Gun Control in the US

[Calax]

It may be true that anyone should be able to form a militia, but it's also true that anyone can form a religion. This doesn't mean that it's recognized by the US government as existing and getting the tax breaks and other benefits therein. Nor does it mean that those 501c(3) organizations get to break the federal statutes because human sacrifice is a core part of their belief system. Which is where "well regulated" comes into play.

 

By a similar token, I wish that the first amendment was as unchangably sacrosanct as your 2nd amendment. And yet I still can't walk into a theater and scream "Fire" or go to a train station or airport and discuss how many bombs my call of duty character has. Because those constitute threats to the society at large, and create a rediculous amount of chaos. Why aren't you fighting for the ability to have unregulated, completely free speech in any situation? Instead you're sitting here saying that the 2nd amendment covers every type of firearm and that the miniscule regulations placed upon the purchase and ownership of guns is A-ok as it is, even if it means that one person can put 30 bullets into the crowd at a movie theater in 28 seconds.

 

See Tsuga C's post about on your 'well regulated' statement. And getting your religion recognized isn't that hard. That 501c(3) organizations exist in the first place is one of the great evils in our nation today. Not necessarily the organization itself, but the designation and how money is hidden behind it by many an evil organization. The IRS should be abolished for so many reasons, non profits being a big one, but that's another topic.

I totally disagree with Tsuga's statement because the phrase "Well Regulated" is still around and maintains it's previous meanings. Just because you want it to mean that doesn't mean it is, it means that whatever it's doing is doing it well NOT it's being well equipped.

 

As to the IRS, let's not get into tax bs, beyond that taxation is necessary for the operation of government.

As for why I'm not fighting for the 1st amendment here. The larger topic of the thread is 'gun control', which is what you're arguing for, which deals specifically with the 2nd amendment, not the 1st. I'm all for you being able to talk about your Call of Duty character in the airport.

As for running into a theatre and yelling 'fire!'. That's akin to owning a missile as far as the second amendment is concerned.

Except that you're trying to make the 2nd amendment unassailable beyond weapons that aren't designed to be used on humans. A better analogue would probably be porn stores, as sexuality is a free expression, but you still can only do it very specific areas. And yet freedom of speech and freedom of expression are attacked far more often than your "right to bare arms" (including by the NRA) because more and more things are being considered "unPC" and thus have bans starting to attack them. And yet firearms, which are MUCH more of a danger than a nipple popping out on national TV, have a rabid group of supporters who refuse to have any form of control or limitations placed on what they can or cannot own beyond the current minimalistic system.

 

The issues of speech specifically encountered in the 1st amendment can actually be one of the more complicated ones, as it invokes the 14th amendment often as well, an imperfect and contradictory amendment to put it nicely as well as some of the legal source for one of the biggest shams in our modern world: the national debt.

You lost me. How does this have to do with anything.

[Calax]

And for the record Vas, what does the Articles of Confederation or Magna Carta have to do with the posession for firearms? Articles basically say "federal government exists only to deal with foreign powers" (but every treaty must be ratified by each state), and the Magna Carta is an agreement between feudal land holders and their king about the rights of the landholders, in terms of taxation and the parilaments rights in relation to the monarch.

 

Unless you're trying to argue that the federal government should be reduced to the whims of the various states, and therefor each state sets it's own gun control laws and you could be put in prison for crossing into california with your texas guns that have no permit.

[misterhamtastic]

And for the record Vas, what does the Articles of Confederation or Magna Carta have to do with the posession for firearms? Articles basically say "federal government exists only to deal with foreign powers" (but every treaty must be ratified by each state), and the Magna Carta is an agreement between feudal land holders and their king about the rights of the landholders, in terms of taxation and the parilaments rights in relation to the monarch.

 

Unless you're trying to argue that the federal government should be reduced to the whims of the various states, and therefor each state sets it's own gun control laws and you could be put in prison for crossing into california with your texas guns that have no permit.

 

This is actually a good solution. Most social issues should be dealt with on a state level, anyway, but I'll save that can of worms for another thread.

