Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[Kelly]

How about you do both? That is common sense.

And while we are at it, let's take their drugs away as well.....oh yeah, and Mexico.....Mexico can do the same thing...yeah, that'll happen. Soon I'm sure....

 

[wiegeabo]

How about you do both? After all, if the criminals don't have them then there's not much point in Joe Public having them either is there? That is common sense.

Um, sure there is. There collecting them. There's hunting. There's sport shooting/target practice.

And there's still defending oneself from an attacker, even if they don't have a gun.

 

[enterthemadness]

And while we are at it, let's take their drugs away as well.....oh yeah, and Mexico.....Mexico can do the same thing...yeah, that'll happen. Soon I'm sure....

A North American Union ain't forming anytime soon it looks like, so Mexico and Canada can do whatever they want with guns and drugs for all I care.

 

[Kelly]

A North American Union ain't forming anytime soon it looks like, so Mexico and Canada can do whatever they want with guns and drugs for all I care.

Um, nevermind.....it will take too long to explain.

 

[enterthemadness]

Um, nevermind.....it will take too long to explain.

I was being a smarty pants.

If we took guns from good and bad guys here...maybe I'm wrong, but Mexico has cartels that would just smuggle in guns over here. So we would have to work with them (Mexico) to make sure cartels didn't do that, even though that is Mexcio problem, but they border us soooooo...

 

[Victarion]

How about you do both? After all, if the criminals don't have them then there's not much point in Joe Public having them either is there? That is common sense.

If you take the guns from the criminals, why take them from the law abiding citizens? By nature of their moniker, "law abiding citizens", they won't use the guns for anything that would break the law.

 

[Kelly]

I was being a smarty pants.

If we took guns from good and bad guys here...maybe I'm wrong, but Mexico has cartels that would just smuggle in guns over here. So we would have to work with them (Mexico) to make sure cartels didn't do that, even though that is Mexcio problem, but they border us soooooo...

Oh thank goodness, because I just did not have the time.....lol

 

[jmc]

If you take the guns from the criminals, why take them from the law abiding citizens? By nature of their moniker, "law abiding citizens", they won't use the guns for anything that would break the law.

Do I really have to point out the bleeding obvious with that statement?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Do I really have to point out the bleeding obvious with that statement?

That everyone is a potential criminal thus everyone needs to be disarmed? Real good logic there.

 

[Victarion]

Do I really have to point out the bleeding obvious with that statement?

Yes.

 

[Hotwire]

Just saw this posted on Facebook. Thoughts??

 

[Kelly]

I've seen many videos like that....and this stuff scares the hell out of me.

 

[Hotwire]

Borrowed this from the Republican party thread.

pretty funny stuff

http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews...orities-in-mailer-opposing-pro-voting-/24038/

Conservative Group Photoshops Out Minorities In Mailer Opposing Pro-Voting Legislation

Here is the original picture

Here is the photoshoped one

You can click the link to find out what was photshopped

So, verifying someone's identity and confirming their eligibility is a MUST for voting and will stop voter fraud but, universal background checks aren't necessary an wouldn't stop anything. Way to go, GOP!

 

[Kelly]

I would really need to read the entire bill to make a full judgement on why it was not passed....but I do not understand the problem with Universal Background checks....my only problem is this..

I absolutely despise the UN, and it is IMO one of the most corrupt worldwide agencies, if not the most corrupt agency out there....and to think that they have ANY KIND OF INFORMATION ON ME, or ANY SAY IN WHAT I DO OR DO NOT DO makes me sick to my stomach. So as long as these Universal Background Checks is information used by MY GOVERNMENT AND MY GOVERNMENT ONLY, I'm all for it.....if it isn't like that, then I want nothing to do with it.

 

[SV Fan]

I would really need to read the entire bill to make a full judgement on why it was not passed....but I do not understand the problem with Universal Background checks....my only problem is this..

