Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[wiegeabo]

On the off topic, there is no legal means within the Constitution to leave the union. Once you're a State, you're a State.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.


Now, back to the guns...

 

[Kable24]

edit

 

[Hotwire]

we are already starting to see some of this in a small form, with gun manufacturers neither creating or selling firearms to either government officials or police departments until the same firearms that government officials and police officers purchase are openly accessible to the American public.

In this capitalist society, all that's going to do is make one firearms manufacturer VERY rich. There's not a businessman on Earth who's going to turn away a monopoly. Especially if it's his competitors create it willingly.

 

[Kable24]

In this capitalist society, all that's going to do is make one firearms manufacturer VERY rich. There's not a businessman on Earth who's going to turn away a monopoly. Especially if it's his competitors create it willingly.

You'd be surprised about gun manufacturers and their loyalty to citizens and the 2nd amendment and what it truly means. Right now there is over 130 manufacturers refusing to deal with New York Police because of the NY Safe Act that is in place. Police depts. in some states are struggling to get ammo because manufacturers are refusing to sell to them.

 

[terry78]

Guns are more of a personal thing with a lot of these guys as opposed to just a business, that's why.

 

[dnno1]

Latest News:


Man Charged For Hunting In A Walmart Parking Lot

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/03/27/man-charged-for-hunting-in-a-walmart-parking-lot/

I am sure that when they asked him why he did it, I am sure he replied "because the buck stops here".

 

[hippie_hunter]

The same reason civilians are not allowed to have WMDs, make bombs or own military grade vehicles.

You should not be allowed to have items that jeopardize the lives of countless other Americans. That is like saying why can't I make copious amounts of C-4?

The biggest problem with your comparison is that a simple dictionary, let alone the Federal government, doesn't consider all the **** you just mentioned (WMDs, bombs, military grade vehicles, C4) to be firearms and the Constitution doesn't protect a person's right to own such things. Comparing firearms to high-grade weaponry is like comparing an apple to an orange.

Now while there is room for regulation in the Second Amendment, it still doesn't mean that the Federal government should be treating our citizens as potential criminals. A law abiding citizen should have the right to own what he wants that is protected under the Constitution.

Because it is made only for slaughter! Sorry, this libertarian reasoning is absurd in this case. If it means a few gun nuts are crying that they can only play with their rifles, hand guns and sawed off shotguns, so be it.

Your attitude is as selfish as the gun nuts who are crying like spoiled children.

 

[wiegeabo]

Here's a statistic. In 2011, 97% of murders by firearm in Chicago were by handgun.

So how does an assault weapons ban help here?

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/po...rPath/News/Statistical Reports/Murder Reports

 

[Handsome Rob]

Here's a statistic. In 2011, 97% of murders by firearm in Chicago were by handgun.

So how does an assault weapons ban help here?

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/po...rPath/News/Statistical Reports/Murder Reports

Because the decision-making process of the individuals you are up against is based primarily in emotion, not reason. And, their understanding of firearms is dictated to them by the DNC or Obama himself, both of whom are interested in maintaining control over the citizenry (in a "we're more intelligent and educated than you are, so we know better how to run your life than you do" sort of way) and don't really consider actual knowledge about firearms to be paramount in any discussion of gun legislation.

So, what you're left with is the double-whammy of arguing with people whose counter-argument is primarily emotional and rooted in a position of relative ignorance.

 

[Kable24]

I saw this on another board and wanted to share it because these should be the rules for this discussion...
You are not qualified to talk about gun control if one or more of the items on this list apply to you:

• You use the term “assault weapon” to describe firearms.
• You don’t understand the difference between semi-automatic and select fire.
• You think the AR in AR-15 stands for “assault rifle”.
• You refer to AR-15s as assault rifles.
• You refer to any semi-automatic weapon as an “assault rifle”
• You use the term “gun-nut.”
• Your knowledge of firearms is entirely based on movies and video games (Call of Duty, Act of Valor).
• You use the term “high-powered” to describe a firearm.
• You think a rifle’s lethality is determined by things such as collapsible stocks, barrel shrouds, flash hiders, and pistol grips.
• You don’t understand the difference in calibers of ammunition. Example, why you shouldn’t fire 5.56 out of a firearm chambered in .223.
• You base firearm ownership on what a person “needs”, when there is no legal precedent for need, especially for constitutional rights.
• You think the Constitution ‘gives’ you your rights.
• You have ever fought against internet censorship, but fought for gun control.
• You have ever used the 1st Amendment to defend your right to something, while saying that the 2nd Amendment is outdated and needs to go.
• You have ever said or that the Constitution needed to be scrapped.
• You aren’t familiar with the practice of carrying magazines and reloading a firearm, but support magazine round limitations as effective means of gun control.
• You believe “well-regulated” means ‘government controlled.’ Lrn2 18th century context.
• You think the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets, but the 1st Amendment is a living breathing document that protects text messages, emails, and electronic communication in general.
• You don’t know what a militia is, or you believe the National Guard means we have no need for the right to form militias
• You voted for/support Dianne Feinstein, Carolyn McCarthy, or Michael Bloomberg.
• You continuously ask gun owners to compromise, yet offer nothing in return other than “letting them keep their guns”
• You have ever used the phrase “common sense gun control” in support of an assault weapons ban, magazine limitation, or registration push.
• You think an assault weapons ban would have prevent school shootings. See- Columbine.
• You think government enforced prohibitions work in any shape or form.
• You’re unaware of the fact that mandatory background checks are already law.
• Your main source of news is either MSNBC or FOX.
• You think the Second Amendment has anything at all to do with protecting slavery.
• You get your talking points from the wealthy and media elite who all have their own heavily armed security.

