…95% of all weapons sold over the last 45 years have been semi-auto whether handgun, shotgun, or rifle…[/quote]
Ummm…no. Don’t know the exact percentage but 95% is way too high.[/quote]
Particularly shotguns, I would think that most sold are pump action. Especially considering the popularity of the Remington 870.
[/quote]
Ah gentlemen, i havent been on this thread for months please don’t mistake my comment for a serious attempt at a statistic–it was intentional hyperbole to drive the point i was making home :). Apologies if you thought i was off my rocker.
I believe that this is MD legislation and not federal legislation.
I think it should be federal legislation.[/quote]
Of course you do. Infringement is a trivial, anachronistic term to you; it’s meant to be circumvented as you see fit.
Universal background checks, by the Justice Dept’s own reckoning, cannot be effectively implemented without a national registry. It’s impossible.[/quote]
And the Constitution says jack shit about national registries, and universal background checks, so before you claim the moral high ground in this principled fight against infringement upon rights, figure our what rights you have and do not have.[/quote]
Well that’s really boarder line. It’s slippery slope, what else are we going to register? If you allow it for guns it won’t stop there. You have to be careful of the laws you want.
All the laws regarding smoking, predictably have turned into the screening of other ‘unhealthy’ products, such as fast food, peanut oil, and large sodas.
Privacy is protected under Tort laws regarding privacy. So there is a right to privacy, though it’s not expressed stated in the constitution. The Constitution had the appropriately left vague language allowing for such laws to be passed. Though not Constitutional, the battles for the right to privacy extend way back into the history of the country. Rights to privacy are very much woven in to the fabric of the laws of the country.
I think people lose sight of what the Constitution was really trying to do. It was provide a legal framework under which the government is to function rather than create expressed laws. It was deliberately vague to allow the branches of government the freedom to function and adjust according to need. And there certainly was no consensus on it’s passing.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I agree with the poster in the other thread that said whatever background check is required of gun buyers should be required of potential voters.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think most can agree that the right of the people to keep and bear arms has already been infringed, so I would like to see an amendment passed repealing it.
Let the 28th amendment state something like, “The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. The people no longer have a right to keep and bear arms, though some employed by the government may be allowed the privilege.”
Let’s drop all pretenses that the second amendment is still in effect, and get rid of it. At least make the ignorant aware of what’s going on.
Don’t continue to screw with the second amendment while telling the ignorant amongst your constituency that you are not.
Edit: I would like to add that a clip feeds a magazine, a magazine feeds a weapon. They are different things.[/quote]
It has been infringed to certain degree, but it will never be repealed, ever.
The guy in Texas used a knife to try to harm people.
[/quote]
A local TV station reported it was an Exacto Knife. If someone came at me with one of those he would not wake up for a couple of days after I pounded his face into the concrete.[/quote]
This is the same thing they used to hijack the planes on 9/11. How much you wanna bet some asslick politician is going try an control the sale of exato knives. Then it will be anything sharp. Pretty soon we’ll have to register our kitchen utensils…[/quote]
Then it will be pencils on the banned list.
To write something, you are going to have to use a tiny needle to prick your finger and write it in blood. [/quote]
You will have to register the needle. Crayons will be allowed.
Of course if you can shoot a crayon with enough velocity, it will go right through you.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This notion that you have a right to buy a gun without anybody trying to figure out whether or not you’re a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal or an illegal alien beforehand–it’s absolutely ridiculous and it isn’t written down anywhere in the Constitution[/quote]
Maybe because our founding fathers were considered “a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal” by the Monarchy, so they did not want to discriminate. Illegal Aliens though are not US Citizens so the Constitution should not apply to them.[/quote]
Fair point, and so the criteria for gun ownership must be watched vigilantly.
But I’m speaking in this instance about murderers and rapists/the criminally insane/people with paranoid delusions. The kind of people that no reasonable person would ever argue to be worthy of gun ownership.
If anybody honestly thinks that it is a bad idea to try to stop those people from buying guns, by all means, give your reasons.[/quote]
I am not against what you are saying, but as we all know to well once the Government is given an inch they take a mile. [/quote]
Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no. People thought that widespread photographic identification card dissemination would lead to huge government overreach, and it never really did.
Anyway, it’s up to us to make sure that the mile isn’t taken. If the inch is a good idea–and in this case it is–then it’s a good idea and it needs to be done.
