Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Debate about Gun Control
#61
(06-16-2016, 10:29 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 09:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 03:22 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-14-2016, 09:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Second Amendment provides for states to have their own militias (National Guard, state police).
You might want to look at what an English professor has to say on the language of the Second Amendment.  If you had bothered to understand the history of the American Revolution then you would know that it was about making sure that the new government would not have a monopoly on the use of force.  Thomas Jefferson was very clear about the purpose of the Second Amendment.  It was about the individual being able to defend themselves from the random criminal and an oppressive government.  This implies that the citizens must have arms equivalent to the infantry.

And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines.  This isn't the late 1700s.
True it's not the 1700's. Our weaponry is far more advanced and deadly. You must assume that the US military would remain loyal and intact. I assume that the military would remain loyal to their own (friends, family and their community or home) and spit accordingly. I don't think the left actually has what it would take to win a war with the right.

Sorry to disappoint your wet dream, but it would not roll out that way.

Most active military are either far from their families, and worried about their 'brothers', or they have their families on base. 

But it will never get to that point.  It won't be Civil War redux; it will be a few Wacos and Burns incidents with a few of you shot dead but most of you simply going to federal prison for a couple of decades.  I'm way okay with that - make this country a lot more pleasant in nearly countless number of ways.

I agree that it will never get to that point. The Democrats would cave before we ever get to that point. The Democrats have to much on the line and far more to loose than gain. Soldiers are more connected to their families today than they've ever been in the past. You should wake up and come to grips with the reality of living today. You do understand that the war would be a war against the progressive Democrats. Defeating the progressive Democrats in a  war isn't very hard to figure out once you're familiar with them and understand their weakness's. The Democrats have a lot of weakness's. BTW, it isn't a wet dream on mine. It's just a reality that I'm able to identify and see very clearly.
Reply
#62
(06-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Odin Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 01:00 PM)taramarie Wrote: Learn to spell Australia correctly. Australia has more common sense than America can ever dream of that is why it works over there and here. In America it won't. Why? Because the culture is different. Americans obsess over their guns. Even I know that. Because of that desire to own a variety of different guns it will not work. Ideally I would like for autos and semi autos to be banned. Ones that allow for one to mow down a crowd easily. High rate of fire guns. But when i hear of people saying they will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hands i realize it just will not work. People love their guns in America on a whole different level than the rest of the western world. Kiwis, Aussies and the British do not have the same passion on the whole for them and that is why it works here. Culture makes it work. You take away guns in America and i know from what i hear from republicans they will declare it an act of war. Do i like it....nope but that is reality.

The difference is that Australia and New Zealand were given their independence from Britain while the US fought a violent armed rebellion to get our independence. The notion that we might have to take up arms against oppressive rulers in ingrained into American culture by our very history.

Yup different history so it shaped a culture that solves problems by murder.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#63
(06-16-2016, 10:00 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 01:00 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 11:23 AM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-14-2016, 01:53 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-13-2016, 11:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have predicted that these horrible, ridiculous massacres would continue and get worse as long as people continue with these silly arguments about bans not working and so on. My prediction has come true, over and over again. So, I make it again. When will people in America drop their illusions and the gun fetish? "How many deaths does it take till he knows, that too many people have died?" This is one mixed up, crazy country. Look who's running for president. Look who controls congress. Look at who congress listens to: the NRA. Case closed; this country is too mentally ill to be trusted with gun ownership. The USA fails its background check. Big time.

While I am not a gun owner nor have any desire to own one I have to say historically bans do not work.

Then explain Austrilia.


Quote:Obama I believe is not for banning them. Just for tighter regulation. I have seen a video of him saying so so that is where I get that notion from. I believe though you sound like you are for banning them. It will never happen. That is the failure here. The failure to see that reality. If you take them away, say hello to the next civil war matey. THEN real bloodshed will really begin.

The slippery slope to absolute gun banning is a ploy used by gun advocates to get foaming at the mouth - see the term "circle jerk."

Learn to spell Australia correctly. Australia has more common sense than America can ever dream of that is why it works over there and here. In America it won't. Why? Because the culture is different. Americans obsess over their guns. Even I know that. Because of that desire to own a variety of different guns it will not work. Ideally I would like for autos and semi autos to be banned. Ones that allow for one to mow down a crowd easily. High rate of fire guns. But when i hear of people saying they will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hands i realize it just will not work. People love their guns in America on a whole different level than the rest of the western world. Kiwis, Aussies and the British do not have the same passion on the whole for them and that is why it works here. Culture makes it work. You take away guns in America and i know from what i hear from republicans they will declare it an act of war. Do i like it....nope but that is reality.

