Lets just start by saying I am not a conservative, or a Republican. If that means I must be a crazy liberal, that's cool, my prior service Marine, Texas born and raised, boyfriend calls me that all the time. I say this not elicit any certain reaction, but to give you a basis for my perspective. I am trying my darndest to understand the things happening in my country from the GOP perspective and no matter how hard I try, I can't wrap my head around certain things.
Most recently, one of my senators, Sen. Ted Cruz, going on Meet the Press, and asserting that gun shows already have the requirement of background checks. He said that the statistic stating the 40% of gun sales occur without a background check, was inflated and not accurate. When I heard this, my mouth fell open. I have stood in and Arizona gun show and watched a seller, ask a handful of easily liable questions, and a quick check for a local ID, before a gun was handed right over. If that is what the right wing thinks is a background check, I'm very worried about the likely hood of a rational conversation on the subject.
I've specifically come to a conservative board to understand how someone can says things as a representative of millions of Republicans, and not get any backlash from constituents like the ones on this forum. Anyone want to help me on this one? I thought closing gun show loopholes had like a 75% approval rating among gun owners. Did I get that wrong?
Honestly, I don't know what you're referring to, I thought all weapon sales required background checks of some sort.
However, if it were a rifle, it falls under state law, since there is no Fed waiting period for long guns, hand guns is another thing.
But if someone is buying a gun at a gun show, they are probably law abiding citizen, I know of no murders in recent history where someone bought a gun at a gun show just to murder people.
Then there is the issue of the responsibility of the Federal Govt to follow up if one was purchased illegally, or by a felon, the seller did his job, it's the felon that broke the law, but then most felons just steal them, they have no interest in paying more for something they can get for free.
Quote from: Solar on January 20, 2013, 04:53:47 PMBut if someone is buying a gun at a gun show, they are probably law abiding citizen, I know of no murders in recent history where someone bought a gun at a gun show just to murder people.
Well, my response to this is pretty simple, Columbine. Those boys bought their guns at a gun show, with fake ID's. Also, I can promise you, gun show vendor do not have do a formal background check on anyone who buys a weapon from them, while at the gun show. That's why it's referred to as the 'gun show loophole'.
In regards to the Federal Government's responsibility in enforcing current law, you are absolutely right!! The trouble, is that's the job of the ATF, to track weapon's sales, and ensure current laws are enforced. Yet, it's been impossible to confirm anyone to that post, and huge restrictions have been put on what power they do have. What's the point in having laws that can't be enforced properly?
In my state if you have a CCP (concealed carry permits) on you. Two or three questions and you can take the gun home with you. As the background check has been done when you get a CCP.
Not sure what Arizona allows. My question to you would be, why did you not ask the seller of the gun why no background check. I am sure he would have had all the answers, all we can do is second guess him.
:thumbup: welcome young lady.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 05:05:19 PM
Well, my response to this is pretty simple, Columbine. Those boys bought their guns at a gun show, with fake ID's. Also, I can promise you, gun show vendor do not have do a formal background check on anyone who buys a weapon from them, while at the gun show. That's why it's referred to as the 'gun show loophole'.
Actually that's not true, Robyn Anderson bought the majority of their weapons for them, the other 9mm was bought from a pizza guy illegally as well.
QuoteIn regards to the Federal Government's responsibility in enforcing current law, you are absolutely right!! The trouble, is that's the job of the ATF, to track weapon's sales, and ensure current laws are enforced. Yet, it's been impossible to confirm anyone to that post, and huge restrictions have been put on what power they do have. What's the point in having laws that can't be enforced properly?
Then the left failed when they had all three Houses recently, they had the power to do anything they wanted, instead they forced Huseincare down our throats.
You need to realize, the Dims really don't give a damn about guns, all of this crap has been nothing more than a smoke screen to cover just how badly they are handling the economy.
I think that the lib smoke screen as you say is why the GOP and gun owners are not all on board with clamping down on registration and checks at gun shows. If the Libs actually were only interested in making sure felons did not get their hands on a gun then the resistance would be far less. Cards toyou had a background check and assurance that once you are cleared to get a gun that the record was destroyed would all be a part of it I think.
Now consider that one post said that false ID was used to buy guns and another said it was not true but they had someone else buy the guns for them. Either way they committed an illegal act to get the guns. Now what makes someone suppose that a new regulation would make those willing to break the law suddenly decide that they would not violate the new law.
Forget the opinion polls and just visit a gun store or a gun sale and you will realize that millions of people are voting with their dollars and buying guns to insure that if a gun grab happens they have a gun. Go to the Stag Arms site and see what you find. Two years backlog. I listened to caller after caller on the Mark Levin show discuss how they never owned a gun but when Obama started to threaten their right they went out and and joined the NRA and are looking to purchase a gun. Both myself and my neighbor had no real plan to buy an AR-15 but when I talked to him yesterday we talked about how we would buy one if we could find one. I am a lefty so it is not so easy and I am not going to pay twice the price to get one but once things get back to normal, which might be a while you can bet that I will have an AR and a pistol in my gun cabinet.
Quote from: walkstall on January 20, 2013, 05:14:17 PM
My question to you would be, why did you not ask the seller of the gun why no background check. I am sure he would have had all the answers, all we can do is second guess him.
I did actually, and he said that he was not required to anymore, as long the purchaser provided the correct answers to his question. Some sellers at gun shows totally do full background checks, but there is not a single requirement by law to do so. I've all for having guns! There are six in my house right now. I just think that if you are going to write a law that says no felon can have a gun, he shouldn't be able to go buy one with a fake ID and a few rehearsed answers.
Quote from: Solar on January 20, 2013, 05:14:41 PM
Actually that's not true, Robyn Anderson bought the majority of their weapons for them, the other 9mm was bought from a pizza guy illegally as well.
You are right that it was Robyn, but according to the Violence Policy Center, they were bought at the The Tanner Gun Show i 1998, buy unlicensed sellers. Also, the pizza guy, Mark Manes, sold them the pistols knowing they were underage, and there for illegal. It's a problem that this can happen, and there is no one to enforce the laws we supposedly have against these types of sales.
Oh, I'm not a "Dim", nor am I a Democrat or a Republican. I'm an Independent, and don't make decisions based on political party affiliation. Just wanted that state for the record.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 05:36:38 PM
I did actually, and he said that he was not required to anymore, as long the purchaser provided the correct answers to his question. Some sellers at gun shows totally do full background checks, but there is not a single requirement by law to do so. I've all for having guns! There are six in my house right now. I just think that if you are going to write a law that says no felon can have a gun, he shouldn't be able to go buy one with a fake ID and a few rehearsed answers.
You are right that it was Robyn, but according to the Violence Policy Center, they were bought at the The Tanner Gun Show i 1998, buy unlicensed sellers. Also, the pizza guy, Mark Manes, sold them the pistols knowing they were underage, and there for illegal. It's a problem that this can happen, and there is no one to enforce the laws we supposedly have against these types of sales.
Oh, I'm not a "Dim", nor am I a Democrat or a Republican. I'm an Independent, and don't make decisions based on political party affiliation. Just wanted that state for the record.
The GOP tried to pass instant checks at gun shows, if memory serves me, but it was the Dims that shot it down.
Oh, and if you came here looking for Republicans, you really won't find any supporters here, were Conservatives, there is a huge difference.
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 20, 2013, 05:35:06 PMEither way they committed an illegal act to get the guns. Now what makes someone suppose that a new regulation would make those willing to break the law suddenly decide that they would not violate the new law.
I get your point here, but that's not the point I was attempting to make (though it's totally possible you weren't referring to me, and I'm just being self centered :smile: ). I don't think new regulations will stop illegal gun sales. However, confirming a head of the ATF and providing them enforceable rules. The ATF has been gutted in the last decade, and local law enforcement have been left to pick up the slack, as well as cleaning up the mess left in it's wake. With all of the budget cuts to law enforcement, it doesn't seem like the most intelligent use of resources.
And both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame for this mess!! I'm not blaming one over the other for the past, I'm just debating existing law, and how we look to enforce them moving forward.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 05:51:18 PM
I get your point here, but that's not the point I was attempting to make (though it's totally possible you weren't referring to me, and I'm just being self centered :smile: ). I don't think new regulations will stop illegal gun sales. However, confirming a head of the ATF and providing them enforceable rules. The ATF has been gutted in the last decade, and local law enforcement have been left to pick up the slack, as well as cleaning up the mess left in it's wake. With all of the budget cuts to law enforcement, it doesn't seem like the most intelligent use of resources.
And both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame for this mess!! I'm not blaming one over the other for the past, I'm just debating existing law, and how we look to enforce them moving forward.
Murder is illegal no matter what, yet not one law on the books can stop it from happening.
If say, we were to eliminate all guns, every last one of them in the country, the amount of murders would most likely increase due to the lack of personal defense.
Then there is the issue of someone wanting to kill a couple of people, but since he can't harm the two without being overtaken, he builds a bomb and takes out ten times the amount.
Point is, there is no law that will stop an individual, or group from doing what they set out to accomplish, all that will happen is people will lose the ability to stop these perpetrators from following through.
Oh and welcome to the forum EH.
Quote from: Solar on January 20, 2013, 05:59:45 PM
Murder is illegal no matter what, yet not one law on the books can stop it from happening.
If say, we were to eliminate all guns, every last one of them in the country, the amount of murders would most likely increase due to the lack of personal defense.
Then there is the issue of someone wanting to kill a couple of people, but since he can't harm the two without being overtaken, he builds a bomb and takes out ten times the amount.
Point is, there is no law that will stop an individual, or group from doing what they set out to accomplish, all that will happen is people will lose the ability to stop these perpetrators from following through.
Oh and welcome to the forum EH.
So, am I understanding correctly that since we can't stop all perpetrators, we shouldn't look at practical ways of reducing the availability of illegal weapons, to people who have lost the right to own them? I am in no way advocating revoking all weapons! I'm just saying what's the point of having laws that restrict gun ownership to felons, when there is no effective structure to enforce those laws?
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 06:06:21 PM
So, am I understanding correctly that since we can't stop all perpetrators, we shouldn't look at practical ways of reducing the availability of illegal weapons, to people who have lost the right to own them? I am in no way advocating revoking all weapons! I'm just saying what's the point of having laws that restrict gun ownership to felons, when there is no effective structure to enforce those laws?
The laws are already on the books, yet they still get them.
For more than 200 years everyone could buy and sell weapons, yet suddenly there is a push to make it harder to purchase weapons, harder for the law abiding citizen.
The GOP was in favor of instant background check, yet the left stopped it, ask yourself why?
The answer is, they are using the issue as club to beat the Pubs into submission over the issue, an issue the could care less about.
If you check the stats, you will find that medical malpractice/ is one of the leading causes of death in this country, guns a distant 10th.
Maybe we should be cracking down on irresponsible doctors first?
Point is, guns make headlines, car accidents and doctors screw ups don't.
Quote from: Solar on January 20, 2013, 06:16:11 PM
The laws are already on the books, yet they still get them.
For more than 200 years everyone could buy and sell weapons, yet suddenly there is a push to make it harder to purchase weapons, harder for the law abiding citizen.