 

It would be pretty simple-using your example-moving firearms from texas to california for some temporary use would require a bit more planning, sure, but if california wanted to say that "arms" are nothing more complex than muskets, and you wanted to bring in something wild like an M2 Browning machine gun with ammo-you'd contact the California department of (whatever) that would oversee this, fill out some forms, agree to some specific terms, and then you'll get either a yes or a no, which you can refuse to abide by at your peril.

 

One major problem we face as a nation is that not all solutions fit all people. Gun laws within New York City should probably be different than gun laws in Texas, not only for practical, but also cultural reasons. The US is a hodgepodge of cultures, and so there won't be alot of "one size fits all" solutions to ANY issue, and gun control is going to be the single most divisive issue we can face.

 

Consider this-Wyoming has already put out legislation which will make it illegal for a federal agent to enforce any gun law passed after 1/1/13. (not sure if that's passed yet) It's out there, though. If the federal government insists on running roughshod over the state laws of Wyoming (like they do in CA with marijuana laws), it WILL lead to a second civil war with secession of states and everything. What is more important, avoiding civil war, or putting odious laws(to most law-abiding gun owners) into place in order to pacify those who cry for "protection"?

[BruceVC]

I heard a different perspective from the right wing on CNN on the Piers Morgan show. The guys name was Ben Shapiro. He was highly intelligent, articulate and made cogent points. I thought to myself what a massive difference to the debate this made compared to that lunatic Alex Jones. Ben Shapiro is the type of person that groups like the NRA need to get to speak for them. I still support the banning of semi-automatic weapons for the average citizen but if I am being honest I would say its the first time I have see Piers Morgan "lose" one of these debates.

 

Shapiro did make one ccontroversial point, IMO, and that was a typical one asked by Piers Morgan. Piers asked him " why does any average citizen need a semi-automatic weapon?" Its a reasonable and valid question. Shapiro answered " in the future we may need to defend ourselves against the tyranny of our government "

 

I am not sure how relevant this is?

[Calax]

I heard a different perspective from the right wing on CNN on the Piers Morgan show. The guys name was Ben Shapiro. He was highly intelligent, articulate and made cogent points. I thought to myself what a massive difference to the debate this made compared to that lunatic Alex Jones. Ben Shapiro is the type of person that groups like the NRA need to get to speak for them. I still support the banning of semi-automatic weapons for the average citizen but if I am being honest I would say its the first time I have see Piers Morgan "lose" one of these debates.

 

Shapiro did make one ccontroversial point, IMO, and that was a typical one asked by Piers Morgan. Piers asked him " why does any average citizen need a semi-automatic weapon?" Its a reasonable and valid question. Shapiro answered " in the future we may need to defend ourselves against the tyranny of our government "

 

I am not sure how relevant this is?

It's relevant because it's the entire platform they're using for the sort of "primary springboard" of their arguments. The most right wing people fear that the governments expansion of federal powers will eventually lead to the Federal government being the only government, and then an oppressive president who uses the state apparatus to turn it into a dictatorship.

 

How realistic this is is up for debate. But to a degree, it's the only argument they can really throw forward without having it countered by "Well if you're going to hunt, why not use a rifle?" or "If it's home defense, why not use something more portable like a pistol?" Instead it's really more "Whats' an AR-15 going to do against a Tank?" (although the insurgencies in Afganistan probably provide at least SOME backup to the anti-dictatorship thing)

[BruceVC]

I heard a different perspective from the right wing on CNN on the Piers Morgan show. The guys name was Ben Shapiro. He was highly intelligent, articulate and made cogent points. I thought to myself what a massive difference to the debate this made compared to that lunatic Alex Jones. Ben Shapiro is the type of person that groups like the NRA need to get to speak for them. I still support the banning of semi-automatic weapons for the average citizen but if I am being honest I would say its the first time I have see Piers Morgan "lose" one of these debates.

 

Shapiro did make one ccontroversial point, IMO, and that was a typical one asked by Piers Morgan. Piers asked him " why does any average citizen need a semi-automatic weapon?" Its a reasonable and valid question. Shapiro answered " in the future we may need to defend ourselves against the tyranny of our government "

 

I am not sure how relevant this is?

