Gun Control in the US

[Guard Dog]

And now it begins: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

 

They want us registered and fingerprinted huh? That way they know who and where you are when the time comes to confiscate your weapons and round you up.

 

OK I'm only kidding on that last part. I've already been fingerprinted when I applied for my concealed carry permit.

 

Banning certain weapons based solely on cosmetic features is more than a little stupid.

[Malcador]

Yeah a bit vauge, wonder at the 'Military characteristic' - I guess it being black or having rail mounts maybe ?

[Drowsy Emperor]

The grand handicap imposed on the next school shooter will be carrying additional magazines. So that will set him back about 50+$ for the magazines and a tactical vest. Might as well call this the 50$ bill.

 

Of course, the only point of this is so that the politicians can make a show of doing something while the weapons industry gets to enjoy the spoils of the pre-ban shopping frenzy. And the black market and collectors will get a nice increase in value for their pieces due to rarity.

 

I guess increasing funds for the school system and therapy for troubled children was too un-american to be considered.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Tsuga C]

Because AR's have no self defense purposes or hunting purpose.

 

Liar. ARs and other semi-autos make great ranch rifles, target rifles, and hunting rifles. Even Field & Stream is in on this trend.

 

Give it a rest, already. You have no credibility when you issue asinine statements like the one I quoted.

[Calax]

Because AR's have no self defense purposes or hunting purpose.

 

Liar. ARs and other semi-autos make great ranch rifles, target rifles, and hunting rifles. Even Field & Stream is in on this trend.

 

Give it a rest, already. You have no credibility when you issue asinine statements like the one I quoted.

You're the one who stated that the guns in question had less stopping power and were worse for hunting than pistols and rifles. Which is what I was getting at, and even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court agrees with me (see the tiff with gromnir a few pages back over his decision in DC v Heller)

[Valsuelm]

Because AR's have no self defense purposes or hunting purpose.

 

Liar. ARs and other semi-autos make great ranch rifles, target rifles, and hunting rifles. Even Field & Stream is in on this trend.

 

Give it a rest, already. You have no credibility when you issue asinine statements like the one I quoted.

You're the one who stated that the guns in question had less stopping power and were worse for hunting than pistols and rifles. Which is what I was getting at, and even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court agrees with me (see the tiff with gromnir a few pages back over his decision in DC v Heller)

 

Having the current chief justice of the Supreme Court agree with you is not something I'd advertise. The man is evil and corrupt to the core. He is not an authority on law, he bends the law to the wills of the people who bought and paid for him. So much so that he's redefined words to mean things they've never before meant in the history of English. Nevermind Ginsburg's 60+ pages of near gibberish (seriously, go read what this woman wrote and be amazed such intellect is on the Supreme Court let alone any court), Roberts opinion was the very dangerous one, that sets a precedent to give the Federal government the legal power to take any freedom it wishes away via 'tax' and 'mandate' (words Roberts redefined). Ginsburg, is a woman by the way that thinks the South African Constitution is better than the Constitution of the U.S., something that should have seen her impeached on grounds of treason (go read the tripe of a document that is the South African Constitution and realize just what traitors we have in the SCOTUS). 100 years ago she would have, but these days our legislative branch is so full of incompetents as well as it's own bunch of traitors and the American people so polarized that such a thing as holding someone accountable to their oath of office isn't even on the radar.

 

Whether or not you were for or against 'Obamacare', I highly recommend reading the actual decisions of the justices in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius case. This is something the main stream media obviously didn't do (in this case and just about every other, they don't do much investigating anymore than most other people do). They were too busy bowing to the wills of those who own them and stoking the false left v. right paradigm of thinking fire. Facts, reality, and consequences be damned.

 

You will discover if you read it that the arguments for it by Roberts are possibly the most contrived evil to ever be perpetrated in a ruling at the Supreme Court level. Even if 'Obamacare' was this super benevolent awesome thing of all good, the arguments he uses for it are evil to the core and set a precedent that undermines everything fought for in the American Revolution. If Wickard v. Filburn set the precedent that the Federal government can do almost anything it wants and get away with it, the opinion by Roberts takes the 'almost' out of the equation. The opinion to uphold 'Obamacare' as it was written is going to come back to haunt everyone, even those who supported the bill. And on that note, I'll wager that 99%+ of it's supporters never read even a tangible fraction of it. It's a pretty evil bill up there with the Patriot Act. Most of it has nothing to do with health care.