The GOP was in favor of instant background check, yet the left stopped it, ask yourself why?
The answer is, they are using the issue as club to beat the Pubs into submission over the issue, an issue the could care less about.
If you check the stats, you will find that medical malpractice/ is one of the leading causes of death in this country, guns a distant 10th.
Maybe we should be cracking down on irresponsible doctors first?
Point is, guns make headlines, car accidents and doctors screw ups don't.
Fair enough point about the other serious issues facing Americans. However, what is the point of laws, if we can't enforce them, regarding any issue? Of course existing laws haven't made a difference, no one is making sure the rules get followed. There are plenty of problems the federal government needs to be addressing. This happens to be the one the country is focused on right now. If the GOP was in favor of instant background checks, why is the junior senator from Texas going on to Meet The Press and claiming that gun show vendors already do background checks, and the "gun show loophole" is over blown? Why would the GOP have proposed instant background checks if there wasn't a need for them in the first place?
Intelligent use of resources by the government just is not going to happen. I get what your point is I think but I wonder how frequent a felon purchases a gun at a venue that would not check their credentials. I think that the different rules for gun shows resulted in the difficulty of getting a full background check at these events. Notice that there is not a peep about people selling guns directly. Lots of guns locally are sold through a local ad magazine. No FFL needed there either. I am thinking that it is more problematic than beneficial for the number of illegal sales it might prevent.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 06:23:02 PM
Fair enough point about the other serious issues facing Americans. However, what is the point of laws, if we can't enforce them, regarding any issue? Of course existing laws haven't made a difference, no one is making sure the rules get followed. There are plenty of problems the federal government needs to be addressing. This happens to be the one the country is focused on right now. If the GOP was in favor of instant background checks, why is the junior senator from Texas going on to Meet The Press and claiming that gun show vendors already do background checks, and the "gun show loophole" is over blown? Why would the GOP have proposed instant background checks if there wasn't a need for them in the first place?
The bigger question is why did the Dims block instant checks if they really are needed?
The Dims had all the power, yet did absolutely nothing to address the issue, could it be there really is no issue at all, that the left is using the death of children as a political football?
If they were serious, why did Reid say he will not bring a weapons Bill to the House?
You see, this really isn't an issue at all, it's merely a means of distraction of the bigger problems facing the Country, and the media played right along and got everyone worked up over absolutely nothing.
Quote from: Solar on January 20, 2013, 06:38:19 PM
The bigger question is why did the Dims block instant checks if they really are needed?
The Dims had all the power, yet did absolutely nothing to address the issue, could it be there really is no issue at all, that the left is using the death of children as a political football?
If they were serious, why did Reid say he will not bring a weapons Bill to the House?
You see, this really isn't an issue at all, it's merely a means of distraction of the bigger problems facing the Country, and the media played right along and got everyone worked up over absolutely nothing.
I totally disagree here. I understand your sentiment, but just like going back and pointing out all the failures of the Bush administration, doesn't do us any good moving forward. The fact is, right this moment, we have an opportunity to address the issue, in even a small way, why not do something that everyone can agree on, and then get to the next big issue? Lord knows we have enough issues that need to be addressed. If the GOP originally proposed the checks, and the Dems now want it, why not just pass the darn thing, rather then arguing about it for months?
Oh, and Harry Reid is not favorite of mine, but he does have the highest rating of any Dem by the NRA, so I'm not surprised he's refused to bring up a bill.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 06:43:31 PM
I totally disagree here. I understand your sentiment, but just like going back and pointing out all the failures of the Bush administration, doesn't do us any good moving forward. The fact is, right this moment, we have an opportunity to address the issue, in even a small way, why not do something that everyone can agree on, and then get to the next big issue? Lord knows we have enough issues that need to be addressed. If the GOP originally proposed the checks, and the Dems now want it, why not just pass the darn thing, rather then arguing about it for months?
Oh, and Harry Reid is not favorite of mine, but he does have the highest rating of any Dem by the NRA, so I'm not surprised he's refused to bring up a bill.
Here's the answer in a nutshell, and it's all because of Reid/politics.
Quote"I don't think Sen. Harry Reid [D-Nev.] even brings it to the Senate floor because he has six Democrats up for election in two years in states where the president received fewer than 42 percent of the votes," Barrasso said. "He doesn't want his Democrats to have to choose between their own constituents and the president's positions."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/20/Sen-Barrasso-Senate-Vote-on-Obama-Gun-Control-Measures-Unlikely (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/20/Sen-Barrasso-Senate-Vote-on-Obama-Gun-Control-Measures-Unlikely)
Voting is a Right
Keeping and Bearing arms is a Right.
If you don't need an ID to Vote, why do you need an ID to Keep and Bear Arms?
If you don't need a Background check to Vote, why do you need a Background check to Keep and Bear arms.
Disabuse yourself of the most obvious retort. Far more have died over the recent centuries as a result of "The Vote" than have died as a result of keeping and bearing ams
Quote from: Byteryder on January 20, 2013, 06:55:50 PM
Voting is a Right
Keeping and Bearing arms is a Right.
If you don't need an ID to Vote, why do you need an ID to Keep and Bear Arms?
If you don't need a Background check to Vote, why do you need a Background check to Keep and Bear arms.
Disabuse yourself of the most obvious retort. Far more have died over the recent centuries as a result of "The Vote" than have died as a result of keeping and bearing ams
Trust me, I appreciate your sentiment!! There are plenty of guns in my house, and I want to own an AR-15! I get the spirit of the second amendment. However, as times change, we have grow our laws to support societal change. Which is why we have laws disallowing certain people from owning weapons, or voting. We enforce the laws that prevent felons from registering to vote, why shouldn't we enforce the laws that say a weapon cannot be purchasing weapons, and require that seller check something like that?
As the proverbial Old Curmudgeon, I will now give my take. You will not like it, but as my Mom used to tell me 'Tough Dukey'. The first question is simple. Was the seller a license firearms dealer or was he/she a private seller of the firearm. Can't speak for Arizona, but in Texas, as a private individual, I can walk into a gun show, where, BTW, uniformed cops are usually at the door and scattered around the hall or wherever the gun show is held. He/she, will normally make sure the bolt is opened, and a tough plastic tie is ran through and locked in place. The firearm is then inoperable until the tie is cut.No magazines will be in the firearm, either. Then the private seller can walk around the gun show hawking his weapon and if a buyer decides to buy, the money is exchanged and both buyer and seller are happy. The same deal can be done in the parking lot of McDonald's or in a private home. I as a private citizen that does not make a living selling firearms, can however sell legitimately a legal weapon. If a firearm at a gun show is bought from a licensed dealer, you can bet a background check is run.
Now for the fun part. It can never be proven that a background check, no matter how meticulous and intrusive it may be, has ever kept one crazy person or felon from buying a firearm if he/she wants one badly enough. It is an infringement ( if you don't know what that means, look it up ) for any federal law to deprive one individual of the right to keep and bear arms. Those that do so are criminals themselves. The God Given right to protect my life or the life of a loved one or the lives of anyone else, is codified in the Second Amendment which is a declaratory prohibition against the feds depriving the citizens of their lawful right to keep and bear arms.
To put it in a different perspective. you quoted the Violence Policy Center which is one of the most vituperous, vicious, and vitriolic anti-gun groups in America. Formerly it was known, I believe as the Handgun Control Center, then later as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You'll have to do better than that.
If you think any background check will keep weapons from those society says can't have them, which, BTW, is a list that grows by leaps and bounds every day, then you are very foolish.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 07:02:04 PM
Trust me, I appreciate your sentiment!! There are plenty of guns in my house, and I want to own an AR-15! I get the spirit of the second amendment. However, as times change, we have grow our laws to support societal change. Which is why we have laws disallowing certain people from owning weapons, or voting. We enforce the laws that prevent felons from registering to vote, why shouldn't we enforce the laws that say a weapon cannot be purchasing weapons, and require that seller check something like that?
I have no problem with growing the Law in keeping with the times. The Constitution made provisions for just that. The Amendment Process.
If we *need* to alter the scope and intent of the Constitutions provisions, then engage the Amendment Process and make those changes Constitutionally.
We are killing ourselves with Politically Expedient solutions when considered, debated, and profund acceptance should rule the choice.
Quote from: Shooterman on January 20, 2013, 07:19:16 PM
As the proverbial Old Curmudgeon, I will now give my take. You will not like it, but as my Mom used to tell me 'Tough Dukey'. The first question is simple. Was the seller a license firearms dealer or was he/she a private seller of the firearm. Can't speak for Arizona, but in Texas, as a private individual, I can walk into a gun show, where, BTW, uniformed cops are usually at the door and scattered around the hall or wherever the gun show is held. He/she, will normally make sure the bolt is opened, and a tough plastic tie is ran through and locked in place. The firearm is then inoperable until the tie is cut.No magazines will be in the firearm, either. Then the private seller can walk around the gun show hawking his weapon and if a buyer decides to buy, the money is exchanged and both buyer and seller are happy. The same deal can be done in the parking lot of McDonald's or in a private home. I as a private citizen that does not make a living selling firearms, can however sell legitimately a legal weapon. If a firearm at a gun show is bought from a licensed dealer, you can bet a background check is run.
Now for the fun part. It can never be proven that a background check, no matter how meticulous and intrusive it may be, has ever kept one crazy person or felon from buying a firearm if he/she wants one badly enough. It is an infringement ( if you don't know what that means, look it up ) for any federal law to deprive one individual of the right to keep and bear arms. Those that do so are criminals themselves. The God Given right to protect my life or the life of a loved one or the lives of anyone else, is codified in the Second Amendment which is a declaratory prohibition against the feds depriving the citizens of their lawful right to keep and bear arms.
To put it in a different perspective. you quoted the Violence Policy Center which is one of the most vituperous, vicious, and vitriolic anti-gun groups in America. Formerly it was known, I believe as the Handgun Control Center, then later as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You'll have to do better than that.
If you think any background check will keep weapons from those society says can't have them, which, BTW, is a list that grows by leaps and bounds every day, then you are very foolish.
I totally appreciate your point of viewing! Living in Texas myself, I am well aware of the private selling laws in my home state. What I would say, is your right, there should be a better place to find information on gun related crimes. If you have a better resource, I would love to hear it. However, the NRA and the GOP has been blocking any agency from compiling and analyzing any data like that. That's where I take issues. Saying there is no conclusive evidence, when there is no one allowed to compile that information, sounds more like sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen.
My question would be, why do we have laws on the books that say felons can't purchase weapons, but not require private sellers to check the purchasers record? It's seems like there must be a middle ground on this issue. I'm loving this conversation, maybe we can find one right here. Suggestions? :popcorn:
The solution is not more regulations but longer jail terms for those who get a gun but do not have a legal right to own or posses one. Punish the criminal not the legal business operator. We have more than enough laws and one more is not going to change things much except making it more likely that someone who is generally law abiding breaks some obscure regulation. I really like the comparison to voting and people not allowed to vote still do and yet the Dims go into convulsions if you suggest any common sense rules to keep it from happening. I agree with many of the posts that all the outrage that some felon might buy a gun and a new law is needed has far more to do with other issues than with stopping a felon from buying a gun.