It's relevant because it's the entire platform they're using for the sort of "primary springboard" of their arguments. The most right wing people fear that the governments expansion of federal powers will eventually lead to the Federal government being the only government, and then an oppressive president who uses the state apparatus to turn it into a dictatorship.

 

How realistic this is is up for debate. But to a degree, it's the only argument they can really throw forward without having it countered by "Well if you're going to hunt, why not use a rifle?" or "If it's home defense, why not use something more portable like a pistol?" Instead it's really more "Whats' an AR-15 going to do against a Tank?" (although the insurgencies in Afganistan probably provide at least SOME backup to the anti-dictatorship thing)

 

I agree, its the only feasible argument that the right wing can make to explain there reason to want to keep semi-automatic weapons. But the thought of the USA government ever actually turning its own army against its people I think is absurd? Besides how would this help against air power or tanks as you mentioned.

[Malcador]

I heard a different perspective from the right wing on CNN on the Piers Morgan show. The guys name was Ben Shapiro. He was highly intelligent, articulate and made cogent points. I thought to myself what a massive difference to the debate this made compared to that lunatic Alex Jones. Ben Shapiro is the type of person that groups like the NRA need to get to speak for them. I still support the banning of semi-automatic weapons for the average citizen but if I am being honest I would say its the first time I have see Piers Morgan "lose" one of these debates.

 

Shapiro did make one ccontroversial point, IMO, and that was a typical one asked by Piers Morgan. Piers asked him " why does any average citizen need a semi-automatic weapon?" Its a reasonable and valid question. Shapiro answered " in the future we may need to defend ourselves against the tyranny of our government "

 

I am not sure how relevant this is?

 

Well home defense is one easy answer to that question, semi-automatics are pretty useful for that, though shotguns might be better and intimidating. Better response would have been to ask Morgan why they shouldn't, heh.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I heard a different perspective from the right wing on CNN on the Piers Morgan show. The guys name was Ben Shapiro. He was highly intelligent, articulate and made cogent points. I thought to myself what a massive difference to the debate this made compared to that lunatic Alex Jones. Ben Shapiro is the type of person that groups like the NRA need to get to speak for them. I still support the banning of semi-automatic weapons for the average citizen but if I am being honest I would say its the first time I have see Piers Morgan "lose" one of these debates.

 

Shapiro did make one ccontroversial point, IMO, and that was a typical one asked by Piers Morgan. Piers asked him " why does any average citizen need a semi-automatic weapon?" Its a reasonable and valid question. Shapiro answered " in the future we may need to defend ourselves against the tyranny of our government "

 

I am not sure how relevant this is?

 

It seemed to me that he wasn't very consistent. He claimed that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the citizenship from the government, yet does not want people to have the same weaponry as the government. And he sounded like a 12 year old.

 

And looking sane next to Alex Jones is not very hard, I think not looking sane next to Alex Jones is what is near impossible.

[BruceVC]

I heard a different perspective from the right wing on CNN on the Piers Morgan show. The guys name was Ben Shapiro. He was highly intelligent, articulate and made cogent points. I thought to myself what a massive difference to the debate this made compared to that lunatic Alex Jones. Ben Shapiro is the type of person that groups like the NRA need to get to speak for them. I still support the banning of semi-automatic weapons for the average citizen but if I am being honest I would say its the first time I have see Piers Morgan "lose" one of these debates.

 

Shapiro did make one ccontroversial point, IMO, and that was a typical one asked by Piers Morgan. Piers asked him " why does any average citizen need a semi-automatic weapon?" Its a reasonable and valid question. Shapiro answered " in the future we may need to defend ourselves against the tyranny of our government "

 

I am not sure how relevant this is?

 

It seemed to me that he wasn't very consistent. He claimed that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the citizenship from the government, yet does not want people to have the same weaponry as the government. And he sounded like a 12 year old.

 

And looking sane next to Alex Jones is not very hard, I think not looking sane next to Alex Jones is what is near impossible.

Its funny how we can have different views on the same style of debating, I don't agree with him but he did come across as intelligent, calm and reasonable . Except for the "dancing on the graves of children" comment. This was uncalled for but this is an emotive subject so people will make extreme comments.

