Obama Attacks Gun Owners

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
222

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
pushharder wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
…
Note: I don’t agree with pwilliams direct analogy between the two-- I think it’s a poor analogy. Just pointing out that those things exist

Not a perfect analogy but a poignant one. Guarantee you the strongest pro-abortion folks are also the strongest anti-gun. I’m speaking in general terms.

An interesting correlation at the very least.

No abortion or privacy rights in Constitution but super passionate pro abortionists loudly crow these “rights”.

Explicit, undeniable gun rights in Constitution but super passionate pro abortionists loudly crow infringement on these rights.

?

I don’t know. I am very much pro-abortion. Especially after reading some of the threads in this forum.

But I’m not anti-gun.

I don’t get the problem with a waiting period either. I know, I know, you’re going to scream the 2nd amendment but I really don’t see this as violating anyone’s rights to own a gun. I’d guess you would still be able to get a gun more quickly than a woman would be able to get an abortion.

Then clearly you should have no problem with mandated waiting periods and other infringements on the pseudo right to abortion/privacy? You must answer yes to remain intellectually honest, right?

[/quote]

No, because even if the waiting period were nine months (although I wouldn’t support such a long time), you would still have the ability to buy that gun you want.

223

[quote]Christine wrote:
I’d guess you would still be able to get a gun more quickly than a woman would be able to get an abortion.
[/quote]

About half the states require a 24hr waiting period, a couple have “previous day”. The others are ‘on demand’.

The point is, a waiting period accomplishes nothing. Proponents seem to think it will stop someone in a rage from just going a purchasing a firearm to kill someone. There is no data to support that. “Spontaneous crimes of passion” are more likely to be committed using regular household items than newly purchased firearms. Why not regulate the purchase of kitchen knives?

We have a bridge that has a ‘suicide protection fence’, a butt ugly chain link fence that was built to stop jumpers that escape from a nearby mental hospital (no, not my house). It cost $250k to replace. It did it’s job-- no one jumped from the bridge-- they simply walked down to the next bridge…

Waiting periods are, at best, meaningless legislation that accomplishes nothing, just like the “assault” weapons ban that was based on cosmetic additions to firearms – THAT is the point.

224

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The point you have continued to miss is that THEY HAVE BIGGER GUNS THAN YOU. They also HAVE BETTER TECHNOLOGY. That is what was meant by pointing out that this isn’t the 1700’s. [/quote]

Incidentally, this the case during the Revolution as well. The British had more money and better training, too.

225

Just posted this in the “quotes” thread, but is a propos here:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

  • Ben Franklin
226

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Professor X wrote:

The point you have continued to miss is that THEY HAVE BIGGER GUNS THAN YOU. They also HAVE BETTER TECHNOLOGY. That is what was meant by pointing out that this isn’t the 1700’s.

Incidentally, this the case during the Revolution as well. The British had more money and better training, too.[/quote]

They also had no computers or computer guided weapons systems. The majority of their society wasn’t paying for most of their items using a debit card without carrying any cash on them.

227

No doubt.

However, they did have private ownership of a subset of weapons that the greatest military on the planet had at the time.

The terrorists in Iraq fall into a similar category arms-wise. They have a smaller, but similar subset of the weapons that the US is using there. The US is lightyears ahead in terms of force, money, and technology while opposing forces have similar but outdated weapons and crude improvised weapons. It’s been no walk in the park (obviously) for the US.

Of course, I’m not justifying the terrorists in Iraq, but if it’s that hard with a crudely armed force, just imagine if the general Iraqi populace were 100% opposed to our presence and armed and firing back.

228

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
No doubt.

However, they did have private ownership of a subset of weapons that the greatest military on the planet had at the time.

The terrorists in Iraq fall into a similar category arms-wise. They have a smaller, but similar subset of the weapons that the US is using there. The US is lightyears ahead in terms of force, money, and technology while opposing forces have similar but outdated weapons and crude improvised weapons. It’s been no walk in the park (obviously) for the US.

Of course, I’m not justifying the terrorists in Iraq, but if it’s that hard with a crudely armed force, just imagine if the general Iraqi populace were 100% opposed to our presence and armed and firing back.

[/quote]

It’s been no walk in the park because even though some might say we don’t care what the world thinks, we obviously do or else we would have ended this early on with a couple of well placed bombs.

The terrain is another factor since mountains, caves and deep valleys aid the enemy much more than us.

The two are not directly comparable.

If the American people truly did turn on the government, why would they be worried about PR?

230

[quote]pushharder wrote:
None of the above arguments about the efficacy of armed rebellion even remotely justifies infringement on 2nd Amendment liberties. It’s largely irrelevant to the principal discussion albeit interesting.[/quote]

A waiting period is not getting rid of your Second Amendment rights unless it is written, “[quote]No Americans shall have to wait more than 5 minutes for their gun purchase to be brought to them directly unless there is a system error with the ATM connection and the bank can not be reached in time[/quote]”.