We could stop all illegal drivers or drunk and impaired drivers by putting a road block at every intersection to run a background check and breath and blood test but it is ridiculous to do such a thing although I am sure it would be close to 100 percent effective.
New York passed strict laws and until they change it the police cannot have more than 7 shots in their clip nor can they have a gun in a school zone. In a rush to sow how hysterical the dims are they passed a law that is idiotic. I would bet that not a single officer is in compliance with the law.
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 20, 2013, 08:06:35 PM
The solution is not more regulations but longer jail terms for those who get a gun but do not have a legal right to own or posses one. Punish the criminal not the legal business operator. We have more than enough laws and one more is not going to change things much except making it more likely that someone who is generally law abiding breaks some obscure regulation. I really like the comparison to voting and people not allowed to vote still do and yet the Dims go into convulsions if you suggest any common sense rules to keep it from happening. I agree with many of the posts that all the outrage that some felon might buy a gun and a new law is needed has far more to do with other issues than with stopping a felon from buying a gun.
We could stop all illegal drivers or drunk and impaired drivers by putting a road block at every intersection to run a background check and breath and blood test but it is ridiculous to do such a thing although I am sure it would be close to 100 percent effective.
New York passed strict laws and until they change it the police cannot have more than 7 shots in their clip nor can they have a gun in a school zone. In a rush to sow how hysterical the dims are they passed a law that is idiotic. I would bet that not a single officer is in compliance with the law.
The only people who would be impacted by requiring a background check, is private sellers. If your selling a firearm privately, what is the hurry with selling it? Would the inconvenience of waiting a few days really mean that much? Legal business owners already require a background check, or should, and if they don't, that law should be enforced. I'm also all for empowering states to decide what works best for their states in reducing gun violence. However, the fact doesn't change, that every state has a gun problem, in one capacity or another. It's possible that there might be a middle ground that cool heads could come to, if everyone could stop the blame game. What's wrong with one side putting it's suggestions on the table, and asking that the other side put something on the table. If the other side doesn't put anything on the table, and acts like there isn't a problem at all, what good does it do?
Personally I would have no problem holding the seller criminally responsible for selling a gun to anyone legally barred from owning a gun. First offense a Misdemeanor, second offense an Felony.
On the over all case of "Gun Violence", In my opinion the target here is Violence, not Guns. It is the Violent act, be it fists, 2x4s, knife, tire iron, whatever.. that is the harmful and or lethal aspect of such unacceptable interaction between people. Violence, from whatever justification, executed by whatever means, is what needs to be addressed.
We must find a way o stop accepting the unacceptable and stop tolerating the intolerable. Offensive Violence is unacceptable and intolerable.
Quote from: Byteryder on January 20, 2013, 08:19:54 PM
Personally I would have no problem holding the seller criminally responsible for selling a gun to anyone legally barred from owning a gun. First offense a Misdemeanor, second offense an Felony.
On the over all case of "Gun Violence", In my opinion the target here is Violence, not Guns. It is the Violent act, be it fists, 2x4s, knife, tire iron, whatever.. that is the harmful and or lethal aspect of such unacceptable interaction between people. Violence, from whatever justification, executed by whatever means, is what needs to be addressed.
We must find a way o stop accepting the unacceptable and stop tolerating the intolerable. Offensive Violence is unacceptable and intolerable.
Totally agree with you on all of that!! The only thing I would ask, is could you work on all of the things you mentioned, along side working to enforce the current gun laws not currently being enforce effectively?
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 07:55:44 PM
I totally appreciate your point of viewing! Living in Texas myself, I am well aware of the private selling laws in my home state. What I would say, is your right, there should be a better place to find information on gun related crimes. If you have a better resource, I would love to hear it. However, the NRA and the GOP has been blocking any agency from compiling and analyzing any data like that. That's where I take issues. Saying there is no conclusive evidence, when there is no one allowed to compile that information, sounds more like sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen.
My question would be, why do we have laws on the books that say felons can't purchase weapons, but not require private sellers to check the purchasers record? It's seems like there must be a middle ground on this issue. I'm loving this conversation, maybe we can find one right here. Suggestions? :popcorn:
There is no middle ground. The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about any ifs, ands, or buts. Deep fry his ass or restore his rights.
Here is a suggestion that would work; if a felon can be trusted to re enter society, then restore each and every one of his rights including the right to keep and bear arms. If he can not be trusted, then lock his ass away for ever or until he dies which ever comes first. Violent criminals- put the smack in their veins and send them to hell. Upon conviction, one all encompassing appeal, then the Big Drip. No sympathy for a violent bastard, no letting the sumbich languish on the tax payers dime for the rest of his miserable life. Make executions public on national TV. Fokk 'em.
As for stats. One thing is for sure. Those bastards that wish to deny me of my right to keep and bear arms will lie, cheat, steal, suck Obambam's ass, and/or anything else they can do. It is not now, has never been, and will never be about gun control. It is about people control. Once the right is gone, so are the rest of your freedoms. Keep in mind one other simple little fact, as well. There is no such animal as 'GUN VIOLENCE'. Have you ever seen a gun commit violence? If you have, you could be the wealthiest person in the world because you would have seen what no one else has ever seen.
There is no middle ground. I am endowed by my Maker, with the right to keep and bear arms. If you try to infringe upon that right in any shape, form, or fashion, you automatically become my enemy.
I don't really find deep problems with most current restrictions.
I don't care for restrictions that are meaningless and "feel good" in nature. Example, "assault rifle" indicators, flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, pistol grips. None of these have anything to do with the lethality of the weapon. Magazine capacity is effectively meaningless.
No mention is made of Shotguns. Every time you pop off a 12 GA. 000 Buck, you put out about 5 lethal projectiles of .38 caliber, each fully capable of killing or seriously injuring someone. 10 rounds of 12 GA. 000 Buck ..thats 50 lethal projectiles. No one complains of the Shotgun, yet in a short range event, it is far more lethal than a semiautomatic rifle or pistol.
There just seems to be no common sense applied to our law making process. Not just on the issue of Guns, but in general.
Quote from: Shooterman on January 20, 2013, 08:31:53 PM
There is no middle ground. The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about any ifs, ands, or buts. Deep fry his ass or restore his rights.
Here is a suggestion that would work; if a felon can be trusted to re enter society, then restore each and every one of his rights including the right to keep and bear arms. If he can not be trusted, then lock his ass away for ever or until he dies which ever comes first. Violent criminals- put the smack in their veins and send them to hell. Upon conviction, one all encompassing appeal, then the Big Drip. No sympathy for a violent bastard, no letting the sumbich languish on the tax payers dime for the rest of his miserable life. Make executions public on national TV. Fokk 'em.
As for stats. One thing is for sure. Those bastards that wish to deny me of my right to keep and bear arms will lie, cheat, steal, suck Obambam's ass, and/or anything else they can do. It is not now, has never been, and will never be about gun control. It is about people control. Once the right is gone, so are the rest of your freedoms. Keep in mind one other simple little fact, as well. There is no such animal as 'GUN VIOLENCE'. Have you ever seen a gun commit violence? If you have, you could be the wealthiest person in the world because you would have seen what no one else has ever seen.
There is no middle ground. I am endowed by my Maker, with the right to keep and bear arms. If you try to infringe upon that right in any shape, form, or fashion, you automatically become my enemy.
There is also nothing in the constitution that says that the supreme court gets to determine the constitutionality of laws passed through congress, but I'm personally glad they do. The fourth amendment requires government to have a warrant to search your belonging, and yet there are plenty of loopholes to allow law enforcement to do it anyway. The point is, we don't follow the constitution to the letter, because it wasn't designed to be used that way. I understand the spirit of the second amendment, to ensure that the people always have the ability and the resource to over throw a tyrannical government. I just think it's a bit dramatic to infer that any regulation at all on gun ownership and sales, is the work of "the enemy". I think it's possible to discuss the issue, with cool heads. I like guns, there's one sitting less then 5 feet from me. I'm just advocating that responsible gun ownership be mandatory, rather then on the honor system.
Number 1 most all laws are made to make people feel good. Number 2 most all laws are for collecting money. Number 3 most all laws are to keep Government in power. Number 4 most all laws keep attorney in money.
If ticket # 1 was for 500 $ and ticket #2 was 10.000 $ then ticket Number 3 was for 50.000 $. Do you think speeding would drop off?
I am with Shooter. If your going to break the law be ready to pay the full consequences.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 08:59:16 PM
There is also nothing in the constitution that says that the supreme court gets to determine the constitutionality of laws passed through congress, but I'm personally glad they do. The fourth amendment requires government to have a warrant to search your belonging, and yet there are plenty of loopholes to allow law enforcement to do it anyway. The point is, we don't follow the constitution to the letter, because it wasn't designed to be used that way.
That is unequivocal bull shit. Of course the US Constitution was designed by the brightest constitutional minds in the world to be followed to the letter. To say otherwise is making a mockery of their striving to give us and our posterity a document that would last forever. Man has corrupted the process, but it wasn't because of what the Founders did. I will give you this. The anti-Federalist knew damned good and well what unscrupulous men would do to the Constitution, and that is exactly why everyone knew without a doubt, any state could meet in convention and withdraw from the union of States. The arch criminal Lincoln, by force, destroyed that concept, but nevertheless, the Founders knew it to be true. So don't give me this song and dance about what times have wrought. If the Constitution needs changing, do it legally, but don't fokk around with it like a damned old cur dog, nibbling here and there on it until it no longer exists.
QuoteI understand the spirit of the second amendment, to ensure that the people always have the ability and the resource to over throw a tyrannical government. I just think it's a bit dramatic to infer that any regulation at all on gun ownership and sales, is the work of "the enemy". I think it's possible to discuss the issue, with cool heads. I like guns, there's one sitting less then 5 feet from me. I'm just advocating that responsible gun ownership be mandatory, rather then on the honor system.
We survived as a country with a working Second Amendment for almost one hundred and fifty years, and now I am supposed to have a 'clear head' while the government tries it's damned best to make a criminal of me.
Don't buy that crap and I never will.
Quote from: walkstall on January 20, 2013, 09:11:10 PM
Number 1 most all laws are made to make people feel good. Number 2 most all laws are for collecting money. Number 3 most all laws are to keep Government in power. Number 4 most all laws keep attorney in money.
If ticket # 1 was for 500 $ and ticket #2 was 10.000 $ then ticket Number 3 was for 50.000 $. Do you think speeding would drop off?
I am with Shooter. If your going to break the law be ready to pay the full consequences.
Fair enough, I guess. Though, you make it sound as if all laws are created for the benefit of the government, and have no benefit to the people, at all. If that's the case, should we abolish all laws, 'cause that means our constitution is out the window all together. Seems counter productive to protecting the second amendment. Just an observation.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 09:22:18 PM
Fair enough, I guess. Though, you make it sound as if all laws are created for the benefit of the government, and have no benefit to the people, at all. If that's the case, should we abolish all laws, 'cause that means our constitution is out the window all together. Seems counter productive to protecting the second amendment. Just an observation.