Re:  Australia - don't be a jerk -

Study shows people who correct typos may be jerks     Tongue   



There's a lot of people who don't like their Meth labs taken away either, and they live pretty shitty lives trying to keep them.

But the vast number of people, including gun owners, are going to follow the law - they don't want their lives and their families destroyed, and they're certainly not going to wage gun battles over it against the government (do you guys watch a lot movies or something?).  The ones that don't will be treated like the criminals that they are.

There's ways to doing this.  You can ban manufacturing, transport, and sales with hefty prison terms - some will get made, transferred and sold but instead of $1200 people will be paying $12,000 black market prices and looking over their shoulder for not only its confiscation but being thrown in prison.  You can ban the ammo that is most prevalent for ARs - effectively, turn the gun into an expensive large door stopper.  You can revoke the business license for any gun range as well as gun store where these guns are found on the premise even if the store owner claims he had no idea - watch the self-policing that comes from that little trick.  You can have buy-back program, including credits for new, legal gun purchases.

Sure it will take time to get nearly all the ARs out of circulation, but some of these measure would result in removing much more than half within a year at most.

I'm not worried at all about executing laws aimed at ARs; I'm just concerned with getting them banned.
I don't need to watch movies. I do not get this from movies. I know people would declare war over having guns taken away from what people say. They would rather die to keep their guns than have their freedom to own them taken away. This is something people would fight over. Heck i do not even live in your country and i know this. How do you not know this? You converse with republicans i assume? You know what Americans care about correct? There is always talk over the 2nd amendment being violated as well as the first amendment. Listen to those who care about those rights and you will see what will happen. We agree on the fact it will go underground. Which is why the culture has to change in order for those types of guns to be seen as unnecessary. I think they already are anyway. It is overkill. I do not see it happening anytime soon.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#64
(06-16-2016, 11:14 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Odin Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 01:00 PM)taramarie Wrote: Learn to spell Australia correctly. Australia has more common sense than America can ever dream of that is why it works over there and here. In America it won't. Why? Because the culture is different. Americans obsess over their guns. Even I know that. Because of that desire to own a variety of different guns it will not work. Ideally I would like for autos and semi autos to be banned. Ones that allow for one to mow down a crowd easily. High rate of fire guns. But when i hear of people saying they will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hands i realize it just will not work. People love their guns in America on a whole different level than the rest of the western world. Kiwis, Aussies and the British do not have the same passion on the whole for them and that is why it works here. Culture makes it work. You take away guns in America and i know from what i hear from republicans they will declare it an act of war. Do i like it....nope but that is reality.

The difference is that Australia and New Zealand were given their independence from Britain while the US fought a violent armed rebellion to get our independence. The notion that we might have to take up arms against oppressive rulers in ingrained into American culture by our very history.

Yup different history so it shaped a culture that solves problems by murder.
Americans are largely defiant by nature. That's what separates us from the European's and the rest of the world. I'm proud to say that I'm an American and I'm proud to be directly associated with American heritage.
Reply
#65
(06-16-2016, 11:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 11:14 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Odin Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 01:00 PM)taramarie Wrote: Learn to spell Australia correctly. Australia has more common sense than America can ever dream of that is why it works over there and here. In America it won't. Why? Because the culture is different. Americans obsess over their guns. Even I know that. Because of that desire to own a variety of different guns it will not work. Ideally I would like for autos and semi autos to be banned. Ones that allow for one to mow down a crowd easily. High rate of fire guns. But when i hear of people saying they will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hands i realize it just will not work. People love their guns in America on a whole different level than the rest of the western world. Kiwis, Aussies and the British do not have the same passion on the whole for them and that is why it works here. Culture makes it work. You take away guns in America and i know from what i hear from republicans they will declare it an act of war. Do i like it....nope but that is reality.

The difference is that Australia and New Zealand were given their independence from Britain while the US fought a violent armed rebellion to get our independence. The notion that we might have to take up arms against oppressive rulers in ingrained into American culture by our very history.

