Gun Control

[Juan_Bottom]

Why is it senseless?

Because it will only affect the people who follow the law. Someone who wants to get a gun for the purpose of murdering someone already takes the "following the law part" out of the equation. And I wish you did pull that 90% source, because that's where the other questions are, where 60-something % of people agree it won't do anything to stop criminals/senseless.

Just curious, I know you aren't one of the people who said Obama is the same as Romney, but do you think Romney would be going as far as Obama is, which is basically gun control obsession?

Every law affects only those who follow it. Yet we still have laws.
Here is why I think you're wrong about Universal background checks; approximately 40 - 48% of all gun shows have no background check at all, because the guns are bought online, privately, or at a gun show. We know for a fact that organized crime uses these loopholes to arm their soldiers. And that's important. Eric Holder just famously botched a gun tracking operation that left several border agents and innocent Mexican high school students dead. So let's say, for the sake of argument that Universal Background Checks become law. What changes?

Let's say a serial rapist named Toby Keith wants to buy a gun, and he's on the felon roster. He goes to a gun show or a federally licensed dealer to buy a gun. He fails the background check... So what's his next step? The next logic step is that Toby Keith goes on Craigslist to find a private seller. He finds one... but this seller follows the law and waits for a background check before transferring the gun. So Toby Keith finds a second private seller, one who doesn't follow the law. Now Toby Keith commits a heinous crime and leaves the gun behind at the scene. The police find the gun and trace it to the second seller, and he's held accountable for giving a serial rapist a gun.
So on the short term, the law may do only so much to deter the use of a gun in crime. But on the long term, after enough private or licensed sellers have been held accountable, things will change.
It is tempting to say that it may also lead to new American businesses who just specialize in fast background checks.

And Romney wouldn't even touch the subject of gun control. I think he'd mildly deny the legislation, or veto it if it came to his desk. But I don't believe that he would campaign either for or against it like Obama is.

we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want. I didn't take anything out of context. Shall not be infringed is shall not be infringed.

If Congress doesn't have the right to regulate private ownership of firearms, then criminals should be allowed to legally own any gun they choose? The second Amendment does say "shall not be infringed" after all?

I agree with you Phatscotty. If you ever need to fight your government you will need tank, and probably plane too.
But you know what? You don't and will never have them.

So the argument saying that you need weapon to be able to fight against your government in case your government decide to become a tyranny is just total bullshit. You will never have the same weapon than them.
Be realistic assume the comparison with developed country, and understand that LESS WEAPON = LESS DEAD (by them at least). It is simple logic but believe it please it works pretty well !

More people have been killed in my native land by domestic gun violence than have been killed in all US wars combined. And we've never even needed individual arms to stop the government.
Well, there was the Civil War, where treasonous men irrationally attacked the United States government because they wanted to own and subjugate other human beings. But in that instance, their state's provided arms.

Who said anything about fighting against the government? I just want something to do in recreation. Makes me feel alive

BMO

Marvin Heemeyer

God blessed me in advance for the task that I am about to undertake. It is my duty. God has asked me to do this. It's a cross that I am going to carry and I'm carrying it in God's name.

If it weren't for the guns, and the suicide, this guy might be a likable folk hero.

[Juan_Bottom]

State militias were NOT standing armies...they were the individual landowners of the state who banded together to form the militia to ward off outside threats. Therefore, infringements on the rights of individuals to own guns IS an infringement on the state militias. And the federal government does not have the authority to know who is a member of those militias (who owns guns) specifically because the people retain the right to overthrow that government. Furthermore, every single other Amendment of the first 9 specifically applies to individuals, so why does the 2nd amendment only apply when a person is in a group?

They bought their guns illegally in the US with the gun-show loophole, as do the drug cartels.

Loopholes are, by definition, not illegal actions. Just because you don't like that the government can't track every single gun purchase does not mean those guns were purchased illegally.

By the way, why doesn't the government actually enforce the gun laws we already have? They rarely prosecute people who get denied gun purchases through the checks that are already in place. They have willfully told merchants to break the law and sell guns to Mexican cartels. This government can't even follow the laws that are currently on the books, so why do we need more laws?

That's not entirely historically accurate. In the North, there wasn't much in the way of "Militia." But in the South, there were constant armed Militia patrols watching for runaway slaves. When the great ironic hero John Brown attacked Harper's Ferry, hundreds of slave-catching Virginia Militiamen responded within 24 hours. This is what Militia meant in the South, it didn't mean protection from (outside threats) it meant protection of (the institution).
BUT, in the time of Revolutionary America, State Militias were regulated and armed/dressed by their respective states, not by Philadelphia or New York. Congress only handled the standing army. Therefor, it's easy to understand that the Constitution was codifying the system that was already in place, as an insulation against a concentration of power in a tyrannical central authority. And the system had already existed was that Militia members didn't need their own weapons stored at home, excepting for those who fought Indians on the frontier, and slave catchers. Which again, isn't exactly a threat from the outside. Furthermore, the language says that a well-regulated Militia is necessary for defense, not that individual cowboys with guns is necessary for defense. Remember, the first battle of the Revolution, the battle of Lexington and Concord happened because the British government, our lawful government, was attempting to seize individual state armorys. It makes good sense that this influenced the language of the second amendment.
And a final kind-of nail in this coffin, when the Civil War broke out, each Southern State armed and dressed it's own soldiers. By the end of the war, Southern soldiers everywhere were suffering from having no clothes, or kit. But Virginia had hundreds of thousands of uniforms and kits in storage, reserved only for Virginia soldiers. It happened this way because these individual state-run Militias, with their "state's right's" attitudes became state-run armys, and they took their ideas about state-regulated Militias with them.
And if you are going to argue that Congress cannot restrict individual gun ownership, then rapist should be able to legally buy revolvers too, just like you can.