Most laws are BS, follow the Constitution and 2nd amendment along with the 10 comamdments. That why I said MOST laws.
Quote from: Shooterman on January 20, 2013, 09:21:11 PM
That is unequivocal bull shit. Of course the US Constitution was designed by the brightest constitutional minds in the world to be followed to the letter. To say otherwise is making a mockery of their striving to give us and our posterity a document that would last forever. Man has corrupted the process, but it wasn't because of what the Founders did. I will give you this. The anti-Federalist knew damned good and well what unscrupulous men would do to the Constitution, and that is exactly why everyone knew without a doubt, any state could meet in convention and withdraw from the union of States. The arch criminal Lincoln, by force, destroyed that concept, but nevertheless, the Founders knew it to be true. So don't give me this song and dance about what times have wrought. If the Constitution needs changing, do it legally, but don't fokk around with it like a damned old cur dog, nibbling here and there on it until it no longer exists.
We survived as a country with a working Second Amendment for almost one hundred and fifty years, and now I am supposed to have a 'clear head' while the government tries it's damned best to make a criminal of me.
Don't buy that crap and I never will.
No one is asking you to buy anything. I wanted to hear a counter opinion, and you gave that to me. I also didn't say clear heads, I said cool heads. As in, two rational people, can express two counter opinions on a subject, and neither is reduced to be called 'the enemy'. I don't want to be oppressed, I don't want my guns taken away from me, and I don't want my personal freedom infringed upon. All I want is for responsible gun ownership and gun business ownership, to be mandatory, and not on the honor system, because as you said, people are corrupt.
Goodnight all, I enjoyed the fun!!
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 09:39:12 PM
No one is asking you to buy anything. I wanted to hear a counter opinion, and you gave that to me. I also didn't say clear heads, I said cool heads. As in, two rational people, can express two counter opinions on a subject, and neither is reduced to be called 'the enemy'. I don't want to be oppressed, I don't want my guns taken away from me, and I don't want my personal freedom infringed upon. All I want is for responsible gun ownership and gun business ownership, to be mandatory, and not on the honor system, because as you said, people are corrupt.
Then you wish to infringe on the right.
No two people will tell you exactly what 'responsible gun ownership' is.
Give government a little, it wants a lot. That is the nature of government.
Freedom is simply the restraint of government.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 08:18:47 PM
However, the fact doesn't change, that every state has a gun problem, in one capacity or another.
I'd like to see data that supports this "fact". The only gun problem that we have involves the government.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 09:39:12 PM
No one is asking you to buy anything. I wanted to hear a counter opinion, and you gave that to me. I also didn't say clear heads, I said cool heads. As in, two rational people, can express two counter opinions on a subject, and neither is reduced to be called 'the enemy'. I don't want to be oppressed, I don't want my guns taken away from me, and I don't want my personal freedom infringed upon. All I want is for responsible gun ownership and gun business ownership, to be mandatory, and not on the honor system, because as you said, people are corrupt.
There a estimated 20k laws in 50 states plus the federal laws.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States)
There also a law calling for a budget to be passed each year.
Now that law effects every man, woman and child along with the next generations.
Now do you think one or two more laws will help. :popcorn
Quote from: walkstall on January 20, 2013, 10:10:31 PM
There a estimated 20k laws in 50 states plus the federal laws.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States)
There also a law calling for a budget to be passed each year.
Now that law effects every man, woman and child along with the next generations.
I know who I'd like to put in jail first...
Now do you think one or two more laws will help. :popcorn
Quote from: taxed on January 20, 2013, 10:19:26 PM
I know who I'd like to put in jail first...
And there not all Democrats. :popcorn:
Quote from: walkstall on January 20, 2013, 10:33:42 PM
And there not all Democrats. :popcorn:
Nope.... but they're all libs!!
Quote from: taxed on January 20, 2013, 10:35:29 PM
Nope.... but they're all libs!!
From Bronx post.
QuoteThe Traitor John Boehner, in his speech at the freshman orientation, told the new members of the House of Representatives that they are there to resolve "the issues of the day" not to represent their constituents
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/john-boehner-ive-learned-my-lesson (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/john-boehner-ive-learned-my-lesson)!!-really/
Quote from: walkstall on January 20, 2013, 10:53:07 PM
From Bronx post.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/john-boehner-ive-learned-my-lesson (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/john-boehner-ive-learned-my-lesson)!!-really/
Just wow. Wow.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 05:05:19 PM
Well, my response to this is pretty simple, Columbine. Those boys bought their guns at a gun show, with fake ID's. Also, I can promise you, gun show vendor do not have do a formal background check on anyone who buys a weapon from them, while at the gun show. That's why it's referred to as the 'gun show loophole'.
In regards to the Federal Government's responsibility in enforcing current law, you are absolutely right!! The trouble, is that's the job of the ATF, to track weapon's sales, and ensure current laws are enforced. Yet, it's been impossible to confirm anyone to that post, and huge restrictions have been put on what power they do have. What's the point in having laws that can't be enforced properly?
intresting point...we had Feinsteins gun ban (we used to call Clintons Gun ban)in effect when Columbine occurred.
And just so you know when you buy a firearm in Many states the dealer takes your ID and runs it through a state police data base.
Billy
Quote from: taxed on January 20, 2013, 10:54:13 PM
Just wow. Wow.
And this........
QuoteThis is merely cover for his tyrannical speech in which he told new members that if they are there to represent their constituents the door is in the back of the room.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 09:39:12 PM
No one is asking you to buy anything. I wanted to hear a counter opinion, and you gave that to me. I also didn't say clear heads, I said cool heads. As in, two rational people, can express two counter opinions on a subject, and neither is reduced to be called 'the enemy'. I don't want to be oppressed, I don't want my guns taken away from me, and I don't want my personal freedom infringed upon. All I want is for responsible gun ownership and gun business ownership, to be mandatory, and not on the honor system, because as you said, people are corrupt.
I have to ask, but why are you willing to throw out the 2nd Amendment?
You do realize, by giving the Fed power over the State on the issue, you are changing the very meaning of the 2nd.
It was, by design a means to keep the Fed from dictating laws regarding our Rights, in fact the entire Bill of Rights is by design a barrier to the Federal Govt, yet here you are whacking away at the very structure of our freedoms. Why is that?
Could it be you are nothing more than a pawn in the game the Left is playing to bring down the Country, is that possible?
They got you all emotionally worked up, and you lost all rational thought, reason went out the window, and you completely forgot what the Bill of Rights means to the American public.
The 2nd is also by design, a means of keeping a tyrannical Govt in check, yet here you are, fighting the very Rights our Founders tried to protect us with.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 05:05:19 PM
Well, my response to this is pretty simple, Columbine. Those boys bought their guns at a gun show, with fake ID's. Also, I can promise you, gun show vendor do not have do a formal background check on anyone who buys a weapon from them, while at the gun show. That's why it's referred to as the 'gun show loophole'.
In regards to the Federal Government's responsibility in enforcing current law, you are absolutely right!! The trouble, is that's the job of the ATF, to track weapon's sales, and ensure current laws are enforced. Yet, it's been impossible to confirm anyone to that post, and huge restrictions have been put on what power they do have. What's the point in having laws that can't be enforced properly?
I have bought numerous guns from vendors at gun shows and each time I have had an FBI background check ran.
And this is true across the board, for all vendors.
But individuals can buy and sell guns between each other, informally, with no background checks.
These individual exchanges happen all the time and sometimes they occur at guns shows.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 21, 2013, 07:07:29 AM
I have bought numerous guns from vendors at gun shows and each time I have had an FBI background check ran.
And this is true across the board, for all vendors.
But individuals can buy and sell guns between each other, informally, with no background checks.
These individual exchanges happen all the time and sometimes they occur at guns shows.
]
You'd think a sensible regulation might be to require back ground checks for all gun sales, even private. Perhaps require private sellers to run a background check through a licensed dealer and business.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 10:23:33 AM
]
You'd think a sensible regulation might be to require back ground checks for all gun sales, even private. Perhaps require private sellers to run a background check through a licensed dealer and business.
Well, it's wonderful
feel good approach, but lets get real for a moment, do you really think a felon is going to legally buy a gun?
The only purpose of the background check, is to have a data base on every weapon in the country.
It's far easier to confiscate guns if you know exactly who has them.
Quote from: Solar on January 21, 2013, 06:59:37 AM
I have to ask, but why are you willing to throw out the 2nd Amendment?
You do realize, by giving the Fed power over the State on the issue, you are changing the very meaning of the 2nd.
It was, by design a means to keep the Fed from dictating laws regarding our Rights, in fact the entire Bill of Rights is by design a barrier to the Federal Govt, yet here you are whacking away at the very structure of our freedoms. Why is that?
Could it be you are nothing more than a pawn in the game the Left is playing to bring down the Country, is that possible?
They got you all emotionally worked up, and you lost all rational thought, reason went out the window, and you completely forgot what the Bill of Rights means to the American public.
The 2nd is also by design, a means of keeping a tyrannical Govt in check, yet here you are, fighting the very Rights our Founders tried to protect us with.
The 2nd is outdated. Our founders were painfully aware that they were fallible humans and so is the constitution. They don't call them amendments because the thing was written in stone ya know.
"Mr. President, I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them...For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better Information, or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."
-Ben Franklin
"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed." -James Madison
Solar these advocates of taking rights cannot even be honest with themselves. They want to take all the guns away from us all so that the govt is the only one with guns. Well the criminals too but they are kind of one and the same. Bet you could not get one Lib to agree with total registration no matter who the seller with the stipulation that once the sale is approved that the transaction and any and all records of that transaction are destroyed.
Keeping it out of the hands of those who cannot own a gun is NOT the issue.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 10:23:33 AM
]
You'd think a sensible regulation might be to require back ground checks for all gun sales, even private. Perhaps require private sellers to run a background check through a licensed dealer and business.
Oh, fokking yawn! More verses of the same old shitty song.
Jiminy Crickets, where do you clowns come from? The Dark Side of Nowhere?
Quote from: Solar on January 21, 2013, 10:39:18 AM
Well, it's wonderful feel good approach, but lets get real for a moment, do you really think a felon is going to legally buy a gun?
The only purpose of the background check, is to have a data base on every weapon in the country.
It's far easier to confiscate guns if you know exactly who has them.
Do you honestly believe the only thing protecting a civilian from tyrannical government is the 2nd amendment?
If the Feds want you badly enough, they just bring bigger guns ala the branch Davidian incident in Waco. There are other more effective ways to protest and paralyze the government.
Squeeze the heads of these fokkers and out pops (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg62%2F4573%2Fpoopxh.jpg&hash=b702b9d19bdc66671abbe45c52997188e71d5220) like a bit nasty zit.
Quote from: Shooterman on January 21, 2013, 11:04:49 AM
Oh, fokking yawn! More verses of the same old shitty song.
Jiminy Crickets, where do you clowns come from? The Dark Side of Nowhere?
I knew I could count on a political forum called Conservative Political Forum to be chalk full of enlightened and civil debaters!