Yup different history so it shaped a culture that solves problems by murder.
Americans are largely defiant by nature. That's what separates us from the European's and the rest of the world. I'm proud to say that I'm an American and I'm proud to be directly associated with American heritage.

You would not believe it but I am connected to the said American heritage too. Minstrels and black slaves. Nope i am whiter than a sheet which is why i was shocked to see a picture of my 2x great grandfather who was born in New York. Yes well aware they are defiant. I view America as like the rebellious nomad country of the world.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#66
(06-16-2016, 11:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 11:14 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Odin Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 01:00 PM)taramarie Wrote: Learn to spell Australia correctly. Australia has more common sense than America can ever dream of that is why it works over there and here. In America it won't. Why? Because the culture is different. Americans obsess over their guns. Even I know that. Because of that desire to own a variety of different guns it will not work. Ideally I would like for autos and semi autos to be banned. Ones that allow for one to mow down a crowd easily. High rate of fire guns. But when i hear of people saying they will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hands i realize it just will not work. People love their guns in America on a whole different level than the rest of the western world. Kiwis, Aussies and the British do not have the same passion on the whole for them and that is why it works here. Culture makes it work. You take away guns in America and i know from what i hear from republicans they will declare it an act of war. Do i like it....nope but that is reality.

The difference is that Australia and New Zealand were given their independence from Britain while the US fought a violent armed rebellion to get our independence. The notion that we might have to take up arms against oppressive rulers in ingrained into American culture by our very history.

Yup different history so it shaped a culture that solves problems by murder.
Americans are largely defiant by nature. That's what separates us from the European's and the rest of the world. I'm proud to say that I'm an American and I'm proud to be directly associated with American heritage.

Oh as well as the Titanic immigration....but my rellie did not like new york and went back to Kent after marrying an American which was shocking to me as she lost her hubby in the sinking.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#67
(06-16-2016, 08:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 07:53 AM)Odin Wrote: Here's a good post on Democratic Underground about the absurdity of the gun debate and the term "assault weapon".

[Image: 1060F70F4BFF6D7A4AF61DD271E7C986C2FEE8F6.jpg]
[Image: Model700CDL_SF_84028_Beauty-3.jpg]

These are functionally the exact same gun and yet only the top one is an evil "assault weapon".

In general I'm with you, but there are some features on the assault weapon that aren't really called for when the enemy isn't shooting back.  The lower gun is bolt action, resulting in a slower rate of fire.  It has no removable magazine, making it slower to reload, and making it impossible to shop for a larger magazine.  It has no bipod.  Is that a shock absorber on the back of the top weapon?  When hunting deer, does one worry about repeated impacts to the shoulder?

You need to pay closer attention, they are both bolt action rifles.  There are also bolt action rifles with detachable box magazines.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#68
The Second Amendment should be repealed, or else again interpreted to apply only to members of a well-regulated militia, which in our time is such things as the National Guard and the police. I won't fully get my way on that for decades at least. I think it will happen, but that's my idealism and my vision. I close my eyes, and I can see a better day. If repealed, that would not necessarily outlaw gun ownership. That would still be up to the people to pass the laws they choose. But it would legalize gun bans if the people chose them. Again, I am cautious about that when it comes to regular guns. Not about assault weapons and other military stuff. But I am against using force to take guns away, if their owners want to fight and shoot them in order to keep them in their cold, dead hands. That is like washing blood off with blood.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#69
(06-16-2016, 11:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree that it will never get to that point. The Democrats would cave before we ever get to that point. The Democrats have to much on the line and far more to loose than gain. Soldiers are more connected to their families today than they've ever been in the past. You should wake up and come to grips with the reality of living today. You do understand that the war would be a war against the progressive Democrats. Defeating the progressive Democrats in a  war isn't very hard to figure out once you're familiar with them and understand their weakness's. The Democrats have a lot of weakness's. BTW, it isn't a wet dream on mine. It's just a reality that I'm able to identify and see very clearly.
Playwrite is exactly right; that's what I predict too. It may last longer than one Waco, but that's basically what will happen. Defeating the progressive Democrats will not be so easy if they have the support of the people. They will, in that case, have the law and the army on their side. I don't know what any of this has to do with how close soldiers are to their families. What relevance is that? All people are close to their families. Progressive Democrats just want a fair society with a strong middle class. Conservative Republicans want an unjust society owned and operated for the benefit of the 1%. So once the spell of the trickle-down and self-reliance slogans is fully broken, there's no doubt which side the people will be on. And there's little doubt about which side the young people of the 4T (as opposed to those of the 3T) are taking.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#70
(06-16-2016, 10:32 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 03:53 PM)Odin Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote: And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines.  This isn't the late 1700s.

