactly backwards.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 08:46 AM   #214
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 22,978

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
.....and that doesn't concern you?
Elected officials should represent the will of the people.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 08:59 AM   #215
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,863

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
This post is such epic bull****, it's unbelievable. Any explanation for why every Supreme Court ruling going back to the beginning as well as every founding father's comment on the topic regards the 2nd Amendment as an individual right?

There was actually a debate between the anti-federalists and federalists about standing armies, the RKBA and militias. To paraphrase:

Anti-Federalists: "Under this Constitution, a strong central government with a standing army would be a threat to the people's liberty."

Federalists: "Nah, so long as the people themselves have the right to keep and bear arms, they'll be able to act as a counterbalance to a strong federal government with a standing army."

Zona: "You know, we really don't need the right to keep and bear arms anymore now that we have a strong central government with a standing army!"

You have the history of the 2nd Amendment exactly backwards.
Funny that you bring up SCOTUS,considering they ruled guns can be regulated,including the ban of certain guns.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 09:23 AM   #216
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
This post is such epic bull****, it's unbelievable. Any explanation for why every Supreme Court ruling going back to the beginning as well as every founding father's comment on the topic regards the 2nd Amendment as an individual right?

There was actually a debate between the anti-federalists and federalists about standing armies, the RKBA and militias. To paraphrase:

Anti-Federalists: "Under this Constitution, a strong central government with a standing army would be a threat to the people's liberty."

Federalists: "Nah, so long as the people themselves have the right to keep and bear arms, they'll be able to act as a counterbalance to a strong federal government with a standing army."

Zona: "You know, we really don't need the right to keep and bear arms anymore now that we have a strong central government with a standing army!"

You have the history of the 2nd Amendment exactly backwards.
It would be easier to take this argument as more than an anachronism if there were any serious efforts by the gun nuts to form "well-regulated militias" that could theoretically act as a realistic counter-balance to the government's standing army. But such "well-regulated militias" as would have any prayer against the government's army simply don't exist, and as far as I know, there aren't any serious efforts to change that. So, this type of argument is nothing more than rhetorical. No one takes that argument seriously, including the gun nuts. After all, if they did, they would have made real efforts to form a group that could have a realistic chance to thwart the government. They haven't (at least not in any significant numbers).

Last edited by BroncoInferno; 04-08-2013 at 09:26 AM..
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 09:27 AM   #217
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Funny that you bring up SCOTUS,considering they ruled guns can be regulated,including the ban of certain guns.
Did anyone argue otherwise? Speech, and the Press is also regulated in certain ways. That does not naturally lead to the assumption that the 1st Amendment is no longer really necessary (like the argument I addressed regarding the 2nd Amendment)

The entire Bill of Rights was basically written under the premise that government couldn't always be trusted. Why is it that only the 2nd Amendment is always so easily dismissed under the opposite pretense?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 09:35 AM   #218
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno View Post
It would be easier to take this argument as more than an anachronism if there were any serious efforts by the gun nuts to form "well-regulated militias" that could theoretically act as a realistic counter-balance to the government's standing army. But such "well-regulated militias" as would have any prayer against the government's army simply don't exist, and as far as I know, there aren't any serious efforts to change that. So, this type of argument is nothing more than rhetorical. No one takes that argument seriously, including the gun nuts. After all, if they did, they would have made real efforts to form a group that could have a realistic chance to thwart the government. They haven't (at least not in any significant numbers).
You need to look at the title of the thread. If you think resistance to something as tyrannical as firearms confiscation could be limited to a few lone gun nuts, you're fooling yourself. Counter to what you're saying, our Government lacks the kind of power it would need to truly disarm the United States. Which is why certain segments engage in so much seemingly pointless incrementalism. It's all they're capable of at this point.

The only thing that will change that over time is a people who don't understand their history, or are otherwise apathetic to it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 10:58 AM   #219
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You need to look at the title of the thread. If you think resistance to something as tyrannical as firearms confiscation could be limited to a few lone gun nuts, you're fooling yourself. Counter to what you're saying, our Government lacks the kind of power it would need to truly disarm the United States. Which is why certain segments engage in so much seemingly pointless incrementalism. It's all they're capable of at this point.
The only way gun owners could create a realistic defense to the government would be to organize into "well-regulated militias" of significant numbers. No such militias exist, and no serious efforts are being made to form them. Individual gun owners would pose no threat to full government force (they won't be able to organize on the fly), and anyone who believes otherwise is highly delusional.