I'm kind of new to the forum game, am I supposed to call you a clown now too? Is this like harmless adolescent ribbing or do you really think I'm a clown? I'm just trying to understand your conservative culture better.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 10:55:45 AM
The 2nd is outdated. Our founders were painfully aware that they were fallible humans and so is the constitution. They don't call them amendments because the thing was written in stone ya know.
Using your logic, the First is outdated as well, correct?
As to Amendments, the original Bill of Rights came before Govt, it was a barrier against Govt, and the 2nd is our guarantee of fighting an overbearing tyrannical Govt.
Quote"Mr. President, I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them...For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better Information, or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."
-Ben Franklin
"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed." -James Madison
Franklin was an early socialist. Read more of his writings, he didn't want man to be free of Govt, he wanted bigger Govt.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:17:33 AM
I knew I could count on a political forum called Conservative Political Forum to be chalk full of enlightened and civil debaters!
I'm kind of new to the forum game, am I supposed to call you a clown now too? Is this like harmless adolescent ribbing or do you really think I'm a clown? I'm just trying to understand your conservative culture better.
There is a reason you didn't get a quality response, your post is laden with ignorance of our Founders ideas and Documents.
Read the Federalist Papers, then come back and try and engage in debate.
I don't like insulting new members, but rather feel an obligation to educate, in your case? You have much too much to learn to even engage on our level.
Quote from: Solar on January 21, 2013, 11:21:15 AM
Using your logic, the First is outdated as well, correct?
As to Amendments, the original Bill of Rights came before Govt, it was a barrier against Govt, and the 2nd is our guarantee of fighting an overbearing tyrannical Govt.
Franklin was an early socialist. Read more of his writings, he didn't want man to be free of Govt, he wanted bigger Govt.
We have restrictions on the 1st already and I believe they are sufficient.
The 2nd however sticks out like a sore thumb invoking a time when a bunch of muskets and a 6lb. cannon actually COULD repel an invading nation or force. We live in the time of unmanned drones, lasers and perhaps the best trained military in history. A well regulated militia is no guarantee of independence anymore.
There is a better way to prevent tyranny. Voting and non-violent peaceful protest has actually proven to be effective in modern times.
Quote from: Solar on January 21, 2013, 11:21:15 AM
Using your logic, the First is outdated as well, correct?
As to Amendments, the original Bill of Rights came before Govt, it was a barrier against Govt, and the 2nd is our guarantee of fighting an overbearing tyrannical Govt.
Franklin was an early socialist. Read more of his writings, he didn't want man to be free of Govt, he wanted bigger Govt.
AS a philosopher, Franklin did okay. He was a piss poor legislator, never serving as such, and having most of his suggestions, as did Hamilton, kicked to the curb during the Constitutional Convention.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:29:22 AM
We have restrictions on the 1st already and I believe they are sufficient.
The 2nd however sticks out like a sore thumb invoking a time when a bunch of muskets and a 6lb. cannon actually COULD repel an invading nation or force. We live in the time of unmanned drones, lasers and perhaps the best trained military in history. A well regulated militia is no guarantee of independence anymore.
There is a better way to prevent tyranny. Voting and non-violent peaceful protest has actually proven to be effective in modern times.
Really? Japan would differ on that {POV}, it's the main reason they decided against a ground invasion, every citizen had a weapon or more, or in the least, easy access.
No military on earth could subdue the citizenry of the US outside of total obliteration.
Quote from: Solar on January 21, 2013, 11:26:37 AM
There is a reason you didn't get a quality response, your post is laden with ignorance of our Founders ideas and Documents.
Read the Federalist Papers, then come back and try and engage in debate.
I don't like insulting new members, but rather feel an obligation to educate, in your case? You have much too much to learn to even engage on our level.
Please enlighten me oh wise one! I can tell you skipped your debate class straight away.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:17:33 AM
I knew I could count on a political forum called Conservative Political Forum to be chalk full of enlightened and civil debaters!
I'm kind of new to the forum game, am I supposed to call you a clown now too? Is this like harmless adolescent ribbing or do you really think I'm a clown? I'm just trying to understand your conservative culture better.
How about humping your ass over to the DUmp and telling them all of your war stories about how you single handed put those squirrelous conservatives in their place. They might pat you on the back and give you some 'yeah man's' and you will be at home.
I really couldn't give a good fokk what you call me. As a liberal you will never understand what being a constitutionalists is all about.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:41:53 AM
Please enlighten me oh wise one! I can tell you skipped your debate class straight away.
I just did! Read the Federalist Papers, they explain what the Founders meant when writing our founding Documents.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:29:22 AM
We have restrictions on the 1st already and I believe they are sufficient.
The 2nd however sticks out like a sore thumb invoking a time when a bunch of muskets and a 6lb. cannon actually COULD repel an invading nation or force. We live in the time of unmanned drones, lasers and perhaps the best trained military in history. A well regulated militia is no guarantee of independence anymore.
There is a better way to prevent tyranny. Voting and non-violent peaceful protest has actually proven to be effective in modern times.
Vote to your heart's content and take yourself into any ghetto with your non-violent peaceful protest and see if you can get out alive. Be sure and tell the denisons of those places you are there to enlighten them on their rights and would they please, oh pretty please, quit waving those nasty guns in your face, they are actually making you ill. ( probably dead, as well )
Quote from: Solar on January 21, 2013, 11:39:43 AM
Really? Japan would differ on that {POV}, it's the main reason they decided against a ground invasion, every citizen had a weapon or more, or in the least, easy access.
No military on earth could subdue the citizenry of the US outside of total obliteration.
Yea yea, heard that quote, something about "we can not invade the U.S. because there would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." That was a different scenario in which enough Americans probably would have mobilized in order to repel a foreign invasion.
In what scenario could you envision that the entire U.S., every citizen uniting to combat our own government? Way to Turner Diaries.
When do Americans unite on anything? At best, we can get a bare majority to unite under some ideal and finally get some movement.
Quote from: Solar on January 21, 2013, 11:44:40 AM
I just did! Read the Federalist Papers, they explain what the Founders meant when writing our founding Documents.
The anti-federalist papers are more entertaining though.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:29:22 AM
We have restrictions on the 1st already and I believe they are sufficient.
Sorry, I missed this.
List the restrictions placed on my 1St Amendment by the Federal Govt.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:49:53 AM
Yea yea, heard that quote, something about "we can not invade the U.S. because there would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." That was a different scenario in which enough Americans probably would have mobilized in order to repel a foreign invasion.
In what scenario could you envision that the entire U.S., every citizen uniting to combat our own government? Way to Turner Diaries.
When do Americans unite on anything? At best, we can get a bare majority to unite under some ideal and finally get some movement.
So...just because it hasn't happened in modern times, it won't?
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:51:52 AM
The anti-federalist papers are more entertaining though.
Entertaining? Yes. Irrelevant? Absolutely!
Quote from: Shooterman on January 21, 2013, 11:47:17 AM
Vote to your heart's content and take yourself into any ghetto with your non-violent peaceful protest and see if you can get out alive. Be sure and tell the denisons of those places you are there to enlighten them on their rights and would they please, oh pretty please, quit waving those nasty guns in your face, they are actually making you ill. ( probably dead, as well )
When was the last job you worked in which you are issued a bullet proof/shank proof vest as your personal protective equipment? I like it personally, makes me feel tough.
I'm pretty good at going into the nasty parts of town, but your concern has warmed my heart. I feel more welcome now, thank you brother.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:49:53 AM
Yea yea, heard that quote, something about "we can not invade the U.S. because there would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." That was a different scenario in which enough Americans probably would have mobilized in order to repel a foreign invasion.
In what scenario could you envision that the entire U.S., every citizen uniting to combat our own government? Way to Turner Diaries.
When do Americans unite on anything? At best, we can get a bare majority to unite under some ideal and finally get some movement.
When I see the amount of guns and ammo going out the door. It is telling me there a majority of Americans uniting. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Solar on January 21, 2013, 11:52:11 AM
Sorry, I missed this.
List the restrictions placed on my 1St Amendment by the Federal Govt.
See the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, or hate speech.
Quote from: Solar on January 21, 2013, 11:54:25 AM
So...just because it hasn't happened in modern times, it won't?
I asked in what scenario can you envision ENOUGH U.S. citizens would take up arms against their own government?
I don't think it's going to be over the 2nd anyway.
*shrugs*
Quote from: Capt.Clueless on January 21, 2013, 10:23:33 AM
]
You'd think a sensible regulation might be to require back ground checks for all gun sales, even private. Perhaps require private sellers to run a background check through a licensed dealer and business.
No, I wouldn't think that. I'd rather see criminals get arrested.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 10:55:45 AM
The 2nd is outdated. Our founders were painfully aware that they were fallible humans and so is the constitution. They don't call them amendments because the thing was written in stone ya know.
"Mr. President, I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them...For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better Information, or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."
-Ben Franklin
"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed." -James Madison
How many of them, if knew about modern technology, would say "Let's make everyone's lives dependent on their cell phone connection and speed of the police."
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:17:33 AM
I knew I could count on a political forum called Conservative Political Forum to be chalk full of enlightened and civil debaters!
I'm kind of new to the forum game, am I supposed to call you a clown now too? Is this like harmless adolescent ribbing or do you really think I'm a clown? I'm just trying to understand your conservative culture better. all issues.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:29:22 AM
We have restrictions on the 1st already and I believe they are sufficient.
The 2nd however sticks out like a sore thumb invoking a time when a bunch of muskets and a 6lb. cannon actually COULD repel an invading nation or force. We live in the time of unmanned drones, lasers and perhaps the best trained military in history. A well regulated militia is no guarantee of independence anymore.
There is a better way to prevent tyranny. Voting and non-violent peaceful protest has actually proven to be effective in modern times.
Why should we have gun control, and why do you want a more violent society?
Quote from: taxed on January 21, 2013, 12:14:53 PM
Why should we have gun control, and why do you want a more violent society?
Job security.
My livelihood relies on a remarkably stupid and violent society. I'm really for more and cheaper guns, just trying to pump up the base mang.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 12:19:27 PM
Job security.
My livelihood relies on a remarkably stupid and violent society.
Oh. You're a union rep?
Quote
I'm really for more and cheaper guns, just trying to pump up the base mang.
What's a "mang"?
Quote from: taxed on January 21, 2013, 12:20:44 PM
Oh. You're a union rep?
What's a "mang"?
Mang is a cool way to say 'man' I think. The google says it's from the movie Scarface's Tony Montana.
"ju tink I a communiss, Mang....uh?"
"ju tink I wanna living some frickin cage, mang....uh?"
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 12:28:08 PM
Mang is a cool way to say 'man' I think. The google says it's from the movie Scarface's Tony Montana.
"ju tink I a communiss, Mang....uh?"
"ju tink I wanna living some frickin cage, mang....uh?"
Are you in college?
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 12:01:45 PM
See the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, or hate speech.
Link?
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:29:22 AM
We have restrictions on the 1st already and I believe they are sufficient.
The 2nd however sticks out like a sore thumb invoking a time when a bunch of muskets and a 6lb. cannon actually COULD repel an invading nation or force. We live in the time of unmanned drones, lasers and perhaps the best trained military in history. A well regulated militia is no guarantee of independence anymore.