Yes, the US Army sure steamrolled the Vietcong... Rolleyes

The US military won every major battle that was fought during Vietnam. The Democrats of today aren't even capable of seriously taking on ISIS. I wonder what makes him (playdude) think that the Democrats and a few old Rhino's are capable of taking on us and a portion the US military within the United States. Bob's right, don't seriously mess with or undermine the US Constitution because there more than enough of America who are willing to fight to keep its right to bear arms.

Heller is a temporary victory handed to the right-wing by a right-wing court that is soon to go away. Sanity will be restored in due course, with no war needed. Things will just go back to how they've always been. And the Democrats are doing much better against the IS than the blustering but ignorant Trumpster could ever dream of being.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#71




Not that actual facts matter to gun advocates; but FWIW

[Image: gun%20homicides%20developed%20countries.jpg]
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#72
(06-16-2016, 10:32 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 03:53 PM)Odin Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote: And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines.  This isn't the late 1700s.

Yes, the US Army sure steamrolled the Vietcong... Rolleyes

The US military won every major battle that was fought during Vietnam. The Democrats of today aren't even capable of seriously taking on ISIS. I wonder what makes him (playdude) think that the Democrats and a few old Rhino's are capable of taking on us and a portion the US military within the United States. Bob's right, don't seriously mess with or undermine the US Constitution because there more than enough of America who are willing to fight to keep its right to bear arms.

You all takeover a gift shop in some out-of-the-way bird sanctuary; one winds up dead and the other perps are all in jail.


But at least you can get some dildos to go F yourself -

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/fvfcwa/the...on-militia
Reply
#73
(06-16-2016, 11:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 10:29 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 09:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 03:22 AM)Galen Wrote: You might want to look at what an English professor has to say on the language of the Second Amendment.  If you had bothered to understand the history of the American Revolution then you would know that it was about making sure that the new government would not have a monopoly on the use of force.  Thomas Jefferson was very clear about the purpose of the Second Amendment.  It was about the individual being able to defend themselves from the random criminal and an oppressive government.  This implies that the citizens must have arms equivalent to the infantry.

And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines.  This isn't the late 1700s.
True it's not the 1700's. Our weaponry is far more advanced and deadly. You must assume that the US military would remain loyal and intact. I assume that the military would remain loyal to their own (friends, family and their community or home) and spit accordingly. I don't think the left actually has what it would take to win a war with the right.

Sorry to disappoint your wet dream, but it would not roll out that way.

Most active military are either far from their families, and worried about their 'brothers', or they have their families on base. 

But it will never get to that point.  It won't be Civil War redux; it will be a few Wacos and Burns incidents with a few of you shot dead but most of you simply going to federal prison for a couple of decades.  I'm way okay with that - make this country a lot more pleasant in nearly countless number of ways.

I agree that it will never get to that point. The Democrats would cave before we ever get to that point. The Democrats have to much on the line and far more to loose than gain. Soldiers are more connected to their families today than they've ever been in the past. You should wake up and come to grips with the reality of living today. You do understand that the war would be a war against the progressive Democrats. Defeating the progressive Democrats in a  war isn't very hard to figure out once you're familiar with them and understand their weakness's. The Democrats have a lot of weakness's. BTW, it isn't a wet dream on mine. It's just a reality that I'm able to identify and see very clearly.

Of course you can see it; it's called a psychotic episode. 

You really should look into that with a medical professional before you get hurt.
Reply
#74
(06-16-2016, 11:17 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 10:00 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 01:00 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 11:23 AM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-14-2016, 01:53 AM)taramarie Wrote: While I am not a gun owner nor have any desire to own one I have to say historically bans do not work.

Then explain Austrilia.


Quote:Obama I believe is not for banning them. Just for tighter regulation. I have seen a video of him saying so so that is where I get that notion from. I believe though you sound like you are for banning them. It will never happen. That is the failure here. The failure to see that reality. If you take them away, say hello to the next civil war matey. THEN real bloodshed will really begin.