 

[wiegeabo]

I will disagree with:
"You have ever used the 1st Amendment to defend your right to something, while saying that the 2nd Amendment is outdated and needs to go."

The Constitution provides for amendments. So if a large enough movement wanted to push through a change, or repeal, of the 2nd amendment, they're well within their rights to do so.

 

[Kable24]

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwy...9-background-checks-gun-purchases-under-obama

Since Obama has taken office there have been 70,291,049 background checks for people buying guns. I'm sure that number has jumped considerably since CT approved their moronic gun ban bill.

 

[wiegeabo]

So, I can't seem to find it in the thread even though I remember reading it, but it's my understanding that background checks are required at all gun shows.

Whether they're done or not is another matter. But they are required.

Or is that missing from some states/localities?

If you've got a source, I'd appreciate the link. Because I'm talking with someone that believes the opposite.

 

[Super Kal]

not all states require background checks at gun shows

 

[SV Fan]

• You have ever fought against internet censorship, but fought for gun control.

I would counter argue you fought against gun control but for marriage control, woman's vaginas control or weed control

 

[Kable24]

I would counter argue you fought against gun control but for marriage control, woman's vaginas control or weed control

Are you saying me personally have fought for that control? Because I can tell you, I don't care who gets married. I don't care what a woman does with her vagina and if people want to smoke up, more power to them. Just as I respect people do marry who they want, do what they want with their body and smoke, I only ask the same respect in allowing me to buy the types of guns I want.

 

[Kable24]

So, I can't seem to find it in the thread even though I remember reading it, but it's my understanding that background checks are required at all gun shows.

Whether they're done or not is another matter. But they are required.

Or is that missing from some states/localities?

If you've got a source, I'd appreciate the link. Because I'm talking with someone that believes the opposite.

not all states require background checks at gun shows

Let's clarify that. If they are a business with an FFL license then a background check needs to be done no matter what or the license holder will lose their FFL, be fined and possibly jail time.
a private seller can sell a rifle to anyone without a background check in some states. Me not having an FFL can sell one of my rifles to someone and no background check is required.

 

[SV Fan]

Are you saying me personally have fought for that control? Because I can tell you, I don't care who gets married. I don't care what a woman does with her vagina and if people want to smoke up, more power to them. Just as I respect people do marry who they want, do what they want with their body and smoke, I only ask the same respect in allowing me to buy the types of guns I want.

No I am saying that as a general rule to many gun supporters. I am fairly certain there are many libertarian gun supporters but I am guessing there is also many that use the rally cry "don't take away our liberties and freedoms" when it's about guns but who have no issues when it comes to taking people's rights on other issues and don't realize how big of a hypocrite they are for using that rally cry

 

[Kable24]

No I am saying that as a general rule to many gun supporters. I am fairly certain there are many libertarian gun supporters but I am guessing there is also many that use the rally cry "don't take away our liberties and freedoms" when it's about guns but who have no issues when it comes to taking people's rights on other issues and don't realize how big of a hypocrite they are for using that rally cry

True, but that goes both ways, when some anti gunners want to take away the "weapons of war" which they are not and save the children, yet allow and approve of 30, 000 abortions a year. Everyone is a hypocrite about something.

 

[Victarion]

It is interesting how when talks of bills going thrugh arise, gun sales spike. It is almost as if the public is trying to say something. I agree with you on that, Kable. Truth, honesty etc are matters of semantics, it seems. Hence I don't get upset when I see someone acting the hypocrite.

 

[Kable24]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._high-capacity_magazines_can_be_reloaded.html

I take extreme issue with politicians creating and supporting bills when they know absolutely nothing about the subject. Take this lady for example. She is discussing "high capacity magazine clips" There is no such thing as a magazine clip. It's an honest mistake and I catch my dad and friends calling mags clips, but then she goes on saying that once these magazines are empty then they are done. She doesn't understand that a magazine can be refilled with ammo. From what I have read she was the one who created this particular bill in CO.
I honestly believe people need to get educated and understand a subject before debating it.

 

[Hotwire]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._high-capacity_magazines_can_be_reloaded.html

I take extreme issue with politicians creating and supporting bills when they know absolutely nothing about the subject. Take this lady for example. She is discussing "high capacity magazine clips" There is no such thing as a magazine clip. It's an honest mistake and I catch my dad and friends calling mags clips, but then she goes on saying that once these magazines are empty then they are done. She doesn't understand that a magazine can be refilled with ammo. From what I have read she was the one who created this particular bill in CO.
I honestly believe people need to get educated and understand a subject before debating it.

At first I thought you were just pissed at the semantics of what was said. Then I read he actual quote. I agree, that's pretty stupid!

 

[Kable24]

Yeah, it was clearly about the magazines being the ammunition thing. I can forgive the confusion of clip/magazine issue.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Yeah, it was clearly about the magazines being the ammunition thing. I can forgive the confusion of clip/magazine issue.

Pretty stupid on her part. Almost on the same level as the New York congresswoman being asked what a barrel shroud was and saying it was something that goes on the shoulder.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

At an DCCC event in San Francisco, it appears Obama doesn't get the difference between automatic and semi-automatic either. He said that Lanza used a automatic when in fact he used a semiautomatic. The "semi" part always gets overlooked by gun control advocates. Also, he only mentions hunting and sporting being proper reasons for owning a gun but seems to have forgotten another reason: self-defense.

I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/04/remarks-president-dccc-event-san-francisco-ca