There is a better way to prevent tyranny. Voting and non-violent peaceful protest has actually proven to be effective in modern times.
Why do the anti 2nd Amendment types always assume - no make that hope - that standing up to tyranny alway consist of people armed with hunting rifles standing in the open field against a fully armed US military (as if the tyrants could trust them). I guess it never occurs to them that it would be far simpler - and safer - to simply pick off the tyrants. Snipe all the generals. Use homemade bombs to make the lives of the tyrants unbearable.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 12:04:51 PM
I asked in what scenario can you envision ENOUGH U.S. citizens would take up arms against their own government?
I don't think it's going to be over the 2nd anyway.
*shrugs*
It would begin with coup, either within the party in power, or the US Military, but you can be assured it would most likely have the support of the citizenry.
Quote from: Solar on January 21, 2013, 12:31:54 PM
Link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle)
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm (http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm)
The Scotus says,
"Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help."
Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.
Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the "English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] 'fighting words' when said without a disarming smile. ... Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight."
Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.
Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 12:41:47 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle)
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm (http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm)
The Scotus says,
"Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help."
Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.
Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the "English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] 'fighting words' when said without a disarming smile. ... Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight."
Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.
Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.
They are not restrictions on free speech, the court even stated so.
Inciting violence is not protected under the First Amendment.
Child porn is not a 1st Amendment Right violation either.
When you, with the intent to inflict pain on another with your words, you are not protected.
Slander is not protected speech.
Someone asked for restrictions on freedom of speech which these are. May have mixed posters.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 11:29:22 AM
We have restrictions on the 1st already and I believe they are sufficient.
The 2nd however sticks out like a sore thumb invoking a time when a bunch of muskets and a 6lb. cannon actually COULD repel an invading nation or force. We live in the time of unmanned drones, lasers and perhaps the best trained military in history. A well regulated militia is no guarantee of independence anymore.
There is a better way to prevent tyranny. Voting and non-violent peaceful protest has actually proven to be effective in modern times.
1. Muskets and cannons are replaced by laser guides on rifles and
night scopes and amour piercing ammunition. Those illiterate Taliban
mostly armed with ak's are doing a fine job against the worlds
most technologically advanced military.
2. Voting prevents Tryanny? Tell that to all the people who voted for
Hugo Chavez
you guys are a dime dozen, you come in here with the same line....
"I wanna understand conservative culture" :popcorn:
then you come on with your intellectual superiority....you need to be honest, you come in here looking to point out how "we" are wrong and "you" are right.
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on January 21, 2013, 02:38:38 PM
1. Muskets and cannons are replaced by laser guides on rifles and
night scopes and amour piercing ammunition. Those illiterate Taliban
mostly armed with ak's are doing a fine job against the worlds
most technologically advanced military.
2. Voting prevents Tryanny? Tell that to all the people who voted for
Hugo Chavez
you guys are a dime dozen, you come in here with the same line....
"I wanna understand conservative culture" :popcorn:
then you come on with your intellectual superiority....you need to be honest, you come in here looking to point out how "we" are wrong and "you" are right.
1. The Taliban is doing pretty good against us how exactly?
2. Huh?
3. Profit.
I was kidding about wanting to understand your culture. I do however appreciate real debate and argument.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 02:46:29 PM
1. The Taliban is doing pretty good against us how exactly?
2. Huh?
3. Profit.
I was kidding about wanting to understand your culture. I do however appreciate real debate and argument.
Have we "beaten" the taliban? Look at the last ten years and there is your answer. They still control a portion of the countryside just like the Viet cong and NVA regulars I fought did.
Speaking of Vietnam What you had were local rebels armed with anything they could find including sharpened bamboo sticks.
Lets go back further and look at Hitlers Legions in the Warsaw Ghetto...a few UNTRAINED people armed with old rifle's fought then the most technically advanced army in the world to a stand still.
We can keep on going down through history and even our own...the American Indian, the Revolution etc and provide numerous examples
You have to realize that weapon superiority and professional soldiers
often do poorly against a truely dedicated person who is defending his/her home and personal rights.
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on January 21, 2013, 03:18:14 PM
Have we "beaten" the taliban? Look at the last ten years and there is your answer. They still control a portion of the countryside just like the Viet cong and NVA regulars I fought did.
Speaking of Vietnam What you had were local rebels armed with anything they could find including sharpened bamboo sticks.
Lets go back further and look at Hitlers Legions in the Warsaw Ghetto...a few UNTRAINED people armed with old rifle's fought then the most technically advanced army in the world to a stand still.
We can keep on going down through history and even our own...the American Indian, the Revolution etc and provide numerous examples
You have to realize that weapon superiority and professional soldiers
often do poorly against a truely dedicated person who is defending his/her home and personal rights.
Point taken about Vietnam, I believe our forces have learned it's lesson since then though. As for the Taliban, no, they'll never do appreciable damage to western civilization except in the form of the terror it will occasionally create. In that regard, they only have power over us in-so-much as we give them that power and fear them.
I've asked many times of several posters. In what scenario do you envision enough Americans rising up in arms against their own government? Only about half of us law abiding citizens even care to own a gun to begin with.
What's going to be the smoking gun? What's going to push everyone over the edge?
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 03:33:49 PM
Point taken about Vietnam, I believe our forces have learned it's lesson since then though. As for the Taliban, no, they'll never do appreciable damage to western civilization except in the form of the terror it will occasionally create. In that regard, they only have power over us in-so-much as we give them that power and fear them.
I've asked many times of several posters. In what scenario do you envision enough Americans rising up in arms against their own government? Only about half of us law abiding citizens even care to own a gun to begin with.
What's going to be the smoking gun? What's going to push everyone over the edge?
Being a student of history I know that revolts are not successful unless one has the backing of a portion of the military and the police.
You have a lot of police who will not go along with what the federal Govt says. Without belaboring the point look at the problems betwen the Feds and the Local law men in Arizona over immigration and listen to what a growing number of Sheriffs and local lawmen across the country are saying about gun laws and executive orders.
My guess is that any real problems will occur between federal law enforcement and local lawmen and go from there.
Other factors will be tied into it, I think the number one problem is going to be the economy, if our economy collapses, you are looking at major problems that no one can control.
Think about it, during the Chaos do you think all the military families, police familes, national guard famlies won't be caught up in it? Those are the guys who are expected to maintain order, do you think they will do that or look to their own familes?
Billy
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on January 21, 2013, 04:04:13 PM
Being a student of history I know that revolts are not successful unless one has the backing of a portion of the military and the police.
You have a lot of police who will not go along with what the federal Govt says. Without belaboring the point look at the problems betwen the Feds and the Local law men in Arizona over immigration and listen to what a growing number of Sheriffs and local lawmen across the country are saying about gun laws and executive orders.
My guess is that any real problems will occur between federal law enforcement and local lawmen and go from there.
Other factors will be tied into it, I think the number one problem is going to be the economy, if our economy collapses, you are looking at major problems that no one can control.
Think about it, during the Chaos do you think all the military families, police familes, national guard famlies won't be caught up in it? Those are the guys who are expected to maintain order, do you think they will do that or look to their own familes?
Billy
The national guard wrung their hands and said how much they hated to have to disarm New Orleans after Katrina, but they followed orders, like trained.
I have a suspicion we're only hearing from these sheriffs because their job is political, but when faced with all the problems of defying the feds, we'll see more compliance. Banning all firearms is not on the table to begin with. Just some modest regulation, just as we regulated the highway and other dangerous things.
I love in Washington state and since legalizing marijuana, we're bucking the feds authority on this matter. I don't have a problem with protest in favor of local legislation but this fear that all guns will be banned is unproductive.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 02:27:32 PM
Someone asked for restrictions on freedom of speech which these are. May have mixed posters.
Again, SCOTUS stated they are not restrictions on the 1st Amendment, you do not have the right to libel someone, libel is already illegal, so the 1st doesn't apply.
I asked you to show me where an actual Federal law exists restricting freedom of speech, not state law.
Quote from: Solar on January 21, 2013, 05:21:21 PM
Again, SCOTUS stated they are not restrictions on the 1st Amendment, you do not have the right to libel someone, libel is already illegal, so the 1st doesn't apply.
I asked you to show me where an actual Federal law exists restricting freedom of speech, not state law.
Those ARE restrictions on freedom of speech.
I'll spell it out. You may not speak or write whatever you want because of these laws so your speech is in fact restricted. This has all been before the Scotus as a challenge to the 1st and failed.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 05:26:44 PM
Those ARE restrictions on freedom of speech.
I'll spell it out. You may not speak or write whatever you want because of these laws so your speech is in fact restricted. This has all been before the Scotus as a challenge to the 1st and failed.
Those were State court cases brought before SCOTUS, there is a huge difference.
SCOTUS also said they are not restrictions on freedom of speech.
I asked for an actual Federal law, not a State issue.
Quote from: Solar on January 21, 2013, 05:30:11 PM
Those were State court cases brought before SCOTUS, there is a huge difference.
SCOTUS also said they are not restrictions on freedom of speech.
I asked for an actual Federal law, not a State issue.
Therefore there is regulation on our freedom to speak. not sure how more easily that can be explained.
You can own a gun but you cannot shot someone with it just for the hell of it. So you win our right to own a gun has restrictions. Time to move on. Voting will resolve political problems. Wow it must be nice to only see things as you want them to be. Hitler got voted in, Mao did too I believe. USSR used to have elections too. Talk against that government and off to Siberia you go. Cuba is doing great too. Hard to find a better place to see very old cars in action. So nice that they are preserving that nostalgic time.
I think Afghanistan is a perfect example that short of totally annihilating the entire population they will not be dominated by an outside force. Viet Nam was another example but toss on the absurd rules of war at that time well we all know how that ended. The conclusion of this discussion is so obvious and well argued that I feel the dissent needs to find some entertainment after hitting the bong a few times. Think such uninformed childishness is better done on sites like the Hill. I really like informed discussion and probably more so when the points go counter to what I believe to be true. I do not have the time to research every aspect of some of these very complex issues. So I am never certain that my conclusion is correct and appreciate the opportunity to see an opposing view point on which I can assess my position. However, uninformed argument and a repetition of talking points is not worth the time to consider. Thanks to those who provide thoughtful insight and to those who wish to just stir the pot well I hope you quickly grow tired of such a childish endeavor.
The freedom speak is not absolute is my point. Why does the freedom to own a firearm need to be absolute too?
There is also the point that there already is restrictions on the second amendment. You obviously can't own an atom bomb or some chemical weapons. You also can't own other 'arms' that aren't as extreme as these two examples I'm sure, I just can't name them but someone else on this forum probably could.
Can you own a bazooka ?
Quote from: redlom xof on January 22, 2013, 02:30:41 AM
There is also the point that there already is restrictions on the second amendment. You obviously can't own an atom bomb or some chemical weapons. You also can't own other 'arms' that aren't as extreme as these two examples I'm sure, I just can't name them but someone else on this forum probably could.
Can you own a bazooka ?
And back in the day, you could own a naval warship. Bazooka's, atom bombs, chemical weapons, all regulated out of the hands of the average citizen.