[obyknven]

Repost from http://olegvolk.net/...he-new-royalty/.

 

 

This Secret Service White House guard with P90 submachine gun protects Obama and his family. His fully automatic weapon uses 50 round magazines.

 

 

 

When it comes to protection of your family, Obama objects to semi-automatic weapons and 11-round magazines. Not very equitable, it is?

 

In the grand scheme of things, the P90 submachine guns aren’t significant. Obama’s Praetorian Guard also has six-barreled 6000 rounds-per-minute 7.62mm machine guns with them. Since these were made after 1986, no way you, a lowly civilian, can have that!

 

[Hurlshort]

In related news, the P90 is also the weapon of choice when travelling through Stargates and spreading Western Imperialistic propaganda through the universe.

[Valsuelm]

In related news, the P90 is also the weapon of choice when travelling through Stargates and spreading Western Imperialistic propaganda through the universe.

 

No. The weapons of choice for that are media and schools.

[Hurlshort]

In related news, the P90 is also the weapon of choice when travelling through Stargates and spreading Western Imperialistic propaganda through the universe.

 

No. The weapons of choice for that are media and schools.

 

I don't think I remember that episode.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Semi-automatic pistols are much safer than revolvers (for the owner) because you can keep them loaded but not chambered and then there's no way it can shoot accidentally. Plus they normally have a safety while revolvers don't have. It's also much safer to keep it that way if a small child accidentally gets hold of it, because they're not strong enough to chamber a round.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

I think Piers is more discussing "Why does the average person need an AR-15 or it's equivalents" rather than "why would the average person ever need any firearm except automatics".

[Wrath of Dagon]

Because it's a light, convenient gun, and can be used in many contingencies. There has been some talk about banning all semi-autos, which is what my comment mainly referred to.

[Volourn]

Here's a proposition: All citizens agree tod estroy all their weapons if the gov't agrees tod estroy all theirs. Problem solved. But, the gov't and their supporters won't agree to that. So, imo, they aren't truly anti gun but anti citizens.

[Calax]

That's a great idea Volo! The moment every other nation on the planet also disarms so I don't have to worry about a Mexican Drug Lord overpowering everybody from mexico to Canada with a butter knife.

[Volourn]

"That's a great idea Volo! The moment every other nation on the planet also disarms so I don't have to worry about a Mexican Drug Lord overpowering everybody from mexico to Canada with a butter knife"

 

IT'S A TRAP!!

 

 

You reacted to that fair suggestion just any pro gun freak would.

 

Pro gun control types are desperate to take guns away from alw abiding citizens yet have no plan to take guns away from criminals who uise their guns against the inniocent.

 

Why do you fear law abiding citizens so much yet seem to have 100% faith in criminals *and* the lol gov't?

 

The number of mass shootings commited by law abiding citziens is ZERO.

 

The number of mass shootings done by the gov't is TOO MANY TO COUNT.

 

Yet you trust the gov't more?

 

HAHAHAH!

[Calax]

"That's a great idea Volo! The moment every other nation on the planet also disarms so I don't have to worry about a Mexican Drug Lord overpowering everybody from mexico to Canada with a butter knife"

 

IT'S A TRAP!!

 

 

You reacted to that fair suggestion just any pro gun freak would.

 

Pro gun control types are desperate to take guns away from alw abiding citizens yet have no plan to take guns away from criminals who uise their guns against the inniocent.

 

Why do you fear law abiding citizens so much yet seem to have 100% faith in criminals *and* the lol gov't?

 

The number of mass shootings commited by law abiding citziens is ZERO.

 

The number of mass shootings done by the gov't is TOO MANY TO COUNT.

 

Yet you trust the gov't more?

 

HAHAHAH!

 

Well, if they disarm the military, there's no method by which to enforce the public will on the world sphere. So the 9/11 attacks? Just gonna have to suck it up biatch because you can't "Hunt em down" if you don't have the weapons to remove any power base found. WW2? You're screwed. Stalin? You're screwed even more.

 

"Desperate to take guns away from alw abiding citizens" Well, assuming that the laws went into effect and totally yanked out the ability to own a gun, in theory there should be NO law abiding citizens with guns, so anyone caught with a gun is automatically tossed in prison as a criminal you see? Just like having black skin in the 70's.