Here is my understanding of the bill

Basically it would make tougher background checks for people who don't know eachother(either at gunshows or sales through internet or newspaper ads)

Family and Friends exempt

Wording put into the bill they can't use background checks to make a gun registry

Now I fully understand many times little things are put into bills that make it toxic but I haven't seen anybody who voted against it point to one of those toxic bits put in. In general anybody who voted against it seems to use one of 3 talking points

1. It will make it harder to sell guns(without giving specific how)

2. This will lead to a gun registry(which ignores the fact the bill specifically makes it against the law to do so)

3. Slippery Slop argument(ie if we move 1 inch on gun rights that is the start of us completely taking guns away)

It should be pointed out Ted Cruz gave us this bit of wisdom

"If you decide you want to sell your shotgun and you put an advertisement on Craigslist, under that bill, before you can do so you have to go through the federal government"

And I am like that is a bad thing?

In all honesty I don't know why the NRA didn't tell guys to vote for the bill because it was so watered down and other then the internet sales it didn't change much. they then could claim that gun control was looked into and the issue is resolved. Now the issue stays on the table and the gun control side will use this bill as an example how tough it is to deal with the NRA. I am guessing many senators fear the NRA rating and the NRA itself fears even more right wing Gun lobby groups who basically believe the Slippery Slop argument.

 

[Hotwire]

Personally, I think exempting "friends" creates a huge loophole. It leaves the door wide open on private sales for sellers to claim the buyer is a "friend" and it would be hard to disprove without actually speaking to both parties in person.

As for family, I'd say immediate family only. I'm not okay with your wife's 3rd cousin, twice removed, on her grandfather's side, as a good enough reason for avoiding the background check.

 

[Kelly]

Here is my understanding of the bill

Basically it would make tougher background checks for people who don't know eachother(either at gunshows or sales through internet or newspaper ads)

Family and Friends exempt

Wording put into the bill they can't use background checks to make a gun registry

Now I fully understand many times little things are put into bills that make it toxic but I haven't seen anybody who voted against it point to one of those toxic bits put in. In general anybody who voted against it seems to use one of 3 talking points

1. It will make it harder to sell guns(without giving specific how)

2. This will lead to a gun registry(which ignores the fact the bill specifically makes it against the law to do so)

3. Slippery Slop argument(ie if we move 1 inch on gun rights that is the start of us completely taking guns away)

It should be pointed out Ted Cruz gave us this bit of wisdom

And I am like that is a bad thing?

In all honesty I don't know why the NRA didn't tell guys to vote for the bill because it was so watered down and other then the internet sales it didn't change much. they then could claim that gun control was looked into and the issue is resolved. Now the issue stays on the table and the gun control side will use this bill as an example how tough it is to deal with the NRA. I am guessing many senators fear the NRA rating and the NRA itself fears even more right wing Gun lobby groups who basically believe the Slippery Slop argument.

Here is my problem with all of that SV, and you and I probably agree quite a bit on the gun laws.....it is ALL A SLIPPERY SLOPE....these legislators DO NOT know how to write a bill that is not full of slippery slopes. THEY DO IT ON PURPOSE...one side so that they can sneak things in for "bigger government" and the other side so that they can ***** about "bigger government". The same thing is happening with the Immigration Reform, HAVE YOU READ THAT BILL? Holy Crap.....it is full of so much ****, that the real meat and potatoes of it is totally lost to the point that no one knows what the hell it says.

 

[voyzovrezon]

I've been away from this forum awhile and am late to this discussion. I will add that one of the major problems with the 2nd amendment is the way it's interpreted. The other is its archaic language. First, let me post this video of a reading I did from "Pack of Lies: Debunking the 40 Most Destructive Conservative Myths in America" by JP Bernback.

[YT]YG6OXY7g3cs[/YT]

There needs to be a constitutional amendment to change the wording of it. Instead read it something like: A well-regulated industry, guns are necessary for the protection of person and property...

The 2nd Amendment, in its original intent, was not meant for everybody to carry and keep their own arsenal of any and all types of firearms. Besides, the founders never dreamed of semi-automatics that could shoot 5 rounds per second!