The slippery slope to absolute gun banning is a ploy used by gun advocates to get foaming at the mouth - see the term "circle jerk."

Learn to spell Australia correctly. Australia has more common sense than America can ever dream of that is why it works over there and here. In America it won't. Why? Because the culture is different. Americans obsess over their guns. Even I know that. Because of that desire to own a variety of different guns it will not work. Ideally I would like for autos and semi autos to be banned. Ones that allow for one to mow down a crowd easily. High rate of fire guns. But when i hear of people saying they will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hands i realize it just will not work. People love their guns in America on a whole different level than the rest of the western world. Kiwis, Aussies and the British do not have the same passion on the whole for them and that is why it works here. Culture makes it work. You take away guns in America and i know from what i hear from republicans they will declare it an act of war. Do i like it....nope but that is reality.

Re:  Australia - don't be a jerk -

Study shows people who correct typos may be jerks     Tongue   



There's a lot of people who don't like their Meth labs taken away either, and they live pretty shitty lives trying to keep them.

But the vast number of people, including gun owners, are going to follow the law - they don't want their lives and their families destroyed, and they're certainly not going to wage gun battles over it against the government (do you guys watch a lot movies or something?).  The ones that don't will be treated like the criminals that they are.

There's ways to doing this.  You can ban manufacturing, transport, and sales with hefty prison terms - some will get made, transferred and sold but instead of $1200 people will be paying $12,000 black market prices and looking over their shoulder for not only its confiscation but being thrown in prison.  You can ban the ammo that is most prevalent for ARs - effectively, turn the gun into an expensive large door stopper.  You can revoke the business license for any gun range as well as gun store where these guns are found on the premise even if the store owner claims he had no idea - watch the self-policing that comes from that little trick.  You can have buy-back program, including credits for new, legal gun purchases.

Sure it will take time to get nearly all the ARs out of circulation, but some of these measure would result in removing much more than half within a year at most.

I'm not worried at all about executing laws aimed at ARs; I'm just concerned with getting them banned.
I don't need to watch movies. I do not get this from movies. I know people would declare war over having guns taken away from what people say. They would rather die to keep their guns than have their freedom to own them taken away. This is something people would fight over. Heck i do not even live in your country and i know this. How do you not know this? You converse with republicans i assume? You know what Americans care about correct? There is always talk over the 2nd amendment being violated as well as the first amendment. Listen to those who care about those rights and you will see what will happen. We agree on the fact it will go underground. Which is why the culture has to change in order for those types of guns to be seen as unnecessary. I think they already are anyway. It is overkill. I do not see it happening anytime soon.

War???

I've been in situations of kill or be killed, and believe me, when it comes down to it, the vast majority of people are not going to actually put themselves in that situation,  There is a reason why enlistees go first to places like Parris Island (look it up).  Hard to believe, I'm sure, but it's actually not like one of those video games you must obviously play - no matter how good the graphics and sound system.

The minority of the ones that would, are some combination of morons, psychopaths or traitors; this would be an excellent way to "Purge" them from the system (I'm sure that's one of the movies you've watched on TV one too many times  Rolleyes)
Reply
#75
(06-16-2016, 11:53 PM)Galen Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 08:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 07:53 AM)Odin Wrote: Here's a good post on Democratic Underground about the absurdity of the gun debate and the term "assault weapon".

[Image: 1060F70F4BFF6D7A4AF61DD271E7C986C2FEE8F6.jpg]
[Image: Model700CDL_SF_84028_Beauty-3.jpg]

These are functionally the exact same gun and yet only the top one is an evil "assault weapon".

In general I'm with you, but there are some features on the assault weapon that aren't really called for when the enemy isn't shooting back.  The lower gun is bolt action, resulting in a slower rate of fire.  It has no removable magazine, making it slower to reload, and making it impossible to shop for a larger magazine.  It has no bipod.  Is that a shock absorber on the back of the top weapon?  When hunting deer, does one worry about repeated impacts to the shoulder?

You need to pay closer attention, they are both bolt action rifles.  There are also bolt action rifles with detachable box magazines.

You want a bolt action, with or without a magazine, I'd be more than fine with that.

