Discussion: The Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is your Definition of Tyrrany? The use of police force to confiscate property without consent of the individual? The use of Law to stifle free speech? The act of abolishing legal contracts between to consenting parties? The use of imprisonment for Legal Assembly? Using Law and police powers to do anything against the will of an free individual that does not harm another through fraud, force or neglect is tyrrany.
 
Freedom of speech doesn't cover libel, slander, or other forms of defamation. You can legally assemble on public property, not on private property when the owner objects.
 
Libel and Slander and other forms of Defamation could affect someone's Liberty. There is Intent on those things that can affect their Prosperity. If you deny their Prosperity with Intent, it affects negatively their Liberty and Life.
 
Libel and Slander and other forms of Defamation could affect someone's Liberty. There is Intent on those things that can affect their Prosperity. If you deny their Prosperity with Intent, it affects negatively their Liberty and Life.
Then that person shouldn't state false allegations as truth (which is precisely what libel, slander and other forms of defamation are), if they don't want their liberty or prosperity affected. The person whom those false allegations are directed toward is within their rights to sue.
 
If someone wants to march toward death, I won't stop them. I'll just let them know what they're facing so the surprise wouldn't be so overpowering.

They'll already know what they are facing. It seems to me you believe all is lost, liberty is gone or doesn't exist, and that dying for something bigger then YOU is ridiculous. People can be broken and die but ideals, symbols, they last forever.

No one is saying the governement is rogue yet either but they are getting pretty tyrannical. The day they scrap the constitution completely or almost entirely is the day they have become rogue, in my opinion.
 
Then that person shouldn't state false allegations as truth (which is precisely what libel, slander and other forms of defamation are), if they don't want their liberty or prosperity affected. The person whom those false allegations are directed toward is within their rights to sue.
I agree. If someone wants to make false allegations, then they are subject to whatever Civil or Criminal consquenses their are.
 
So false allegations are not protected speech, precisely because the person they are directed toward can take the person that made them to court. If they were protected speech, then a lawsuit couldn't be filed
 
Sen. Kerry makes push for tighter gun control


EL PASO — The United States does not need to send troops to the border in response to Mexico's drug war, nor is Mexico in danger of becoming a failed state, law enforcement officials told a congressional panel.

Witnesses testifying before members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in El Paso on Monday urged the lawmakers to bolster law enforcement in the region, increase aid to Mexico and push it to reform institutions whose weaknesses have been exposed by their struggle with drug-trafficking gangs.

Experts and members of Congress likewise said Mexico had not become a "failed state" despite corruption and intimidation that have weakened local control in some areas.

"Cartels are primarily interested in fighting each other," not in challenging for political control, Howard Campbell, an anthropologist at the University of Texas, El Paso, where the hearing was held, told the senators.
Monday's hearings, the committee's first along the border, came amid a flurry of activity in Washington focusing on Mexico's struggle with drug cartels. The Obama administration last week announced it would send more money and agents to the border, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Mexico. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. will visit soon. President Barack Obama will visit Mexico on April 16.

At Monday's hearing, committee Chairman Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said he had been shocked to see killings and beheadings "just a stone's throw across the Rio Grande from where we're sitting this morning."
Across the border, thousands of Mexican soldiers patrol Ciudad Juarez, which saw about 2,000 murders in 14 months.

Kerry called for a ban on the imports of assault rifles, such as the AK-47, into the United States. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., opposed the idea.

Assault rifles bought in the United States are favorites among cartel gunmen, who find them effective for the urban warfare, William McMahon, deputy assistant director of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told the committee. ATF agents have traced many guns confiscated in Mexico to purchases in the United States, McMahon said.

For example, more than 60 guns seized following a shootout among factions of the Tijuana cartel in April 2008 were traced to purchases in Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia and Denver, McMahon said.

The visiting senators were particularly interested in how much violence was spilling into the United States. Cartel-related killings have occurred in Texas, and cities such as Phoenix are experiencing a rise in kidnappings for ransom, which authorities say are related to debt collection among drug dealers. Mexican cartels have extended their networks into as many as 230 U.S. cities, according to federal law enforcement agencies.

El Paso District Attorney Jaime Esparza said trafficking rivalries and infighting had little effect on crime in U.S. border towns. During those bloody 14 months in Juarez, El Paso had 20 homicides, Esparza said.
"Austin, Houston, Dallas -- they are not seeing their numbers up" either, said Esparza, who is a past president of an association of Texas prosecutors. "The rhetoric has been escalated and exaggerated."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently asked for 1,000 National Guard troops to be stationed at the border. But Esparza said he didn't think militarizing the border was needed.
"We are safe here in El Paso," Esparza said. "If we see a radical change, I would tell you differently."


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6350856.html

So, the drug cartels are buying semi-auto weapons and taking them back to Mexico? They must know how to convert the firearms and they must be cheaper here because other then those two illogical explainations, I don't see why they would do it.
 