 

You realize that at least the Sandy Hook shooter had no run ins with the law prior to the actual shooting, so your "Law abiding citizen" tripe is just that.

 

And by the same token, those who think that under the current system we have to many gun control laws will blow buildings up, so might as well take their guns and then tag them for future issues. (joke for the idiot)

[Wrath of Dagon]

Here's a proposition: All citizens agree tod estroy all their weapons if the gov't agrees tod estroy all theirs. Problem solved. But, the gov't and their supporters won't agree to that. So, imo, they aren't truly anti gun but anti citizens.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/eliminate-armed-guards-president-vice-president-and-their-families-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

[obyknven]

Well, if they disarm the military, there's no method by which to enforce the public will on the world sphere. So the 9/11 attacks? Just gonna have to suck it up biatch because you can't "Hunt em down" if you don't have the weapons to remove any power base found. WW2? You're screwed. Stalin? You're screwed even more.

Stalin? USA now has more people in its stuffed prisons, 6 million, than were stuck in Stalin’s gulag prison system.

http://www.calwatchd...-stalins-gulag/

How armed military/police can protect you against own government?

[BruceVC]

Well, if they disarm the military, there's no method by which to enforce the public will on the world sphere. So the 9/11 attacks? Just gonna have to suck it up biatch because you can't "Hunt em down" if you don't have the weapons to remove any power base found. WW2? You're screwed. Stalin? You're screwed even more.

Stalin? USA now has more people in its stuffed prisons, 6 million, than were stuck in Stalin’s gulag prison system.

http://www.calwatchd...-stalins-gulag/

How armed military/police can protect you against own government?

 

Yes S

Well, if they disarm the military, there's no method by which to enforce the public will on the world sphere. So the 9/11 attacks? Just gonna have to suck it up biatch because you can't "Hunt em down" if you don't have the weapons to remove any power base found. WW2? You're screwed. Stalin? You're screwed even more.

Stalin? USA now has more people in its stuffed prisons, 6 million, than were stuck in Stalin’s gulag prison system.

http://www.calwatchd...-stalins-gulag/

How armed military/police can protect you against own government?

 

Stalin, one of greatest mass murderers of the 20 century. He ccommitted horrific crimes against his own people. He was responsible for the death of millions.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/world/major-soviet-paper-says-20-million-died-as-victims-of-stalin.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_Great_Terror

http://rt.com/politics/stalin-great-purge-victims/

 

I notice you are very good at reminding us "Westlings" about our corrupted governments and institutions but how does it feel to have one of the worst mass murderers in history as someone who is still celebrated in your country. Do they teach you about the insanity that was Stalin in your schools?

[Gorgon]

They remember being close to breaking point in WW2. Stalin ordered deserters be shot on sight and no further retreats. Unlike Hitler's similar orders, It worked.

 

In Russia much can be forgiven by showing strenght. In this he was not much different from the Tsars.

[obyknven]

Stalin, one of greatest mass murderers of the 20 century. He ccommitted horrific crimes against his own people. He was responsible for the death of millions.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...-of-stalin.html

http://en.wikipedia....;s_Great_Terror

http://rt.com/politi...-purge-victims/

 

I notice you are very good at reminding us "Westlings" about our corrupted governments and institutions but how does it feel to have one of the worst mass murderers in history as someone who is still celebrated in your country. Do they teach you about the insanity that was Stalin in your schools?

Stalin make counterrevolution, exterminate 1 million Bolsheviks and rule as Tsar, but capitalists hate him not because this ( They even awarded him by Men of Year for this )

Western peoples hate him so much after WW2, when Soviets defeat European crusaders, and wipe out they from East Europe. Your "millions killed by Stalin" its just anti-Soviet propaganda without proofs. USSR population growth approved this.

Anyway you not answer simple questions - How armed police can protect American peoples from own "Stalin". Even now in USA imprisoned more peoples than in Stalin's Gulag, and it's even only beginning ( Stalin not began repressions before establishing gun control in 1929).

Edited January 13, 2013 by obyknven