Why not continue with more sensible regulation, like limiting personal firearms to bolt action rifles for hunting? Just a thought.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 02:27:32 PM
Someone asked for restrictions on freedom of speech which these are. May have mixed posters.
Uh, no. That's along the lines of complaining that not being allowed to shoot people you don't like is a restriction on your 2nd Amendment rights. The Bill of Rights doesn't give you freedom to engage in criminal conduct.
Example.
Stand on your soap box, at your torch light meeting going on and on about how you hate "those people". You are well within your first amendment rights. However, when you point at the torches surrounding the meeting and start suggesting the group go over to where "those people" live, and burn it down; then you are engaging in incitement. The law has no right to prevent you from speaking, it does have a right to stop or punish you for engaging in action. The anti 2nd Amendment types want to prevent you from even owning a soapbox; saying that last week someone two states away used that soapbox to incite a crowd.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 22, 2013, 02:43:39 AM
And back in the day, you could own a naval warship. Bazooka's, atom bombs, chemical weapons, all regulated out of the hands of the average citizen.
Why not continue with more sensible regulation, like limiting personal firearms to bolt action rifles for hunting? Just a thought.
Why don't we limit your transportation to bicycle? Or maybe limit your knife length to 3"? While we are at it, hammers need to be restricted to only 1 lb, because hammers kill people... No one should have enough alcoholic beverages in their house to get drunk, tired of the restriction on your freedom yet? The Constitution and Bill if Rights limit government, not citizenry.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 21, 2013, 03:33:49 PM
Point taken about Vietnam, I believe our forces have learned it's lesson since then though. As for the Taliban, no, they'll never do appreciable damage to western civilization except in the form of the terror it will occasionally create. In that regard, they only have power over us in-so-much as we give them that power and fear them.
We have spent billions on scanners, we have spent billions on making planes safer(more secure). You can't go into many large office or government building without being searched. Have you tried to get onto a military base lately. They have done a HUGE AMOUNT of damage and are winning more everyday.
I've asked many times of several posters. In what scenario do you envision enough Americans rising up in arms against their own government? Only about half of us law abiding citizens even care to own a gun to begin with.
What's going to be the smoking gun? What's going to push everyone over the edge?
We need to ban" Assault Breasts". :smile:
http://www.urbannewsroom.com/2013/01/16/a-booby-trap-woman-allegedly-smothers-boyfriend-to-death-with-breasts/ (http://www.urbannewsroom.com/2013/01/16/a-booby-trap-woman-allegedly-smothers-boyfriend-to-death-with-breasts/)
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on January 21, 2013, 03:18:14 PM
Have we "beaten" the taliban? Look at the last ten years and there is your answer. They still control a portion of the countryside just like the Viet cong and NVA regulars I fought did.
Speaking of Vietnam What you had were local rebels armed with anything they could find including sharpened bamboo sticks.
Lets go back further and look at Hitlers Legions in the Warsaw Ghetto...a few UNTRAINED people armed with old rifle's fought then the most technically advanced army in the world to a stand still.
We can keep on going down through history and even our own...the American Indian, the Revolution etc and provide numerous examples
You have to realize that weapon superiority and professional soldiers
often do poorly against a truely dedicated person who is defending his/her home and personal rights.
Okay, reality check. Despite what the left wing has been putting out for about forty years now, the US absolutely slaughtered the VC and the NVA. That's the word from the mouth of the North Vietnamese themselves. Then we quite, and went home. Oh yeah, and stabbed our ally in the back. What history shows is that
ABSENT ASSISTANCE FROM AN OUTSIDE POWER, technologically inferior peoples fare poorly against technologically advanced societies
IF those technologically advanced societies are willing to bring all their advantages to bear. Would the US have won the Revolution without the French? Would the Northwest Indian tribes have stood against American settlers without British assistance? Would the North Vietnamese have survived without Soviet and Red Chinese aid? All the inferior group can do is make the superior group question whether the effort is worth the possible gain. If the superior group wants it badly enough, the inferior group is screwed.
Quote from: mdgiles on January 22, 2013, 06:17:42 AM
Uh, no. That's along the lines of complaining that not being allowed to shoot people you don't like is a restriction on your 2nd Amendment rights. The Bill of Rights doesn't give you freedom to engage in criminal conduct.
Example.
Stand on your soap box, at your torch light meeting going on and on about how you hate "those people". You are well within your first amendment rights. However, when you point at the torches surrounding the meeting and start suggesting the group go over to where "those people" live, and burn it down; then you are engaging in incitement. The law has no right to prevent you from speaking, it does have a right to stop or punish you for engaging in action. The anti 2nd Amendment types want to prevent you from even owning a soapbox; saying that last week someone two states away used that soapbox to incite a crowd.
Well stated.
This always alludes them, unless you cripple their ability to use drugs, then suddenly it's a restriction on their Rights.
Libel was never protected by the 1st, that was the point SCOTUS was trying to make, we were never given carte blanche over the Rights of others, just because we have freedoms from Govt.
So I ask again, show me a Federal law restricting the 1st Amendment.
All you've shown so far is lower court rulings from States, States that can set their own laws.
You see, the Bill of Rights was a restriction on our Federal Govt, not the States.
Quote from: Solar on January 22, 2013, 07:41:30 AM
Well stated.
This always alludes them, unless you cripple their ability to use drugs, then suddenly it's a restriction on their Rights.
Libel was never protected by the 1st, that was the point SCOTUS was trying to make, we were never given carte blanche over the Rights of others, just because we have freedoms from Govt.
So I ask again, show me a Federal law restricting the 1st Amendment.
All you've shown so far is lower court rulings from States, States that can set their own laws.
You see, the Bill of Rights was a restriction on our Federal Govt, not the States.
Interesting. According to your interpretation of the 14th Amendment citizens of a state would have no protection if that state decided to deprive them of their rights as stated in the BoR. So if deep, deep, deep blue California decided to ban all guns within the state of California - along with passing a law overturning
Citizens United within California and similarly the deep red state of Utah could pass a law banning all abortions within the state of Utah. But didn't the USSC, overturn
Casey in Pennsylvania, and doesn't
Heller apply to states
Quote from: mdgiles on January 22, 2013, 08:03:44 AM
Interesting. According to your interpretation of the 14th Amendment citizens of a state would have no protection if that state decided to deprive them of their rights as stated in the BoR. So if deep, deep, deep blue California decided to ban all guns within the state of California - along with passing a law overturning Citizens United within California and similarly the deep red state of Utah could pass a law banning all abortions within the state of Utah. But didn't the USSC, overturn Casey in Pennsylvania, and doesn't Heller apply to states
I was torn on Heller, though it sent a message, it was not a State vs Fed issue, but rather Chicago.
I will always be Leery when SCOTUS injects itself into matters of the 2nd, because just having a decision, creates precedent and allows for interpretation.
If one reads the Bill of Rights, one would have to concede that a Federal court has absolutely no business ruling over any of it.
It's one of the reasons SCOTUS has avoided cases regarding the 2nd, that is until recently.
At a very basic level, I think the constitution wanted to guarantee that our rights that are given to us by god cannot be infringed on by the government. The role of the government was to protect the nation from outside invaders and to protect everyone from being harmed by another. So my take is that you were able to be as free as nature allowed as long as you did not do harm to others. Now our interpretation of harm to others has gotten stretched to an extreme but I think I am in the ball park.
Just today a woman was killed in my area by a hammer. Now is the time for our government to act because if they can save a single life it is worth it so hid your hammers because they are soon going to be taken away from us. It will be pretty easy because our forefathers failed to see the importance of keeping our hammers so nothing was stated in the constitution. Hmm how are the libs going to outlaw stones?
The assumption that the state government is going to any friendlier to your interests than the federal government, fails the reality test. I live in New York, tell me about it/sarc. :rolleyes:
Quote from: mdgiles on January 22, 2013, 08:44:07 AM
The assumption that the state government is going to any friendlier to your interests than the federal government, fails the reality test. I live in New York, tell me about it/sarc. :rolleyes:
I many cases they aren't, like Ca, I'm not allowed to carry my favorite knife, the Bowie.
And Florida goes even further:
So, you have your Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm License (CWFL) and you know that Florida preempts all firearms laws throughout the state so that you don't accidentally break some ridiculous local ordinance and end up in the hoosegow for carrying your weapon. You have a license from the state and we fought hard to make preemption enforceable last legislative session!
Well, you are half right. Your pistol won't get you in trouble but your pocket knife could put you away for a MINIMUM of six months, cost you a cool grand, and yeah... they'll take your knife too.
But wait! I have a license from the state to carry that! Yep you do, but not from Miami-Dade County and your assisted opening pocket knife just violated their laws.
Sec. 21-14. - Dangerous weapons; penalty; trial court.
(a) Concealed dangerous weapons. It shall be unlawful for any person to wear under his clothes, or concealed about his person, or to display in a threatening manner any dangerous or deadly weapon including, but not by way of limitation, any pistol, revolver, slingshot, cross-knuckles or knuckles of lead, brass or other metal, or any bowie knife, razor, dirk, dagger, or any knife resembling a bowie knife, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon, except as hereinafter provided.
http://www.floridacarry.org/issues/knife-preemption (http://www.floridacarry.org/issues/knife-preemption)
I work in upstate NY and the people up hear are at a fever pitch because of how the state is mostly controlled by the lib's in NY city. My state of PA is starting to see a boom from the gas industry and every day on my drive to work I see so much work being done in PA that is not going on in NY and probably won't for a good while as the governor continually comes up with ways to delay any work to drill for gas. Every study proves that no harm is done but he just orders another one. Same outrage about guns. I have talked to quite a few who have told me that the police in this area are not going to even think about enforcing the gun laws that the lib's want.
While I do not believe it will happen but if the Governor gets his wish and institutes some kind of gun confiscation, I think that there really is a high likelihood that it will not be a totally peaceful process.
The Vietnam war was won by the US during Linebacker II and the Tet Offensive, and the Vietcong & communist revolution were finished.
Walter Cronkite later in life admitted that he did his best, with his own broadcasts and general influence in the media, to make the US victory unknown to the public, with the hopes that the Vietcong and communism could rally and hang in there.
Cronkite should have been convicted of treason and hung on national TV.
He proudly handed the torch to morons like Rather, Donaldson, Matthews, Maher, Olbermann, Maddow.
Peeople who will lie and interject their beliefs instead of reporting, at the drop of a hat.
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 22, 2013, 09:00:54 AM
I work in upstate NY and the people up hear are at a fever pitch because of how the state is mostly controlled by the lib's in NY city. My state of PA is starting to see a boom from the gas industry and every day on my drive to work I see so much work being done in PA that is not going on in NY and probably won't for a good while as the governor continually comes up with ways to delay any work to drill for gas. Every study proves that no harm is done but he just orders another one. Same outrage about guns. I have talked to quite a few who have told me that the police in this area are not going to even think about enforcing the gun laws that the lib's want.
While I do not believe it will happen but if the Governor gets his wish and institutes some kind of gun confiscation, I think that there really is a high likelihood that it will not be a totally peaceful process.
I agree, and much will depend on which side the media falls on the issue.
If they side with the power on the Hill, then there will be no coverage of revolt, the people will be led to believe there is no resistance, which, of course would be an obvious lie.
