Gun Control II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
794

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“The who decided” is my main issue. The people who decide in my state have already made “assualt rifles” illegal and now I’m required to be finger printed and have a license to own a hand gun in MD. If my legislators are the one that decide, shit taking creatine will likely DQ you…[/quote]

Reasonable concerns. But what about the involuntary institutionalization thing? I mean, somebody with serious antisocial personality disorder.[/quote]

That an issue, I think we need a lot more research on metal disorder before we dq people from owning a gun because they saw a shrink once. The problem here is MDs will need to agree and that can be tricky.

Believe me, I don’t want a guy straight out of the loony bin running around with a gun, but I also don’t wan’t the 2nd crapped on because we’re afraid of a loony running around with a gun.

We’ll have to pick up on this tomorrow. I’m out for the night. [/quote]

Also SMH, how many people are institutionalized in the U.S.? Do you have those numbers or how many people with mental illnesses buy guns? I can’t imagine we are talking huge numbers here.

795

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
The second amendment was never intended to arm citizens forever.
[/quote]
huh?

Again, huh?[/quote]

You may have misinterpreted what I wrote. I meant(actually, I think I said) that those are the types of things Americans will eventually be taught if we don’t reverse course. I can’t imagine the people who blindly follow their leader/s ever starting to believe they are not free, so long as the government tells them they are.
[/quote]

Well, like with all things, we parents need to have the final word and teach and keep the fight alive. I think the battle over the 2nd amendment has serious implications on our freedom overall as a people. If we allow the government to disarm the populous, it will be a more tyrannical it’s inevitable. The government needs to have a healthy fear of the people.

I don’t mind sensible gun laws designed by and large to try and keep guns out of the most dangerous people’s hands. But in the end a determined person will kill and do damage.
It’s a fight and we have to keep fighting to keep the 2nd amendment from being infringe upon. Like the whole assault weapons ban is ridiculous. It doesn’t matter if you get your head blow off with a hand gun or an assault rifle, you’re just as dead. You take one weapon option, you just choose another.

I wonder if any mass murdering freak sat there and thought “Well damn,I was going to shoot up a school today, but since I cannot legally buy a AK-47, I guess I’ll just watch Oprah.”
[/quote]

The question is, what are sensible gun laws? Does it ever make sense to prohibit a free person from possessing a piece of some combination of metal, plastic, and/or wood? Do we trust the same laws and government who release these people who are too dangerous to have rights from prison? Gun laws are designed take guns from the government’s subjects. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. [/quote]

Well certainly, that’s a vague statement. And what I mean is basically is to knowingly have no legal avenues for known dangerous people to obtain firearms. Basically, what we have now. A background check for criminal records and mental defect.
I don’t think limiting round capacity, or removing certain types of weapons from the market make any sense and only affect the law abiding, not the criminals.
However, I will accept some ‘leakage’ for the sake of freedom. You’re not going to keep weapons out of the hands of the determine.
As we just have seen in Boston, if somebody wants to kill people, they will. Free society comes with inherent risks. There will always be some vulnerability. I am ok with that. I would rather be a victim in a free society, then safe under oppressive government.

796

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
My issue isn’t with background checks… [/quote]

It should be. What they will set up will be a painfully slow, intentionally inept, system designed to get false positives, with little recourse for the innocent who get caught in its web.

The process to get a weapon will turn into a six month slog — and they will demand “more money” to fix it.

They’re already doing this in NY. Innocent, non-crazy, people are getting their weapons seized at gun point.[/quote]

You speak with the wisdom of Solomon :slight_smile:

797

[quote]smh23 wrote:
And why are First Amendment rights revocable on college campuses?
[/quote]

Like I tried to say earlier (although probably not very well) your first amendment rights aren’t revoked on campus. There may be consequences if you exercise free speech, but you still have the ability to exercise that right if you so choose. By making it illegal to carry on a campus you are revoking citizens 2nd amendment rights. We cannot exercise our 2nd amendment rights if we cannot have a vital part of that right on us on a campus.

Am I explaining my perspective clearly enough because I think there is a big difference here.

