Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[SV Fan]

Dude, I have nearly zero faith in the major parties. They are both corrupt and bad. Just lesser evils of each other is all. I rather deal with Democrats than Republicans. Every time I think I might vote for a Republican in 2016 (Rand Paul, Huntsman Jr, even Christie), they (other members of the National Party) end up going hurr durr and I keep sticking with the LP. Hell, I'm gonna try start donating to the LP here in NC in the upcoming weeks since I got a part time job.

All I am saying is if one believes the Government is out to get you, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and a host of other CPAC favs might not be your best source of information(who seems to push the Republicans are the good guys, while the Democrats are the bad guys in this situation). I may not be a fan of Alex Jones but at least he is consistent that both sides suck and are equally guilty when it comes to government takeover(but he seems to be more fringe then your Glen Becks).

 

[Fading]

All I am saying is if one believes the Government is out to get you, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and a host of other CPAC favs might not be your best source of information(who seems to push the Republicans are the good guys, while the Democrats are the bad guys in this situation). I may not be a fan of Alex Jones but at least he is consistent that both sides suck and are equally guilty when it comes to government takeover(but he seems to be more fringe then your Glen Becks).

At times they can be almost like modern day snake oil salesman. They tell crowds EXACTLY what they want to hear, while promoting themselves. I mean most politicians do, but most politicians also do other things as well (like actually work). People like Palin, or Beck just go from convention to convention, writing books, and generally making a living off of shameless self promotion while pandering to people's fears. If you have a room full of people who are afraid that the gov's going to take their guns, and you convince them that only you/your group is looking out for their interest. That "they" are coming for you, that only a gun stands in between you and death, and then plug your book on your way out. It's in the best interest of the people you mentioned to spread misinformation, and keep you afraid by over embellishing things to keep people coming back.

I watched a Daily Show clip of a recent NRA rally/thing, and aside from Stewart pointing out some hilarious hypocrisy in what the speakers were saying from one sentence to the next (literally contradicting themselves a sentence later). I also was hearing the clips of speech after speech from various speakers back to back. They almost all had the exact same message, and little of it sounded like an actual plea as to why people should have guns. Most of it just sounded like they had separate agendas, and were using gun control as a jumping off point to self promote, or trash other political organizations.

Personally, if I were a staunch gun rights supporter, people like that that have their own best interest at hear, instead of what's best as a whole, are the last people I'd want representing me. That's why we end up with so much fodder for shows like the Daily Show to make fun of, or news stations to play over and over, while picking it apart all day.

 

[Hotwire]

They are sure as hell out to get my money?

 

[dnno1]

[YT]0c4f4NJSB_4[/YT]

 

[dnno1]

Border-State Gun Dealers Must Report Sales, Court Rules
http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-243781/

 

[Destructus86]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/16/chicago-weekend-gun-violence/2428769/

The irony is that the area was labeled a gun free zone with strict gun control laws.

Gang members don't follow those laws....I know, it's a shocker.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/16/chicago-weekend-gun-violence/2428769/

The irony is that the area was labeled a gun free zone with strict gun control laws.

Gang members don't follow those laws....I know, it's a shocker.

Yeah, all those shooting deaths in areas known for heavy gang activity. It was a nice warm weekend here, perfect time for the animals (gang bangers) in the city to start shooting each other. Gun restrictions won't help those areas, they're a lost cause.

 

[dnno1]

 

[Thundercrack85]

He's really comparing a brawl that ended with someone getting shot dead, to a man shooting up an elementary school?

 

[dnno1]

He's really comparing a brawl that ended with someone getting shot dead, to a man shooting up an elementary school?

You putting a value on a human life?

 

[Hotwire]

It is funny watching Bill squirm at the suggestion of arming every black man in the country.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Talk about twisting things. I am in favor of any law abiding citizen, black or white, who can pass a background check and get the proper credentials, training, etc to be armed in order to protect themselves.
To say we should arm "black America" is a bit naive, as some blacks (just like some whites) would and should be disqualified from owning or possessing a firearm.

He's really comparing a brawl that ended with someone getting shot dead, to a man shooting up an elementary school?

^ This.

You putting a value on a human life?

You have to admit that the case where Trayvon Martin was killed, as sad as that is, does not compare to a man murdering multiple children while they are at school.
The circumstances were completely different, and I should point out, Zimmerman was acquitted of the charges.
Its not about one life being more important than another, its about a completely different set of circumstances (and a larger body count).

 

[SV Fan]

To say we should arm "black America" is a bit naive, as some blacks (just like some whites) would and should be disqualified from owning or possessing a firearm.

If you want to pass gun control measures arm black men and scare the hell out of white people. Worked for Reagen when he was the Governor of California. lol

 

[mrvlknight21]

If you want to pass gun control measures arm black men and scare the hell out of white people. Worked for Reagen when he was the Governor of California. lol

Not sure what you mean

 

[dnno1]

Talk about twisting things. I am in favor of any law abiding citizen, black or white, who can pass a background check and get the proper credentials, training, etc to be armed in order to protect themselves.
To say we should arm "black America" is a bit naive, as some blacks (just like some whites) would and should be disqualified from owning or possessing a firearm.