 

In other news in regards to the main topic of this thread, at least one reporter out there is asking the pertinent question:

http://www.wnd.com/2...hook-reporting/

 

If you really want to see fewer tragedies such as Columbine or Sandy Hook, the answers are complicated and are societal on a level that they won't be fixed any time soon. But if there's one thing that contributed to these tragedies outside of the will of a twisted person, it's not the guns, it's the drugs.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Valsuelm

[Calax]

Because AR's have no self defense purposes or hunting purpose.

 

Liar. ARs and other semi-autos make great ranch rifles, target rifles, and hunting rifles. Even Field & Stream is in on this trend.

 

Give it a rest, already. You have no credibility when you issue asinine statements like the one I quoted.

You're the one who stated that the guns in question had less stopping power and were worse for hunting than pistols and rifles. Which is what I was getting at, and even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court agrees with me (see the tiff with gromnir a few pages back over his decision in DC v Heller)

 

Having the current chief justice of the Supreme Court agree with you is not something I'd advertise. The man is evil and corrupt to the core. He is not an authority on law, he bends the law to the wills of the people who bought and paid for him. So much so that he's redefined words to mean things they've never before meant in the history of English. Nevermind Ginsburg's 60+ pages of near gibberish (seriously, go read what this woman wrote and be amazed such intellect is on the Supreme Court let alone any court), Roberts opinion was the very dangerous one, that sets a precedent to give the Federal government the legal power to take any freedom it wishes away via 'tax' and 'mandate' (words Roberts redefined). Ginsburg, is a woman by the way that thinks the South African Constitution is better than the Constitution of the U.S., something that should have seen her impeached on grounds of treason (go read the tripe of a document that is the South African Constitution and realize just what traitors we have in the SCOTUS). 100 years ago she would have, but these days our legislative branch is so full of incompetents as well as it's own bunch of traitors and the American people so polarized that such a thing as holding someone accountable to their oath of office isn't even on the radar.

Ok, A) You can't be a traitor for saying something from another country is better than what we have. The Constitution of the USA isn't some sacred document that should be unchanged and worshipped as the be all end all of the government systems.

 

B) It doesn't matter if you think that the courts are right or wrong. The reasoning behind Scalias argument is pretty sound (at least in terms of AR's, he needed a better one for handguns), in that in a home invasion or "on the street" protection issue, most people won't be grabbing an M16 out of the gun case. Or in the case of being on the street, walking around with the damn thing slung over their shoulder (which is illegal).

Whether or not you were for or against 'Obamacare', I highly recommend reading the actual decisions of the justices in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius case. This is something the main stream media obviously didn't do (in this case and just about every other, they don't do much investigating anymore than most other people do). They were too busy bowing to the wills of those who own them and stoking the false left v. right paradigm of thinking fire. Facts, reality, and consequences be damned.

 

You will discover if you read it that the arguments for it by Roberts are possibly the most contrived evil to ever be perpetrated in a ruling at the Supreme Court level. Even if 'Obamacare' was this super benevolent awesome thing of all good, the arguments he uses for it are evil to the core and set a precedent that undermines everything fought for in the American Revolution. If Wickard v. Filburn set the precedent that the Federal government can do almost anything it wants and get away with it, the opinion by Roberts takes the 'almost' out of the equation. The opinion to uphold 'Obamacare' as it was written is going to come back to haunt everyone, even those who supported the bill. And on that note, I'll wager that 99%+ of it's supporters never read even a tangible fraction of it. It's a pretty evil bill up there with the Patriot Act. Most of it has nothing to do with health care.

What on earth does Obamacare have to do with anything? The fact that you hate the Justices for doing their jobs?