Regarding the topic at hand, our little tag team lost me when they blatantly lied about the Columbine guys buying their own weapons at gun shows,
When you have to flippantly reply "oh yeah, I lied about that but I was still right because yadayadayadayadayada...." then you have no seat at the debate.
Try again in a few years when your entire premise and template aren't built on various randomized half-truths, distortions, and bastardizations. That's the liberal template that's apparently succeding these days, but we don't have to accept it right in our faces on a message board.
I don't know if they did win. I simply don't trust the count anywhere that the Dems have even a finger in the election operation.
Quote from: Solar on January 22, 2013, 09:05:40 AM
I agree, and much will depend on which side the media falls on the issue.
If they side with the power on the Hill, then there will be no coverage of revolt, the people will be led to believe there is no resistance, which, of course would be an obvious lie.
Any efforts to resist the confiscation, regardless of their nature, will be labeled as domestic terrorism by the MSM.
If there are any ridiculous abuses by folks trying to take guns, you will never hear of it.
Anything remotely related to confiscation will be reported in glowing terms, as though Obama himself is saving us from the creeping menace.
It will take a hell of a lot of private citizens with cell phones, blogs, and loose-knit coalitions, along with some legal support from conservative institutes, to compete with the MSM white-wash.
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 22, 2013, 09:14:37 AM
Any efforts to resist the confiscation, regardless of their nature, will be labeled as domestic terrorism by the MSM.
If there are any ridiculous abuses by folks trying to take guns, you will never hear of it.
Anything remotely related to confiscation will be reported in glowing terms, as though Obama himself is saving us from the creeping menace.
It will take a hell of a lot of private citizens with cell phones, blogs, and loose-knit coalitions, along with some legal support from conservative institutes, to compete with the MSM white-wash.
They may have network TV, but they don't have private local TV stations, and local is where people will turn for the truth.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 22, 2013, 02:43:39 AM
And back in the day, you could own a naval warship. Bazooka's, atom bombs, chemical weapons, all regulated out of the hands of the average citizen.
Why not continue with more sensible regulation, like limiting personal firearms to bolt action rifles for hunting? Just a thought.
The 2nd amendment never was and still isn't about hunting. Another liberal talking point from MM 101.
Quote from: The Stranger on January 22, 2013, 12:56:17 PM
The 2nd amendment never was and still isn't about hunting. Another liberal talking point from MM 101.
Yea yea, it's about protecting the average citizen from tyranny. My question is, who's going to protect me from the average citizen?
When the Founders wrote the 2nd, they lived in the time of muskets, that could take between 30 seconds to a minute to reload. They could not imagine guns that could fire 30 rounds in a few seconds.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 22, 2013, 01:06:12 PM
Yea yea, it's about protecting the average citizen from tyranny. My question is, who's going to protect me from the average citizen?
Be a man and protect yourself. You can't have your ass wiped for you your entire life.
The data and actual outcomes prove, time and time again, that the fewer gun laws and greater prevalence of legally owned weapons leads to less crime and gun violence / accidennts.
This is not a contest of beliefs, it's fact and figures.
But the liberals still squall "wild west all over again, shootouts everywhere, rivers of blood running in the street".
It never comes true, just the opposite always happens, yet the liberals will repeat the same falsehoods for the 947th time next time they get scared of some new legislation that they don't like.
Being childish and a liar never felt good for me. But I guess it's mama's milk for the liberal.
There is no gun that a joe schmoe can own, that fires 30 rounds in a few seconds.
More liberal dishonesty.
You can buy a gun legally, with the right background check, that can fire one round in one second for one trigger pull. And for joe schmoe, most will miss their mark.
If joe schmoe lives in a crap hole like DET, CHI, CA, NJ, NO, NYC, LA, etc.......he really ought to have at least 15 rounds at his disposal.
Quote from: taxed on January 22, 2013, 01:07:17 PM
Be a man and protect yourself. You can't have your ass wiped for you your entire life.
I am protecting my self, I'm fighting to regulate firearms and make my life safer.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 22, 2013, 01:20:05 PM
I am protecting my self, I'm fighting to regulate firearms and make my life safer.
No you're not. More guns = less crime. It's pretty simple.
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 22, 2013, 01:17:40 PM
There is no gun that a joe schmoe can own, that fires 30 rounds in a few seconds.
More liberal dishonesty.
You can buy a gun legally, with the right background check, that can fire one round in one second for one trigger pull. And for joe schmoe, most will miss their mark.
If joe schmoe lives in a crap hole like DET, CHI, CA, NJ, NO, NYC, LA, etc.......he really ought to have at least 15 rounds at his disposal.
See GAT triggers by Black Warrior.
Rapid Fire demo using Gat trigger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70DxFSBBNBA#)
lol, even I couldn't have expected he or she to blurt out what I just insulted them for.....as if on cue.
Mind blowing.
But I hate to act like I'm picking on poor old Capt.
It's all of them, like a completely rampant plague.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 22, 2013, 01:22:41 PM
See GAT triggers by Black Warrior.
Rapid Fire demo using Gat trigger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70DxFSBBNBA#)
Whatever a GAT trigger is, it's not owned by joe schmoe.
I've heard of some gadget that can somehow cause a 3-round burst, but that's still illegal if it needs any kind of alteration or improper operation of the weapon.
Also of some weird use of one's fingers to do something similar. Sorry, we can't do anything about people's weird use of their fingers, nor can we call it a standard threat to society.
Can you explain whatever your point is for us ? Just a simple explanation of what you're claiming.
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 22, 2013, 01:23:32 PM
lol, even I couldn't have expected he or she to blurt out what I just insulted them for.....as if on cue.
Mind blowing.
But I hate to act like I'm picking on poor old Capt.
It's all of them, like a completely rampant plague.
You are so easy to entertain. It's called satire, google it.
No, it's not.
It's called a pathological inability to tell the truth, which is why it's so prevalent in liberal rants and tangents.
And always followed up by "ooooohhhhh, hahaha, I was joking !"......whenever you're called on it.
We've all seen it 1000 times on the internet. You're not bringing anything new.
It's YOU that's on here fighting tooth and nail trying to prove something to somebody.
It's ME / WE that are having fun with it.
Just not feeling the satire, humor, sarcasm, irony, and so on. It's just not there.
Oh, and I always liked this one too -
"You are so easy to entertain."
A cute little variant of "I'm so smart and you're so dumb".
Loosely related to "Oh I made you so mad, bwahahaha".
These little self-satisfying, self-justifying quips are REALLY old, Capt. my friend.
Don't make the embarrassing mistake of thinking that you're rolling out nifty, fresh, snarky awesomeness.
Everybody here has seen this stuff ad nauseum, everywhere.
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 22, 2013, 01:37:19 PM
No, it's not.
It's called a pathological inability to tell the truth, which is why it's so prevalent in liberal rants and tangents.
And always followed up by "ooooohhhhh, hahaha, I was joking !"......whenever you're called on it.
We've all seen it 1000 times on the internet. You're not bringing anything new.
It's YOU that's on here fighting tooth and nail trying to prove something to somebody.
It's ME / WE that are having fun with it.
Just not feeling the satire, humor, sarcasm, irony, and so on. It's just not there.
There's no deception, I really do want a safer society. I just phrased it in such a way as to caricature your view of the stereotypical liberal.
In other words, your post is disregarded as more vitriol and unproductive. It's a nice way of dismissing your comment.
Caricature of the stereotypical liberal.
Just wow. That would be you, the stereotypical liberall.
Are you the guy / gal on the other PF that's always anti-gun, but claims to be a big hunter and posts his/her birds taken ?
The "I'm not a liberal" bugeyed liberal. An internet classic.
Sometimes expanded on as "I was a hardcore conservative for 40 years, but because of Bush I must support Obama".
And the purpose of this is????? You have defined or clarified nothing. I did not bother to look at that GaT trigger but if you have a permit for full auto you may buy a gun that is fully automatic. Again no gun shoots 30 shots in a few seconds. Barrel would melt, warp self destruct. Just like explosives, if you comply with what ever the regulations are you can have them and use them in a way that is consistent with the permit you have.
So if you get your way, you are implying that you would be safer. However, there is zero chance that your safety was in any jeopardy if I had a gun or did not. Now when your dealer or bookie does not get the money he has coming to him do you think that you are going to be safe when he comes to your house to light you up. I suspect that he will not be showing up with a fully registered weapon handled in a safe manner. Whereas your safety will be greatly impaired because as a law abiding citizen your only means of defense will be some sniveling words of apology and a strong hope that he does not hit your vital parts.
During the playoffs on Sunday one of the players house was robbed at gun point as the crook held some people there until they could make off with some of his possessions including two Superbowl rings. Lucky for those people the thief was not a killer so I think they were allowed to live. I imagine that they are now very happy that they were defenseless as they faced that gun.
Oh and the beauty of the Constitution is that it does allow for amendment but was so skillfully crafted that the basic concept is timeless. Governments always seek more and more power, Those in power will seek to limit the rights of the people and on and on. The more I learn about the founders and all that went on behind the scenes the more brilliant I think that the document is.
You already are protected from the rest of us because like I said in another post, I cannot come by and even shoot at you just for fun. I can own a gun but they limit my use to targets, hunting for edible game and killing useless varmints. Hmm I think I need clarification to know if that only includes creatures that scurry about on four legs.
Quote from: taxed on January 22, 2013, 01:07:17 PM
Be a man and protect yourself. You can't have your ass wiped for you your entire life.
"You can't have your ass wiped for you your entire life."
That is probably what he does for a living.
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 22, 2013, 01:06:12 PM
Yea yea, it's about protecting the average citizen from tyranny. My question is, who's going to protect me from the average citizen?
When the Founders wrote the 2nd, they lived in the time of muskets, that could take between 30 seconds to a minute to reload. They could not imagine guns that could fire 30 rounds in a few seconds.
Interesting to note,
the assault rifle of the day was the Pennsylvania (mistakenly called the Kentucky) Long rifle. With such a weapon Americans could body shoot a foe at 200 yds easily an ideal weapon for sniping and guerilla warfare style fighting that made the difference during two wars with England. The British Brown bess had less accurate range, you had to close with 100 yrds.
Billy
Quote from: Capt.Obvious on January 22, 2013, 01:06:12 PM
Yea yea, it's about protecting the average citizen from tyranny. My question is, who's going to protect me from the average citizen?
That is your job. No one else. Sounds like you're one of those people that are afraid to take a crap without Uncle Sugar there to protect you.
QuoteWhen the Founders wrote the 2nd, they lived in the time of muskets, that could take between 30 seconds to a minute to reload. They could not imagine guns that could fire 30 rounds in a few seconds.
They also used quills and ink to write with. No fancy fountain pens or ball points. The printing presses were hand set with a laborious process.
Quote from: Shooterman on January 22, 2013, 03:35:11 PM
That is your job. No one else. Sounds like you're one of those people that are afraid to take a crap without Uncle Sugar there to protect you.
They also used quills and ink to write with. No fancy fountain pens or ball points. The printing presses were hand set with a laborious process.
:lol: He will have to find an old history book to tell him that.