231

If by ‘the above’ you mean anything but ‘immediately above’, I disagree. Every chip from the fabric, every infringement, reduces the ability of a populace to arm itself as it sees fit.

If by ‘the above’ you mean ‘immediately above’, then I agree.

:wink:

233

I have no idea why your response is so antagonistic when I’m trying to have a conversation with you in good faith.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
The thing is that I abhor the Patriot Act and criticized it then and now. But when I turn to you, you also advocate violating my rights. And yes, what you propose (registration, licensing, mandatory training) is a violation of my 2nd amendment rights, akin to requiring an intelligence test or poll tax to practice free speech or vote.

I’m sorry, but how is a waiting period to buy a gun violating your rights? With that logic, you might as well blame the guy selling the guns at such a high price for violating your rights. Why aren’t they free?!
[/quote]

You seem to be really big on calling people out over not reading posts. Did you read mine? Please point out where I said anything about waiting periods. I don’t oppose waiting periods actually. I’m really curious where you got that from. I wrote “registration, licensing, mandatory training”. What more do I need to write for you to understand I’m talking about “registration, licensing, mandatory training”?

[quote]Professor X:
Criminals do exist, even ones who haven’t committed the crime yet. Yes, I would hope every single gun sold is registered and I will wait as you explain how a waiting period is violating your rights to own a gun because that has been my main focus in this entire discussion.
[/quote]

Again, I have no idea where you got waiting periods from. In your rush to tell me I haven’t been reading you forgot to read my post. Calm down and read what I’m writing.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
I believe you propose these things not out of malice, but because you are well-intentioned and believe that the security benefits outweigh the cost of violating individual rights. The puts you in the same boat as Patriot Act apologists in my eyes.

I’m sorry, but what? I am not against guns and haven’t written anything of the sort so how am I for violating your rights? Are you even reading these posts before responding?
[/quote]

Again X, tell me where I said you’re “against” guns. I don’t think you’re against guns. In fact I went out of my way to say I DON’T think you’re “against guns”, I think you’re acting in good faith and you just happen to draw the line on the side of security relative to me. Which is the same logic applied to supporters of the Patriot Act. They rationalize that there’s no point in a “right to privacy” if we can’t secure ourselves against devastating attacks. The security gains outweigh the loss of liberty to them. I just disagree with them, and I disagree with you for similar reasons.

[quote]Professor X:
Don’t care. How about you respond to what has actually been written first.[/quote]

Come on X, this is ridiculous. I’m responding to this post of yours:

[quote]Professor X:
I am for registering the fire-arm. I see no problem there either. I am also for some type of regulation that causes a person to get regular practice with a gun.
[/quote]

My post is explicitly about registration and mandatory training. I read your post just fine. Can we take a step back an return to some basic civility here?

234

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pwilliams wrote:
Here’s something truly hipocritical.

Posters here want a waiting period, mandatory training, additional fees and taxes for a citizen to exercise an explicit 2nd Ammendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but…

But if one applies any of those requirements to the specter of the “right to abortion” which is no where in the Constitution, it is immediately deemed unconstitutional.

Who here has even discussed abortion? How do you plan to add a waiting period, mandatory training, additional fees and taxes to abortion? Wouldn’t a waiting period for abortion negate the abortion in the first place? They could wait for 9 months, huh?

Mandatory training? For an abortion? I think the doctor’s got that angle covered.

Additional fees? I’m fine with that since I have no clue what an abortion runs anyway.
[/quote]

I started to answer all of these, but stopped to not hijack the thread.

My point is simply there is a clear Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and a make-believe right to an abortion with true hipocrisy in the defense thereof.

Glad to see my point was not lost on some here.

236

[quote]pwilliams wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pwilliams wrote:
Here’s something truly hipocritical.

Posters here want a waiting period, mandatory training, additional fees and taxes for a citizen to exercise an explicit 2nd Ammendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but…

But if one applies any of those requirements to the specter of the “right to abortion” which is no where in the Constitution, it is immediately deemed unconstitutional.

Who here has even discussed abortion? How do you plan to add a waiting period, mandatory training, additional fees and taxes to abortion? Wouldn’t a waiting period for abortion negate the abortion in the first place? They could wait for 9 months, huh?

Mandatory training? For an abortion? I think the doctor’s got that angle covered.

Additional fees? I’m fine with that since I have no clue what an abortion runs anyway.

I started to answer all of these, but stopped to not hijack the thread.

My point is simply there is a clear Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and a make-believe right to an abortion with true hipocrisy in the defense thereof.

Glad to see my point was not lost on some here.[/quote]

To be clear, the fact that certain rights are not clearly enumerated does not mean they don’t exist. In the words of the Supreme Court, the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” The concurring opinion in the case (Griswold v Connecticut) contains a good discussion of what “penumbras” they are talking about.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html

In the the Griswold case, the Court is talking about right to privacy, not abortion.