Quote:
The only thing that will change that over time is a people who don't understand their history, or are otherwise apathetic to it.
Your arrogant blustering aside, your biased interpretation of history is hardly the final word.
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:37 PM   #220
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno View Post
The only way gun owners could create a realistic defense to the government would be to organize into "well-regulated militias" of significant numbers. No such militias exist, and no serious efforts are being made to form them. Individual gun owners would pose no threat to full government force (they won't be able to organize on the fly), and anyone who believes otherwise is highly delusional.
Our government's spent the better part of 50 years learning that while they're great at blowing stuff up, they struggle to govern even modestly armed people without their consent.

Quote:
Your arrogant blustering aside, your biased interpretation of history is hardly the final word.
My Bias is towards foundational principle. Do you believe the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:57 PM   #221
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,863

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Our government's spent the better part of 50 years learning that while they're great at blowing stuff up, they struggle to govern even modestly armed people without their consent.



My Bias is towards foundational principle. Do you believe the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right?
The right to bear arms isn't absolute.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:10 PM   #222
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Our government's spent the better part of 50 years learning that while they're great at blowing stuff up, they struggle to govern even modestly armed people without their consent.
To the extent that there have been struggles in Afghanistan and Iraq, those have not been due to armed individuals. It's been the result of armed, organized, and well-trained groups. No such groups exist in the U.S., and they won't sprout spontaneously if needed.

Quote:
My Bias is towards picking and choosing from the historical data to "prove" my preferred vision of foundational principle.
FYP.

By the way, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would probably give you two different responses if you asked them about "foundational principle," and Ben Franklin a third still. The Founders weren't some monolithic bloc sharing the same opinions on all subjects anymore than politicians today are. For anyone to appeal to "foundational principle" or the "intent of the Founders" is nothing more than self-serving rhetoric; it's not historical.

Quote:
Do you believe the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right?
Carte blanche? No, and neither do you (and, more importantly, neither does the Supreme Court). The problem is, the Founders had something different in mind when discussing "arms" in the 18th century. For anyone to try and pretend to know what the opinions of the Founders would be regarding arms in the 21st century is ludicrous. They formulated 18th century solutions to their 18th century problems. The constitution isn't Holy Writ; it's chock full of anachronisms. That's why Jefferson said the constitution should be ripped up and rewritten every 20 years.

Last edited by BroncoInferno; 04-08-2013 at 01:12 PM..
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:24 PM   #223
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,210

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Resistance is futile. Submit to your government and OBEY all orders. Relinquish all rights or suffer the consequences.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:26 PM   #224
ZONA
Ring of Famer
 
ZONA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 9,772

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
This post is such epic bull****, it's unbelievable. Any explanation for why every Supreme Court ruling going back to the beginning as well as every founding father's comment on the topic regards the 2nd Amendment as an individual right?

There was actually a debate between the anti-federalists and federalists about standing armies, the RKBA and militias. To paraphrase:

Anti-Federalists: "Under this Constitution, a strong central government with a standing army would be a threat to the people's liberty."

Federalists: "Nah, so long as the people themselves have the right to keep and bear arms, they'll be able to act as a counterbalance to a strong federal government with a standing army."

Zona: "You know, we really don't need the right to keep and bear arms anymore now that we have a strong central government with a standing army!"

You have the history of the 2nd Amendment exactly backwards.

So what if there was a debate. Did their debate change the constitution? You're simply kidding yourself if you think the American people baring arms could mount even a remote threat to our government and military such as ours is today. The early forefather could only look into the future so far there bud. You like to suggest that us fighting terror in Afghanistan would be even remotely the same as taking care of some pockets of resistance here. Gimme a break. How well did the German people resist the Nazi party? Somewhat at first but they all fell in line sooner or later. They dealt with pockets of resistance here and there. It was only when the Nazi party decided to go way beyond just changing the politics of Germany, did they fall. It would be even more lopsided today with the intelligence, satellites, jets, tanks, drones and who knows what else our military has today. You think some back ass woods clans with some AR-15's could overthrow our military? There's no way the "people" could organize to that degree. Not with how advanced the government and military are today.
ZONA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:52 PM   #225
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,210

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Are those in the military not also "the people"?
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Denver Broncos