My African -

[Image: RUG_37113__72087_zoom_zpsryqbax9b.jpg]

- if this makes you weep, I understand.  Wink
Reply
#76
Well said -

It’s easier to buy an assault weapon than open a bank account. Really.
Reply
#77
and then there is this -

Every two days, a suspected terrorist buys a gun in the U.S.


The Senate votes on this on Monday; call your Senator!
Reply
#78
[Bob]To many, the notion that rights are not absolute seems to imply that rights should have no legal power.
[Mike]Then those many are wrong (see ** below)
 
[Bob]There are well known principles that specify when rights can be and must be curtailed. The primary example came from Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr.  No right allows one to harm others.  Your example of libel laws is classic.  If one uses speech to harm another, or uses a gun to harm another, the Bill of Rights provides no legal protection.
{Mike]Is that the only one in your opinion?
 
[Bob]You seem also ignorant of US v. Miller.  Existing Supreme Court precedent states the weapons most explicitly protected by the 2nd Amendment are modern military weapons...  which would be assault rifles in modern times. 
I was ignorant of this case.  I looked into it found this from the wiki article on it:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
And
Gun rights advocates…interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected.

This supports your contention.  I would add that not only are semi-auto firearms included, but so are machine guns, rpgs, shoulder-mounted SAMs (e.g. Stingers), flamethrowers, armored vehicles, tanks, chemical munitions and tactical nuclear weapons.  Does the 2nd Amendment allow any individual or private group (e.g. Aryan Nations or an American-based radical Islamist group) the right to acquire a tactical nuke?
 
I then looked up Heller on wiki and found this:
**Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
 
THIS is the limitation to which I referred, and which you have yet to address.  It was what I meant by scale. There is a difference in terms of scale between a sawed-off shotgun (the weapon with which Miller was concerned) or a handgun (the weapon to which Heller refers) and ALL of the weapons I listed.
 
It seems to me that the Supreme Court made abundantly clear that they have NOT yet ruled on whether a ban on more powerful weapons is a violation of the Second Amendment.
Reply
#79
(06-17-2016, 09:17 AM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 11:53 PM)Galen Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 08:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 07:53 AM)Odin Wrote: Here's a good post on Democratic Underground about the absurdity of the gun debate and the term "assault weapon".

[Image: 1060F70F4BFF6D7A4AF61DD271E7C986C2FEE8F6.jpg]
[Image: Model700CDL_SF_84028_Beauty-3.jpg]

These are functionally the exact same gun and yet only the top one is an evil "assault weapon".

In general I'm with you, but there are some features on the assault weapon that aren't really called for when the enemy isn't shooting back.  The lower gun is bolt action, resulting in a slower rate of fire.  It has no removable magazine, making it slower to reload, and making it impossible to shop for a larger magazine.  It has no bipod.  Is that a shock absorber on the back of the top weapon?  When hunting deer, does one worry about repeated impacts to the shoulder?

You need to pay closer attention, they are both bolt action rifles.  There are also bolt action rifles with detachable box magazines.

You want a bolt action, with or without a magazine, I'd be more than fine with that.

My African -

[Image: RUG_37113__72087_zoom_zpsryqbax9b.jpg]

- if this makes you weep, I understand.  Wink

One typically gets one shot at a deer, for the deer that you miss will get away. It is far easier to shoot a human if one misses the first time because humans lack the running speed of deer -- and they don't usually have brush to run to for cover.

I have to admit -- even if I have no love for guns, your bolt-action gun in fact has some beauty.


That said, the most beautiful animal in the world

[Image: 170px-Leopard_africa.jpg]



is quite possibly the most dangerous animal on land except for an armed human.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#80
(06-17-2016, 08:52 AM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 11:17 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 10:00 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 01:00 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 11:23 AM)playwrite Wrote: Then explain Austrilia.



The slippery slope to absolute gun banning is a ploy used by gun advocates to get foaming at the mouth - see the term "circle jerk."

Learn to spell Australia correctly. Australia has more common sense than America can ever dream of that is why it works over there and here. In America it won't. Why? Because the culture is different. Americans obsess over their guns. Even I know that. Because of that desire to own a variety of different guns it will not work. Ideally I would like for autos and semi autos to be banned. Ones that allow for one to mow down a crowd easily. High rate of fire guns. But when i hear of people saying they will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hands i realize it just will not work. People love their guns in America on a whole different level than the rest of the western world. Kiwis, Aussies and the British do not have the same passion on the whole for them and that is why it works here. Culture makes it work. You take away guns in America and i know from what i hear from republicans they will declare it an act of war. Do i like it....nope but that is reality.