798

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

So–a public university is part of the public square because it receives state subsidies. That’s what you’re going with? It gets state money?[/quote]

I’ve already been over that. Scroll up and back and inform yourself.[/quote]

No you haven’t.

What is it about SUNY Buffalo that makes it “public square?”

Can no right be revoked within the “public square” (whatever the hell that is)?

799

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
And why are First Amendment rights revocable on college campuses?
[/quote]

Like I tried to say earlier (although probably not very well) your first amendment rights aren’t revoked on campus. There may be consequences if you exercise free speech, but you still have the ability to exercise that right if you so choose.
[/quote]

As it is with the Second: there will be consequences if you exercise your right to carry a firearm. There is no substantive difference between the two in this regard.

800

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I have given many examples of why a public university open at all times to the public is a public place. You are playing the fool by claiming otherwise. Don’t you ever hypocritically taunt Max again; you have lost this debate and you’ve gone down swinging but you ARE down. And you’re staying down. You’re practically unconscious and you, me and everyone in the peanut gallery knows it. Shucks, even your mom knows it.[/quote]

By the way, nobody’s going to either win or lose until you choose an actual position and then defend it. “I say public square” is not a position. What is the principle.[/quote]

You say a public property owned, funded and fully trodden on at will by the public is in fact a private institution. What is the principle?[/quote]

No I don’t. I just say I have no clue why you think it’s part of “the public square” and furthermore what “the public square” is and furthermore whether or not “the public square” is a designation of any legal import and furthermore whether or not no Constitutional right may be abridged therein.

See what I’m getting at when I say you don’t even have a position? You’ve plucked a couple of words out of some or another cavernous orifice and are now in the uncomfortable position of having to fit them into a cogent theory with far-reaching implications. Good luck.

801

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
And why are First Amendment rights revocable on college campuses?
[/quote]

Like I tried to say earlier (although probably not very well) your first amendment rights aren’t revoked on campus. There may be consequences if you exercise free speech, but you still have the ability to exercise that right if you so choose.
[/quote]

As it is with the Second: there will be consequences if you exercise your right to carry a firearm. There is no substantive difference between the two in this regard.[/quote]

I don’t agree. There should not be a consequence for carrying a firarm, bearing arms is written directly in the 2nd ammendment. The consequence should come when miss using an “arm.”

802

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
And why are First Amendment rights revocable on college campuses?
[/quote]

Like I tried to say earlier (although probably not very well) your first amendment rights aren’t revoked on campus. There may be consequences if you exercise free speech, but you still have the ability to exercise that right if you so choose.
[/quote]

As it is with the Second: there will be consequences if you exercise your right to carry a firearm. There is no substantive difference between the two in this regard.[/quote]

I don’t agree. There should not be a consequence for carrying a firarm, bearing arms is written directly in the 2nd ammendment. The consequence should come when miss using an “arm.” [/quote]

Including inside the White House? And in a courtroom? And on an airplane? And inside some or another corporate headquarters? And on the floor of the NYSE?

The point here being that the Second Amendment is highly circumstantial. The notion that it protects the right to bear arms always and everywhere is an extremely radical one, and it is in my view entirely unnecessary, making no meaningful step, however small, in the direction of the Second Amendment’s purpose.

This has been a good discussion, but I will have to continue it another time. I have work to do and then a flight to catch. Edit: this is for Push too. We will get back into it I’m sure.

803

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
And why are First Amendment rights revocable on college campuses?
[/quote]

Like I tried to say earlier (although probably not very well) your first amendment rights aren’t revoked on campus. There may be consequences if you exercise free speech, but you still have the ability to exercise that right if you so choose.
[/quote]

As it is with the Second: there will be consequences if you exercise your right to carry a firearm. There is no substantive difference between the two in this regard.[/quote]

I don’t agree. There should not be a consequence for carrying a firarm, bearing arms is written directly in the 2nd ammendment. The consequence should come when miss using an “arm.” [/quote]

Including inside the White House? And in a courtroom? And on an airplane? And inside some or another corporate headquarters? And on the floor of the NYSE?