 

Look, in terms of that, all I'm gonna say that it's the JOB of the federal government to enact laws to protect it's citizens from enemies. Be they foreign powers, home grown terrorists, price fixing and gouging, or a company outright refusing to pay out for what they're supposed to. One of the things I think will happen from the system is that you'll find the prices will still increase due to inflation, but it'll be at a FAR lower rate, and the people who are on the insurance will be better served by their company.

In other news in regards to the main topic of this thread, at least one reporter out there is asking the pertinent question:

http://www.wnd.com/2...hook-reporting/

 

If you really want to see fewer tragedies such as Columbine or Sandy Hook, the answers are complicated and are societal on a level that they won't be fixed any time soon. But if there's one thing that contributed to these tragedies outside of the will of a twisted person, it's not the guns, it's the drugs.

Wow, that's... a very bias news source.

 

You're right on the last paragraph, but there's also the question of how would working to prevent AK's and M16's and the .223 that he used from getting into the hands of those who would perpetrate this sort of thing bad?

 

I've heard in this thread, "Oh, hand guns are more lethal!" when the fact that AR's are designed for the only purpose of killing other people. Ok then, how are they better at home defense other than the fact that you can spit out 200 rounds a minute (that could also fly across the street and hit your neighbor in freak incidents).

 

On the subject of hunting, they're brought up as somehow being good for it. It boggles me that you'd want to hunt at the shorter ranges it provides, and riddle whatever animal you're hunting with 10-30 bullets (depending on accuracy). There are shotguns for larger animals, and hunting rifles for longer range.

 

And for the record, the exact same model of assault rifle (Bushmaster xm-15 .223) was purchased legally, given a bipod and reflex site, and used to kill 9, wounding 3, over the course of October in 2002. It was used more as a sniper rifle than a mass shooter, but it was still that particular weapon. None of the shots were longer than 175 meters.

[Laozi]

What do guns do again?

[Gorth]

What do guns do again?

 

Help people with inferiority complexes to feel empowered and be "the chosen one"?

[Malcador]

What do guns do again?

 

Well, witty condescension aside, they shoot bullets at things. Or if you listen to one guy, provide a source of political power.

[mkreku]

It annoys me that every right wing nut who is opposed to gun control thinks that it's the same as removing all guns from the population.

 

Gun control means that you have to follow certain rules to be able to own guns. It means that you do not hand them out like candy for people who open bank accounts or buys a new car. You can still pile up guns in your home if you want, there are gun collectors in Sweden too, as long as you take responsibility for them. They are dangerous tools.

 

In Sweden, the rules are pretty simple:

 

1.) Don't be a crazy person. They do a check of your criminal record and if you've had mental issues.

2.) You need training. This takes time and costs money, so it usually sorts out the ones wanting a gun fast and cheap.

3.) Weapons need to be stored in safe cabinets. My father owns six guns, thus his cabinet had to weigh 450 lbs.

4.) A vital part of the weapon must be stored in another place than the actual gun. Same with the ammunition.

 

What is so hard to comprehend about an absolute lunatic with voices in his head will kill a lot more people by just smashing a car window and reach for a gun, than if he has to break into a safe to get the gun, search for the missing vital part, break open a second safe to get that part and then find the ammo? No, gun control will not stop every madman, of course not. It will not stop Breivik, obviously. That is not the point. The point is that it stops some. Maybe even most.

 

And this misguided romantic notion of a true american cowboy defending his home with his own hands and his own guns is so far off the reality scale that it's not worth arguing against.

[Valsuelm]

Ok, A) You can't be a traitor for saying something from another country is better than what we have. The Constitution of the USA isn't some sacred document that should be unchanged and worshipped as the be all end all of the government systems.

 

B) It doesn't matter if you think that the courts are right or wrong. The reasoning behind Scalias argument is pretty sound (at least in terms of AR's, he needed a better one for handguns), in that in a home invasion or "on the street" protection issue, most people won't be grabbing an M16 out of the gun case. Or in the case of being on the street, walking around with the damn thing slung over their shoulder (which is illegal).

 

What on earth does Obamacare have to do with anything? The fact that you hate the Justices for doing their jobs?