Well, cartels make a ton of money. They could easily bankroll themselves artilery here in the U.S., and it'd be worth it for them since the better weapons are here. I doubt you'd find better weapons in Mexico.

I do believe it's a cycle, as Clinton sorta described. In a crazy way, the high demand for drugs here in the U.S. help cartels banroll themselves into building a small, well armed if untrained, army with poor border control allowing them to bring it to Mexico and utterly destroy any defense in Mexico. Problem is, they're already set up for a good while.
 
They aren't buying rocket launchers in the US. Just a thought.
 
I'm a firm believer in the right of U.S. citizens to protect themselves with firearms. Between that and my hard-line Death Penalty stance, it's why I cannot be all that Liberal as people tell me I am.

However, I firmly believe a civilian don't need military small arms or anti-personnel weapons to protect themselves. A handgun with a 15 round capacity is pushing it. But as far as owning a AK-47? Hell no. CAR-15? No way. Tec-9? Just stand in the police line up, thug.

Just last week in Orange City, FL about 20 miles noth of Orlando, a man killed his girlfriend, her son, and after a shootout with police wounding a couple officers, he killed himself. When police searched the house, one officer was quoted as saying "after seeing that the man intended to have a stand-off, they are happy he took his life". Apparently, aside from having at least 2 assault rifles, and several clips of ammunition, the guy also had a 50 caliber sniper rifle! AND THEY WERE ALL PURCHASED LEGALLY.

How in the hell can anyone justify selling a weapon like that? If you are not police or military, why the hell do you need that kind of armor piercing firepower?
 
I'm a firm believer in the right of U.S. citizens to protect themselves with firearms. Between that and my hard-line Death Penalty stance, it's why I cannot be all that Liberal as people tell me I am.

However, I firmly believe a civilian don't need military small arms or anti-personnel weapons to protect themselves. A handgun with a 15 round capacity is pushing it. But as far as owning a AK-47? Hell no. CAR-15? No way. Tec-9? Just stand in the police line up, thug.

Just last week in Orange City, FL about 20 miles noth of Orlando, a man killed his girlfriend, her son, and after a shootout with police wounding a couple officers, he killed himself. When police searched the house, one officer was quoted as saying "after seeing that the man intended to have a stand-off, they are happy he took his life". Apparently, aside from having at least 2 assault rifles, and several clips of ammunition, the guy also had a 50 caliber sniper rifle! AND THEY WERE ALL PURCHASED LEGALLY.

How in the hell can anyone justify selling a weapon like that? If you are not police or military, why the hell do you need that kind of armor piercing firepower?


Genetically altered dinosaurs or evil genius squirrels, obviously.



Edit- and, of course, to defeat professor chaos
 
I'm a firm believer in the right of U.S. citizens to protect themselves with firearms. Between that and my hard-line Death Penalty stance, it's why I cannot be all that Liberal as people tell me I am.

However, I firmly believe a civilian don't need military small arms or anti-personnel weapons to protect themselves. A handgun with a 15 round capacity is pushing it. But as far as owning a AK-47? Hell no. CAR-15? No way. Tec-9? Just stand in the police line up, thug.

Just last week in Orange City, FL about 20 miles noth of Orlando, a man killed his girlfriend, her son, and after a shootout with police wounding a couple officers, he killed himself. When police searched the house, one officer was quoted as saying "after seeing that the man intended to have a stand-off, they are happy he took his life". Apparently, aside from having at least 2 assault rifles, and several clips of ammunition, the guy also had a 50 caliber sniper rifle! AND THEY WERE ALL PURCHASED LEGALLY.

How in the hell can anyone justify selling a weapon like that? If you are not police or military, why the hell do you need that kind of armor piercing firepower?

Just for the record we are in a recession so you are going to see a rise in crime, murders, suicides but my question to you is why should the majority of gun owners be punished because of the few insane minority?

No doubt, I'd love to have a .50 cal. just for the heck of it but its quite a pointless weapon that I doubt I'd never use. Plus, for how much it costs, I'll pass.
 
my question to you is why should the majority of gun owners be punished because of the few insane minority?

Well, because the civilian population should not have military weaponry designed for killing masses of humans. A 50 caliber BMG firing weapon should not be available for sale to the general population. At the very least, if you want to own these weapons, you should get a special permit and let the cops know you own it in case they need to borrow it or if your in a fight with your wife/GF they can drive a APC up to your door to take you down.

No sane person living in the USA needs to own a AK-47 or 50 cal. for home defense. That the point I'm trying to drive.
 
you should get a special permit and let the cops know you own it in case they need to borrow it or if your in a fight with your wife/GF they can drive a APC up to your door to take you down.

This is incredibly stupid.
 
This is incredibly stupid.

Tell that to the 4 Orange City cops that got fired on by the guy who had it locked and loaded. They didn't know he had something that could shoot through armored cars till they went inside after he killed himself. The cop's are terrified that they would just get blown away, despite any body armor.

the 'borrow it" line was a joke, since most local PD's don't even own firepower like that. But the local cop's should know if you own a rifle that is designed to kill through cinderblock walls and tank armor.
 