 

[Kable24]

The 2nd Amendment, in its original intent, was not meant for everybody to carry and keep their own arsenal of any and all types of firearms. Besides, the founders never dreamed of semi-automatics that could shoot 5 rounds per second!

So because the founding fathers never envisioned semi automatic rifles, that means they shouldn't be protected under the 2nd?

By that way of thinking then they never envisioned radio, tv, internet, telephones and any other way of getting free speech out so using anything of that nature voids the 1st.

 

[Kelly]

Hmmmm....I do agree that our Constitution must be interpreted with "our present and future" in mind.

With that said, I do not see the problem with regulating the hell out of gun show buys...and stopping internet sales completely.

I don't mind my next door neighbor having his weapons, as long as he has been checked out to the maximum ability in regards to his background and mental state of mind. I wish I had the perfect answer in how to do that, I just don't.

I'm all for a NATIONAL (truly regulated, computer connected base for all states to go from) Background check. I'm all for NO MORE internet sales, and BETTER REGULATED (hell at least use the regulations on the books effectively) for gun shows.

We won't stop all, but at least we aren't allowing anyone and everyone to buy a weapon without a check. It happens far too much....

I don't think any of the above keeps law abiding citizens from owning their own weapon. Maybe it makes it alittle more inconvenient...but all I have to say to that is..... tough ****.

: )

 

[voyzovrezon]

So because the founding fathers never envisioned semi automatic rifles, that means they shouldn't be protected under the 2nd?

By that way of thinking then they never envisioned radio, tv, internet, telephones and any other way of getting free speech out so using anything of that nature voids the 1st.

No, I'm not suggesting because our means of free press have changed (i.e., internet and television vs. the printed press) that it is now void because of technology, and I'm not suggesting we ban firearms because the founders didn't foresee AK-47's.

What I am suggesting is, because the 2nd amendment begins with "a well regulated militia..." that they would be inclined to regulate firearms and support background checks, licences, registrations, insurance...etc.

The way the amendment is written, it was intended to provide a militia (i.e. army) with weaponry that any other principality, such as the Crown, could not take away.

The 2nd amendment gives congress the right to have an armed--a well regulated one--- militia. People, including members of today's congress, tend to ignore the "well regulated militia" portion of the amendment.

 

[SV Fan]

Here is my problem with all of that SV, and you and I probably agree quite a bit on the gun laws.....it is ALL A SLIPPERY SLOPE....these legislators DO NOT know how to write a bill that is not full of slippery slopes. THEY DO IT ON PURPOSE...one side so that they can sneak things in for "bigger government" and the other side so that they can ***** about "bigger government". The same thing is happening with the Immigration Reform, HAVE YOU READ THAT BILL? Holy Crap.....it is full of so much ****, that the real meat and potatoes of it is totally lost to the point that no one knows what the hell it says.

Fair enough but as I said I didn't hear one specific about what exactly was a slippery slope other then general comments. Usually when there is some wording in the bill that turns off a congressman they will specifically point it out and what could happen(other then Ted Cruz's comment which I don't see how that is a negative or saying ti will lead to a gun registry(which to my knowledge is false unless there is a loophole how that was written))

 

[Kelly]

Fair enough but as I said I didn't hear one specific about what exactly was a slippery slope other then general comments. Usually when there is some wording in the bill that turns off a congressman they will specifically point it out and what could happen(other then Ted Cruz's comment which I don't see how that is a negative or saying ti will lead to a gun registry(which to my knowledge is false unless there is a loophole how that was written))

Well, there is also the fact that even if there was a loophole, our Senate would have to ratify the treaty from the UN, in order for us to follow the treaty. I would HOPE that they wouldn't tie our hands with ANYTHING that the UN wanted.

 

[ericadawn16]

Just so you know, Mexico gets most of their guns from us and that was true even before Fast & Furious...

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Just so you know, Mexico gets most of their guns from us and that was true even before Fast & Furious...

They also get plenty from other South and Central American countries that have had rebel groups, drug cartels, and other foreign countries give them weapons (China, Korea, Eastern European countries.)