 

Look, in terms of that, all I'm gonna say that it's the JOB of the federal government to enact laws to protect it's citizens from enemies. Be they foreign powers, home grown terrorists, price fixing and gouging, or a company outright refusing to pay out for what they're supposed to. One of the things I think will happen from the system is that you'll find the prices will still increase due to inflation, but it'll be at a FAR lower rate, and the people who are on the insurance will be better served by their company.

 

Wow, that's... a very bias news source.

 

You're right on the last paragraph, but there's also the question of how would working to prevent AK's and M16's and the .223 that he used from getting into the hands of those who would perpetrate this sort of thing bad?

 

I've heard in this thread, "Oh, hand guns are more lethal!" when the fact that AR's are designed for the only purpose of killing other people. Ok then, how are they better at home defense other than the fact that you can spit out 200 rounds a minute (that could also fly across the street and hit your neighbor in freak incidents).

 

On the subject of hunting, they're brought up as somehow being good for it. It boggles me that you'd want to hunt at the shorter ranges it provides, and riddle whatever animal you're hunting with 10-30 bullets (depending on accuracy). There are shotguns for larger animals, and hunting rifles for longer range.

 

And for the record, the exact same model of assault rifle (Bushmaster xm-15 .223) was purchased legally, given a bipod and reflex site, and used to kill 9, wounding 3, over the course of October in 2002. It was used more as a sniper rifle than a mass shooter, but it was still that particular weapon. None of the shots were longer than 175 meters.

 

If you're going to take issue with what I said, you really should read the South African Constitution, after you read ours of course, as well as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papets, the Magna Carta, the Articles of Confederacy, and the Virginia Declaration of Rights. So you have a clue of the context of what I'm talking about.

 

And when you read the South African Constitution, even if you don't understand what the significance of the central bank aspect of it, which will speak volumes to anyone who does, it should be amazingly obvious to you that it's not a better document in any way. Ginsburg's loyalty is not to her own nation, it's not a matter of just simply something she thinks. Her position means everything. Note that I said impeached, not charged criminally with treason. Her actions and thoughts are perfectly acceptable for someone who didn't swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution or is charged with sitting on the Highest Court. You'd understand the fundamental problem with what her thoughts are if you'd read some of her opinions such as the one I noted above.

 

To put it another way to illustrate the significance of what she said. It is akin to saying that the U.S.S.R. had a better Constitution. You're free to think so as just a citizen of the U.S. Having someone whose sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, especially someone in her position thinking this however is an entirely different matter.

 

I didn't take issue with Scalia's argument. Not saying I wouldn't nor that I would, but it was not the purpose of anything I wrote.

 

As for saying that's a bias news source... the author of the article really was just pointing out something that almost no one else was.

 

And in regards to 'Obamacare'... 'Obamacare' itself has little to nothing to do with what I was writing about. The actual decision to uphold it and the opinions expressed in that decision is what I was referring to.

 

I do not know how much you understand law, but the manner in which a law is upheld in a court can have far greater significance than the actual law itself. In the matter of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (the 'Obamacare' case), this likely to prove true. At the very least the is going to be a very ugly court battle in the future regarding the precedents set. And to quote one lawyer I spoke to the day the decision was released (who read the decision as I had) "This decision totally eclipses Obamacare as an issue. Holy f--- we're in trouble."

[Calax]

Ginsburg has an opinion. Holding opinions in no way is treason, unless you want to enter 1984 thought police territory for everyone who doesn't constantly have "'Murica is the best nation on the planet" screaming through their heads. And why should somebody look at the Articles of Confederation? Those were so screwed up they put a stranglehold on Jersey and had to be changed as soon as the rich whities could get around to it.

 

If you have no problem with Scalia's argument, then you can't go off on a random diatribe against the court. He was the majority opinion of the Heller case, which you're decrying. So either you have a problem and don't like the situation that he set the legal precedent for (Guns are ok, but there should be controls on the types available and how readily they're available), Or you're fine with it and your AK47 is not protected by the second amendment.