237

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
None of the above arguments about the efficacy of armed rebellion even remotely justifies infringement on 2nd Amendment liberties. It’s largely irrelevant to the principal discussion albeit interesting.

A waiting period is not getting rid of your Second Amendment rights unless it is written, “No Americans shall have to wait more than 5 minutes for their gun purchase to be brought to them directly unless there is a system error with the ATM connection and the bank can not be reached in time”.

Thing is you didn’t call for just a waiting period. You had a whole pile of shit on your wish list.[/quote]

If I had to choose between what we have now and especially where we’re going, and absolutely NO weapons regs at all I would take the latter without hesitation.

238

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
None of the above arguments about the efficacy of armed rebellion even remotely justifies infringement on 2nd Amendment liberties. It’s largely irrelevant to the principal discussion albeit interesting.

A waiting period is not getting rid of your Second Amendment rights unless it is written, “No Americans shall have to wait more than 5 minutes for their gun purchase to be brought to them directly unless there is a system error with the ATM connection and the bank can not be reached in time”.

Thing is you didn’t call for just a waiting period. You had a whole pile of shit on your wish list.[/quote]

You can truly call it what you want, push, but I deal with enough people on a regular basis to not think everyone is competent (with a gun no less) simply because they own one.

So, yes, I do think that if training is not mandatory, there should at least be some huge push in the media to make it “en vogue” to make sure you are actually well trained so that guns are not sitting in closets for a decade before they get a shot off.

None of what we are discussing, however, explains the fear mongering going on as if guns are about to be taken away simply because one side is pissed it lost the election.

Democrats like guns, too, especially in the south.

I want guns registered. I don’t have an issue at all with a waiting period and if someone is actually holding the stance that rage induced gun purchases simply have not or can not occur, I am not sure what world they are living on.

Regulations do not mean your rights have been violated. They mean we function as a society and the world we currently live is a hell of a lot more up close and personal than it was over 200 years ago.

They didn’t have rush hour traffic back then.

239

[quote]Moriarty wrote:

I don’t oppose waiting periods actually. I’m really curious where you got that from. I wrote “registration, licensing, mandatory training”. What more do I need to write for you to understand I’m talking about “registration, licensing, mandatory training”?
…
Again X, tell me where I said you’re “against” guns. I don’t think you’re against guns. In fact I went out of my way to say I DON’T think you’re “against guns”, I think you’re acting in good faith and you just happen to draw the line on the side of security relative to me. Which is the same logic applied to supporters of the Patriot Act. They rationalize that there’s no point in a “right to privacy” if we can’t secure ourselves against devastating attacks. The security gains outweigh the loss of liberty to them. I just disagree with them, and I disagree with you for similar reasons.

[/quote]

So, just to make up a scenario, when a murder happens and cops are able to trace the bullet to the gun and/or find the owner BECAUSE of guns being registered, you see this as a negative?

The Patriot Act gives government the ability to label a citizen of this country an “enemy” and you are comparing this to gun registration?

Not one issue brought up about guns in this thread can eclipse that so why aren’t people up in arms about it?

You may disagree with the Patriot Act, but we haven’t heard a peep out of most conservatives on the issue over the past few years yet they are racing to buy guns as if they are going to be out of stock soon.

240

[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< You can truly call it what you want, push, but I deal with enough people on a regular basis to not think everyone is competent (with a gun no less) simply because they own one.

So, yes, I do think that if training is not mandatory, there should at least be some huge push in the media to make it “en vogue” to make sure you are actually well trained so that guns are not sitting in closets for a decade before they get a shot off. >>>[/quote]

Not everyone is competent wit ha whole host of commonplace items and situations that cause dozens of times more deaths and injuries than guns every year.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
None of what we are discussing, however, explains the fear mongering going on as if guns are about to be taken away simply because one side is pissed it lost the election.

Democrats like guns, too, especially in the south.[/quote]

Democrats have a long, well documented history, especially the bunch stepping up here, of rabid support for as much gun control as possible, including Obama. We’re back to the ol the record is everything principle.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I want guns registered. I don’t have an issue at all with a waiting period and if someone is actually holding the stance that rage induced gun purchases simply have not or can not occur, I am not sure what world they are living on.[/quote]

You can’t have checked the stats on this. Talk about the exception dictating the rule.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Regulations do not mean your rights have been violated. They mean we function as a society and the world we currently live is a hell of a lot more up close and personal than it was over 200 years ago.

They didn’t have rush hour traffic back then.[/quote]

All the more reason for unfettered access to weapons for law abiding citizens. I believe a violent felon has forfeited their right to keep and bear arms, but they’re not hung up on stupid little impediments like laws anyway.