I think that the fact that there would be people who would be disqualified from owning firearms would go without saying (for that matter they are still arming themselves anyway), but according to the logic of the gun lobby, that would be the solution to the problem with violence in "black America" since (according to them) "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun" is with "a good guy with a gun". Are you trying to tell me (inspite your comment of "black or white") that black people are not law abiding citizens who can pass a background check?

^ This.

You have to admit that the case where Trayvon Martin was killed, as sad as that is, does not compare to a man murdering multiple children while they are at school.
The circumstances were completely different, and I should point out, Zimmerman was acquitted of the charges.
Its not about one life being more important than another, its about a completely different set of circumstances (and a larger body count).

A lot of you fail to realize that the People of the State of Florida vs. George Zimerman verdict sent a powerful message to society. It basically said that it is okay to shoot an unarmed teenager as long as he is black. You might try to deny that or marginalize it , but that's basically what it did. Now, if nothing is done about this, you can expect to see more innocent young black males killed in that manner than there ever was at Sandy Hook Elementary School (it probably already has).

This is a loophole in the "stand your ground law". It allows a person to basically stalk another just because he suspects that person is in the act of committing a crime. Because the victim is dead, it doesn't leave room for that person to tell their side of the story. What ever happened to dissuading a person from taking the law into their own hands and leaving it up to law enforcement? I am sorry, but this can't go on like this.

 

[Destructus86]

So, I recently read that violent crimes involving guns are down, but suicides using guns are up. That seems to me there is more of a social issue going on, not a gun issue.

But regardless...the second we allow the government to take away ANY of our rights we get on a very slippery slope. If they are allowed to take one of our rights away...what stops them from continuing the trend of removing rights "for our safety"?

 

[dnno1]

So, I recently read that violent crimes involving guns are down, but suicides using guns are up. That seems to me there is more of a social issue going on, not a gun issue.

But regardless...the second we allow the government to take away ANY of our rights we get on a very slippery slope. If they are allowed to take one of our rights away...what stops them from continuing the trend of removing rights "for our safety"?

I don't think you should have the right to take another person's right to live, especially when it is not clear that it was in self defense.

 

[Destructus86]

Wrong threat post. disregard

 

[Destructus86]

I don't think you should have the right to take another person's right to live, especially when it is not clear that it was in self defense.

If they are in your house. They lose that right. Gun or not, they would never leave my house alive.

 

[dnno1]

If they are in your house. They lose that right. Gun or not, they would never leave my house alive.

The way you just said it that would mean anyone entering your house. I seriously doubt that you could get away with it if you murdered someone intimately involved with you just because they were in your house.

 

[OstrichsRevenge]

So, I recently read that violent crimes involving guns are down, but suicides using guns are up. That seems to me there is more of a social issue going on, not a gun issue.

But regardless...the second we allow the government to take away ANY of our rights we get on a very slippery slope. If they are allowed to take one of our rights away...what stops them from continuing the trend of removing rights "for our safety"?

It's interesting, people are split on the whole Edward Snowden thing and some call him a traitor even though he exposed the government's blatant violation of the US citizens' right to privacy (by the Fourth Amendment), but they all lose their freaken minds when someone suggests that it might be a good idea to make it harder for just anyone to buy semi-automatic weapons. You are asking about the government taking away one of your rights (the right to bear arms), but what about the one they already took away? The right to privacy? Or is that okay as long as they don't take away your guns?

 

[Destructus86]

It's interesting, people are split on the whole Edward Snowden thing and some call him a traitor even though he exposed the government's blatant violation of the US citizens' right to privacy (by the Fourth Amendment), but they all lose their freaken minds when someone suggests that it might be a good idea to make it harder for just anyone to buy semi-automatic weapons. You are asking about the government taking away one of your rights (the right to bear arms), but what about the one they already took away? The right to privacy? Or is that okay as long as they don't take away your guns?

Oh, i'm totally against them taking away our right to privacy.

The problem is people are so complacent in the US that we seem to be totally fine with the government slowly taking away our rights.

 

[dnno1]

Oh, i'm totally against them taking away our right to privacy.

The problem is people are so complacent in the US that we seem to be totally fine with the government slowly taking away our rights.

There is one person (or a class of persons) who can take away your right to privacy, and that person is a judge. The Edward Snowden/NSA Leak scandal was all based on the premise that the government, through the efforts of the NSA were spying (or in this case monitoring) all of your phone records. The thing is that the government had the power to do that since they got a court order prior to the fact.

 

[Destructus86]

There is one person (or a class of persons) who can take away your right to privacy, and that person is a judge. The Edward Snowden/NSA Leak scandal was all based on the premise that the government, through the efforts of the NSA were spying (or in this case monitoring) all of your phone records. The thing is that the government had the power to do that since they got a court order prior to the fact.

Except that the NSA violated the court order...to which they likely assumed would never be caught.

 

[dnno1]

Except that the NSA violated the court order...to which they likely assumed would never be caught.

That is what the media and senators say, but ultimately it is for the court to decide whether the order was violated or not now isn't it?