 

Um, if you're talking about the discussion on mandates, the government already has those skippy, and has for a loong long time. Vaccinations for school, Drivers Licenses, Social Security... even on the local level of HOA fees. It's just that this particular mandate is more obvious. And for the record, I'm not going to take some random "Some people say" quote. Give it a source or say it yourself, don't just say "Some guy I know said that ______________"

[Guest The Architect]

Guys like Alex Jones give gun owners a bad name.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-i3Y5iRYo

[Hurlshort]

I'm not that fond of Pier Morgan, but that guy comes across like a raving lunatic.

[alanschu]

Suicide mass murder pills....

 

Great White Sharks!

 

1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN!

 

ROFL. "YOU HAD TO FLEE HERE!"

 

Rofl "Your jolly roger."

 

What a pissant.

[Roxane]

Piers Morgan's poise is impressive. As for Alex Jones, he does a very good job to look like an idiot by puking his argument down into Pierce's throat while not wanting to listen to his host at all.

[BruceVC]

Ginsburg, is a woman by the way that thinks the South African Constitution is better than the Constitution of the U.S., something that should have seen her impeached on grounds of treason (go read the tripe of a document that is the South African Constitution and realize just what traitors we have in the SCOTUS).

 

Remind me why the South African Constitution is rubbish? You need to be careful when you make blanket insults against a country that is based on your ignorance, it undermines your point and you come across as some kind of uninformed and emotional fanatic.

 

I am sure that everyone thinks there countries Constitution is superior to others, but in the South African example I really do. The South African Constitution was crafted at a time of profound uncertainty in the world. Communism and Apartheid were ending and the old government of South Africa really didn't know what would happen when the ANC, the previous enemy, came to power. They had to protect businesses, human rights and current institutions. They created the Constitution and did an excellent job. Some of the points that make it superior to many other Constitutions in my opinion are

• We recognize that everyone has a right to human dignity and equal rights under the law irrespective of your race, religion or sexual orientation. So for example this means that Gay people have all the rights of straight people including marriage.
  
• We believe in free speech but not if it infringes on a persons dignity. So there are certain derogatory words you cannot call people. We know in South Africa that words can and do effect people
  

 

Another annoying point you made is comparing the South African Constitution to the one that the USSR used, thats an egregious analogy. At least use a Constitution of another Western, Capitalist Democracy. Because thats what South Africa is. Its not some Communist country

 

.

Edited January 9, 2013 by BruceVC

[Calax]

I'm not that fond of Pier Morgan, but that guy comes across like a raving lunatic.

To be fair, he was probably picked to go on the show for that reason. And he's an AM radio broadcaster it seems like (they mention it at the very beginning), and that place is a NUT HOUSE as you probably know.

[BruceVC]

I'm not that fond of Pier Morgan, but that guy comes across like a raving lunatic.

 

OMG, I don't think I have ever seen a more embarrassing display in an interview than what Alex Jones demonstrated. Who is he? And I can't believe that people that want to own firearms actually would want to be associated with him. His petulant insults about Piers Morgan running away from the UK, wanting to have boxing match with him and then imitating how he speaks made me cringe. Yes calling him a raving lunatic is fitting and apt.

[alanschu]

Ginsburg, is a woman by the way that thinks the South African Constitution is better than the Constitution of the U.S., something that should have seen her impeached on grounds of treason (go read the tripe of a document that is the South African Constitution and realize just what traitors we have in the SCOTUS).

 

This doesn't put you much higher than Alex Jones....

[alanschu]

Speaking of Alex again.

 

This made me snort laugh:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/01/08/alex-jones-spins-piers-morgan-appearance-i-dont-respect-that-show/

[Calax]

I find it interesting that he's flipping out over government and corporate conspiracies.... but he's also screaming about the FBI facts, even though they would be one of the largest support structures for that particular... oddness.

[Guest The Architect]

How dare you fluoride drinking zombies question Alex Jones, he's a freaking super saiyan for crying out loud.

 

[Malcador]

To be fair, he was probably picked to go on the show for that reason. And he's an AM radio broadcaster it seems like (they mention it at the very beginning), and that place is a NUT HOUSE as you probably know.

 

Have to love traps like that. Irritating wastes of skin in that video, the both of them.