I just wrote like 3 pages worth of material on slippery slope arguments over in the gay marriage thread, so I won’t get all philosophical here.[/quote]
We have cameras every where now. Having a photo ID sure helps make a match. And pretty much if you have no photo ID, you pretty much don’t exist and you are not allowed to do much.
Bam lied, Bush lied, and on and on. This is a trust issue. If the government’s intention is honest, and it will not go further than it claims it will, all will be well. [/quote]
Again though, this extends to every single law that’s ever enacted and every single measure the government has ever taken. This is a kind of slippery slope argument, and its applicability is damn close to universal.
As an aside, if your distrust of the people whom we elect is so deep and so total that you are not willing to consider a reasonable measure on its own merits but are instead wholly concerned about what could happen sometime because everybody in Washington is a scoundrel searching frantically for more and better ways to buttfuck the American people, then you need to start thinking about revolution because you’re living under what you believe to be true tyranny.[/quote]
Perhaps if we had elected officials who actually did what they say they would, people would not have this distrust.
This response of distrust is a reaction to being duped so many times. This is not “the cart before the horse” argument.
Now that Obama was found to be full of shit when he talked about healthcare premiums not going up one dime, his word isn’t worth a damn.
From now on, do you think anyone (accept the low-information lemmings who worship him even if he clubbed baby seals in their little cute faces) would believe any bullshit that comes out of his mouth ?
Used car salesmen love stupid, gullible, and naive people. That is what Obama is, gift wrapped nicely in a well spoken suit.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Only a fool believes mandated national weapon registration would never lead to more severe infringement.[/quote]
Of course everyone knows a registry will lead to confiscation.
The same civilian disarmament crowd claimed in England, Australia, and a host of other countries that a registry would not lead to confiscation. Of course, a couple years later, they confiscated weapons.
There are a host of democrats, on youtube, stating that the real agenda is confiscation, but they have boil the frogs slowly, or they’ll jump out of the pot.
As an aside, the Justice Department admitted in testimony today that it would be required to create a registry of all guns and all gun owners in order to impliment the plan being argued in the Senate. That is the purpose.
++++++
I think we need to create a registry of all people on the internet and a license to print things on the internet. The internet was not mentioned in the Constiution, after all, and it’s a much faster means of communication than the Founders of America ever anticipated. Indeed, its a means of MASS COMMUNICATION. Standards and rules should be put in place to keep people safe. The children, people! The children! Children are on the internet and MUST BE PROTECTED!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Only a fool believes mandated national weapon registration would never lead to more severe infringement.[/quote]
Of course everyone knows a registry will lead to confiscation.
The same civilian disarmament crowd claimed in England, Australia, and a host of other countries that a registry would not lead to confiscation. Of course, a couple years later, they confiscated weapons.
There are a host of democrats, on youtube, stating that the real agenda is confiscation, but they have boil the frogs slowly, or they’ll jump out of the pot.
As an aside, the Justice Department admitted in testimony today that it would be required to create a registry of all guns and all gun owners in order to impliment the plan being argued in the Senate. That is the purpose.
++++++
I think we need to create a registry of all people on the internet and a license to print things on the internet. The internet was not mentioned in the Constiution, after all, and it’s a much faster means of communication than the Founders of America ever anticipated. Indeed, its a means of MASS COMMUNICATION. Standards and rules should be put in place to keep people safe. The children, people! The children! Children are on the internet and MUST BE PROTECTED![/quote]
That’s exactly what the goal is.
If I ever run for office, I am going to run on the ‘Fuck the children’ platform.
Every time something is done for ‘the children’, rights are lost. You do have the right not to be a shitty parent.
I believe that this is MD legislation and not federal legislation.
I think it should be federal legislation.[/quote]
Of course you do. Infringement is a trivial, anachronistic term to you; it’s meant to be circumvented as you see fit.
Universal background checks, by the Justice Dept’s own reckoning, cannot be effectively implemented without a national registry. It’s impossible.[/quote]
And the Constitution says jack shit about national registries, and universal background checks, so before you claim the moral high ground in this principled fight against infringement upon rights, figure our what rights you have and do not have.[/quote]
Oh yes it does, in crystal clear language.
[/quote]
Oh shit… Wait a second… Look at that. The checks didn’t prevent those… OOOHHHH I get it, there would be so many more if not for the checks… they… passed…