Well, because the civilian population should not have military weaponry designed for killing masses of humans. A 50 caliber BMG firing weapon should not be available for sale to the general population. At the very least, if you want to own these weapons, you should get a special permit and let the cops know you own it in case they need to borrow it or if your in a fight with your wife/GF they can drive a APC up to your door to take you down.

No sane person living in the USA needs to own a AK-47 or 50 cal. for home defense. That the point I'm trying to drive.

While I think the 50 cal is relatively pointless for anything but just having fun at the shooting range. Did the guy use it against the police? Which gun exactly did he fire at the police?

There already is a process for obtaining a permit so that you can own a full auto weapon. It is quite expensive and you have to renew it every year. I don't think there needs to be anymore permit b.s. but I still think the .50 cal is pointless. This guy obviously had some money.

An AK-47 uses the same caliber as some hunting rifles. So, where do you draw the line? The gun is already semi auto.

Tell that to the 4 Orange City cops that got fired on by the guy who had it locked and loaded. They didn't know he had something that could shoot through armored cars till they went inside after he killed himself. The cop's are terrified that they would just get blown away, despite any body armor.

the 'borrow it" line was a joke, since most local PD's don't even own firepower like that. But the local cop's should know if you own a rifle that is designed to kill through cinderblock walls and tank armor.

There is a system already that tells you what guns a certain person has purchased. Where do you think the forms you fill out when you purchase a firearm go? There is a reason they have a federal background check. We are one of the few nations that actually tries to keep track of firearm purchases. The problem is the cops might not have information or the access to the intel on what weapons people might own. So, how is that a problem for the gun owner? It shouldn't be. Its a state/federal issue.

You don't need to punish the masses rights because there are just some crazies out there.

This stuff is going to be more frequent though because of the current economic downturn.
 
While I think the 50 cal is relatively pointless for anything but just having fun at the shooting range. Did the guy use it against the police? Which gun exactly did he fire at the police?

There is a system already that tells you what guns a certain person has purchased. Where do you think the forms you fill out when you purchase a firearm go? There is a reason they have a federal background check. We are one of the few nations that actually tries to keep track of firearm purchases. The problem is the cops might not have information or the access to the intel on what weapons people might own. So, how is that a problem for the gun owner? It shouldn't be. Its a state/federal issue.

You don't need to punish the masses rights because there are just some crazies out there.

This stuff is going to be more frequent though because of the current economic downturn.

Well, if there was an I.D. system in place, it didn't help these people or the police. The guy had no record, but had amassed a small arsenal. I believe he fired at the police with a CAR-15, after he blew out the windows and set firing positions throughout the house with extra clips to fire on police. The 50 was primed and chambered, though. The cops do not sound happy that this guy had it and apparently was willing to use it.

I don't have an issue with legit gun owners, just the crazy or at best unstable types who own multiple guns but don't really hunt, but stock up on anti-personnel weapons and then preach to people on message boards and else where that "Obama (or insert current Liberal Leader) is gonna take away their guns". Those people scare the hell out of me right now, because they are the ones who can't say "enough is enough" in marketing these mass killing weapons to people who should not even have them, record or no.

http://murder-suicide.blogspot.com/2009/03/arsenal-of-empty-beer-cans.html

http://www.beacononlinenews.com/news/daily/1599
 
Well, if there was an I.D. system in place, it didn't help these people or the police. The guy had no record, but had amassed a small arsenal. I believe he fired at the police with a CAR-15, after he blew out the windows and set firing positions throughout the house with extra clips to fire on police. The 50 was primed and chambered, though. The cops do not sound happy that this guy had it and apparently was willing to use it.

I don't have an issue with legit gun owners, just the crazy or at best unstable types who own multiple guns but don't really hunt, but stock up on anti-personnel weapons and then preach to people on message boards and else where that "Obama (or insert current Liberal Leader) is gonna take away their guns". Those people scare the hell out of me right now, because they are the ones who can't say "enough is enough" in marketing these mass killing weapons to people who should not even have them, record or no.

http://murder-suicide.blogspot.com/2009/03/arsenal-of-empty-beer-cans.html

http://www.beacononlinenews.com/news/daily/1599

I don't think there is anything wrong with the guns he owned. It might've just been a hobby like it is for most of us gun owners. I have two handguns and an 'assault' rifle. I have the handguns for personal protection in a last case scenario. I'll holster that weapon and use my rifel through the house because I trust my accuracy with it over my handgun experience.

I honestly just think this guy snapped. Now as far as the record deal goes. Either there isn't communication between federal and state level of enforcement or there simply isn't a system which I don't see a problem with an I.D. system because you are already filling out the paperwork anyways what difference is it going to make if the police have the info.
 
Wait, so you think it makes sense to own a 50 cal. bmg Sniper rifle? As a gun owner, why do you think a civilian even needs to own something like that? Please clarify?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,269
Messages
22,077,593
Members
45,877
Latest member
dude9876
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"