The point here being that the Second Amendment is highly circumstantial. The notion that it protects the right to bear arms always and everywhere is an extremely radical one, and it is in my view entirely unnecessary, making no meaningful step, however small, in the direction of the Second Amendment’s purpose.

This has been a good discussion, but I will have to continue it another time. I have work to do and then a flight to catch. Edit: this is for Push too. We will get back into it I’m sure.[/quote]

Same too you, safe travels.

804

Gun bill defeated! Woohoo!
Yeah I know it will come back up. But reprieve for now!

805

[quote]pat wrote:
Gun bill defeated! Woohoo!
Yeah I know it will come back up. But reprieve for now![/quote]

This is a born loser.

Dems for decades wanted gun control, but time and time again they failed, to the point where they gave up.

They tried to use this Sandy Hook incident, as sad as it is, to bring this issue up again and push it through.

So now, Obama is pissed because he got out-hustled by the NRA. There are about 5 Senate Dems up for reelection in red states, as much of a scumbag that Harry Reid is, he is no dummy.

The next time Obama cries about this being political, it should be noted that his own party is trying to save their own skin too.

806

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Gun bill defeated! Woohoo!
Yeah I know it will come back up. But reprieve for now![/quote]

This is a born loser.

Dems for decades wanted gun control, but time and time again they failed, to the point where they gave up.

They tried to use this Sandy Hook incident, as sad as it is, to bring this issue up again and push it through.

So now, Obama is pissed because he got out-hustled by the NRA. There are about 5 Senate Dems up for reelection in red states, as much of a scumbag that Harry Reid is, he is no dummy.

The next time Obama cries about this being political, it should be noted that his own party is trying to save their own skin too.[/quote]

Little bit of history, but civilian disamarmament laws started in the USA at Democrat urging to disarm blacks, Irish, Jews, and other “scary” folk.

The Democrats didn’t want black folk shooting back when they rode in wearing their white robes.

807

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Gun bill defeated! Woohoo!
Yeah I know it will come back up. But reprieve for now![/quote]

This is a born loser.

Dems for decades wanted gun control, but time and time again they failed, to the point where they gave up.

They tried to use this Sandy Hook incident, as sad as it is, to bring this issue up again and push it through.

So now, Obama is pissed because he got out-hustled by the NRA. There are about 5 Senate Dems up for reelection in red states, as much of a scumbag that Harry Reid is, he is no dummy.

The next time Obama cries about this being political, it should be noted that his own party is trying to save their own skin too.[/quote]

The NRA has no votes in the senate. I do not know why people think is has control. They can scream and shout with the best of them, in the end the senator alone can vote.

It’s ridiculous to think that more control would do shit to curb gun violence. If anything, outside these high profile events, gun violence has been dropping anyway.

808

Hillary predicted Obama would fail on guns back in 2008, she was right…

?You know, Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it?s a matter of constitutional right … I disagree with Senator Obama?s assertion that people in this country ?cling to guns? … People of all walks of life hunt?and they enjoy doing so because it?s an important part of their life, not because they are bitter.?

Is that Wayne LaPierre unloading on the president? Nope. It?s Hillary Clinton back in 2008 after then-senator Barack Obama?s famous reference to small-town Americans ?clinging to guns and religion.? And just in case anyone missed her larger point about Obama, she went on to call the remarks ?elitist and divisive.?

As she said in 2008:

?I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he?d bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.?

Which, of course, is why a lot of people voted for Obama in 2008. He was new, and history shows us that in open-seat presidentials, the least-experienced candidate generally wins. It is very American to bet on the possibility of greatness, however remote, rather than the less-exciting reality of proven performance.

809

http://vimeo.com/64432171

810

Student charged after refusing to remove NRA shirt…

813

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The uncanny aspect to this ^ is that it happened in the heartland, not in the land of the Pacific Northwest bozos.[/quote]

because the Pacific Northwest bozos like the federal government running their lives. They would actually like the local and state governments to be abolished and let the Federal Government run their lives.