Re:  Australia - don't be a jerk -

Study shows people who correct typos may be jerks     Tongue   



There's a lot of people who don't like their Meth labs taken away either, and they live pretty shitty lives trying to keep them.

But the vast number of people, including gun owners, are going to follow the law - they don't want their lives and their families destroyed, and they're certainly not going to wage gun battles over it against the government (do you guys watch a lot movies or something?).  The ones that don't will be treated like the criminals that they are.

There's ways to doing this.  You can ban manufacturing, transport, and sales with hefty prison terms - some will get made, transferred and sold but instead of $1200 people will be paying $12,000 black market prices and looking over their shoulder for not only its confiscation but being thrown in prison.  You can ban the ammo that is most prevalent for ARs - effectively, turn the gun into an expensive large door stopper.  You can revoke the business license for any gun range as well as gun store where these guns are found on the premise even if the store owner claims he had no idea - watch the self-policing that comes from that little trick.  You can have buy-back program, including credits for new, legal gun purchases.

Sure it will take time to get nearly all the ARs out of circulation, but some of these measure would result in removing much more than half within a year at most.

I'm not worried at all about executing laws aimed at ARs; I'm just concerned with getting them banned.
I don't need to watch movies. I do not get this from movies. I know people would declare war over having guns taken away from what people say. They would rather die to keep their guns than have their freedom to own them taken away. This is something people would fight over. Heck i do not even live in your country and i know this. How do you not know this? You converse with republicans i assume? You know what Americans care about correct? There is always talk over the 2nd amendment being violated as well as the first amendment. Listen to those who care about those rights and you will see what will happen. We agree on the fact it will go underground. Which is why the culture has to change in order for those types of guns to be seen as unnecessary. I think they already are anyway. It is overkill. I do not see it happening anytime soon.

War???

I've been in situations of kill or be killed, and believe me, when it comes down to it, the vast majority of people are not going to actually put themselves in that situation,  There is a reason why enlistees go first to places like Parris Island (look it up).  Hard to believe, I'm sure, but it's actually not like one of those video games you must obviously play - no matter how good the graphics and sound system.

The minority of the ones that would, are some combination of morons, psychopaths or traitors; this would be an excellent way to "Purge" them from the system (I'm sure that's one of the movies you've watched on TV one too many times  Rolleyes)

As usual you not listening. Taking lessons from Eric are we? p.s. I have not played video games in a very long time and i do not watch tv. Fossils do that. Some people i know are willing to die to protect their guns. Must be nice to be ignorant of that in your own country. I believe them because they are completely crazy over their guns and their right to own those guns. I know that the victors would also be republicans and anyone who wants to keep their guns.  I do not know of the movie purge....oh wait a min. Yes I do. I watched maybe a few mins of it and turned it off.  Boring and forgettable. Still laughing over the idea of watching traditional tv. Come join us in the 21st century sometime. Oh you don't like being laughed at and insulted? You throw your ball at me i throw it right back and i am way worse than you. Ask Eric aka his "scorpio" theory.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure nebraska 1,177 96,756 05-23-2019, 02:26 AM
Last Post: Writer
  Hawaii bill would allow gun seizure after hospitalization nebraska 17 1,396 05-05-2019, 10:05 AM
Last Post: misswali
  The dangers of government control nebraska 0 333 01-29-2018, 08:28 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Gov. Malloy Asks Legislature to Expand Gun Control and Ban 'Bump Stocks' nebraska 0 317 01-22-2018, 05:56 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  U.S. moving toward more control by government nebraska 0 301 01-20-2018, 11:16 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  In DACA talks, Trump angers both sides of immigration debate nebraska 0 273 01-11-2018, 07:42 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Rep. Ing Introduces Rent Control Bill nebraska 0 290 12-27-2017, 10:21 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  U.S. moving toward more control by government nebraska 0 277 12-27-2017, 09:51 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Political Polarity To Reverse On Gun Control, States' Rights? Anthony '58 21 6,366 02-04-2017, 05:51 AM
Last Post: Galen
  More Blacks See Gun Ownership As Civil Rights Cause Dan '82 3 1,097 07-18-2016, 07:05 PM
Last Post: Anthony '58

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)