The gun sales to Mitt Romney's family were entirely illegal. I was obviously referencing Mitt Romney's Mexican family members, as there's no occasion for his American family members to shoot at the Mexican army (presumably). Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, and he still has many cousins living there. But it's illegal to sell assault-type rifles to Mexican civilians, and it's also illegal for them to posses assault-type rifles.


And as to the reason the ATF doesn't enforce the laws that they already have - NRA sponsored Republican politicians have passed legislation that supersedes their authority to enforce the laws. For example, there was a law requiring that all gun sales by federally licensed sellers had to be recorded for the ATF. The law still exists, but now there's also an NRA-sponsored law that says the ATF cannot punish a business that doesn't follow it. And so on.

[Night Strike]

Congress won't enact his removal of rights, so Obama will just unilaterally enact them anyway. Who said he doesn't want to be a dictator?

Joe Biden says the president of the United States is preparing to take "executive actions" to deal with guns.

BuzzFeed reports:

Vice President Biden told White House allies in the gun control fight Thursday that President Obama will be announcing new executive actions on gun violence in the days after the Senate voted down a gun violence bill.

On a conference call with "stakeholders," Biden told gun control advocates that the fight is not over and that eventual action on gun control will come. Press were not invited to the conference call; a participant provided BuzzFeed with access.

"Look I know you're going to say that I'm just being an optimist and I'm trying to put a good face on this. But you know I've been around here a long time and we've already done, because of you, some really good things," Biden said. "Number one, the president is already lining up some additional executive actions he's going to be taking later this week."

After the Newtown shootings, Obama took a number of executive actions to expand research into gun violence and other areas favored by the gun control community. He took the actions without Congressional approval, leading to outrage by some conservatives.

Gun control measures failed in the Democratic-controlled Senate earlier this week.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-president-already-lining-some-additional-executive-actions-guns_718027.html

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, we need to send you to Omicron Ceti III, where you can be happy again.
--Andy

I never did like flowers.

[Woodruff]

we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want. I didn't take anything out of context. Shall not be infringed is shall not be infringed.

If Congress doesn't have the right to regulate private ownership of firearms, then criminals should be allowed to legally own any gun they choose? The second Amendment does say "shall not be infringed" after all?

But that's different...uh...you know.

[Woodruff]

Congress won't enact his removal of rights, so Obama will just unilaterally enact them anyway. Who said he doesn't want to be a dictator?

I don't know if anyone did, but I will. He doesn't. And you're an utter moron for even suggesting that he does. Do you have the foggiest understanding of what comprises a "dictator"?

[ooge]

This Congress has a 6% approval rating. I don't want them opening my can of soup, much less tinkering with the 2nd amendment

90% of the public supports the legislation,the legislation does not pass,this will result in a 6% approval ratings. The noisy minority voices win again.

Sorry Oogey. That's just not true. Keep claiming victories every time you post tho! (another win for you, Congress is already at 6% approval. wtg)

Tell me, how many of the "public" knows what the legislation is? Have any of the public read the legislation?

Answer: Not even the Senators were able to read the legislation.

this 90% crap you guys pass on without a single thought, it's bullshit. All you are doing is repeating what you heard. Nice "logic"

that you heard that it was NOT 90% is something that you heard nice logic way to go...this is a endless loop..did fox news play the presidents press conference? No they did not. Why? They cant tell their viewers their version of"facts" and what the president said if they had played his press conference...and some advise try and make your points without foul language.Just saying. The "noisy minority I was referring to is the less than 50% of the population who say things like the president is the worst ever he is a socialist and then they do not understand when the president gets reelected in a landslide.

[Night Strike]

we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want. I didn't take anything out of context. Shall not be infringed is shall not be infringed.

If Congress doesn't have the right to regulate private ownership of firearms, then criminals should be allowed to legally own any gun they choose? The second Amendment does say "shall not be infringed" after all?

But that's different...uh...you know.

A criminal has previously infringed upon the rights of someone else, which is why they then forfeit their own Constitutional rights as a consequence. It's not the government's role to take away someone's Constitutional rights simply because those people in the government don't like that particular right.

[Woodruff]

we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want. I didn't take anything out of context. Shall not be infringed is shall not be infringed.

If Congress doesn't have the right to regulate private ownership of firearms, then criminals should be allowed to legally own any gun they choose? The second Amendment does say "shall not be infringed" after all?

But that's different...uh...you know.

A criminal has previously infringed upon the rights of someone else, which is why they then forfeit their own Constitutional rights as a consequence. It's not the government's role to take away someone's Constitutional rights simply because those people in the government don't like that particular right.

But it does not say that in the Constitution, Night Strike. Nothing. Nada. If you are going to be consistent in the "shall not be infringed" argument, then you must accept what "shall not be infringed" actually means. Are you going to be consistent?

[Night Strike]

we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want. I didn't take anything out of context. Shall not be infringed is shall not be infringed.

If Congress doesn't have the right to regulate private ownership of firearms, then criminals should be allowed to legally own any gun they choose? The second Amendment does say "shall not be infringed" after all?

But that's different...uh...you know.

A criminal has previously infringed upon the rights of someone else, which is why they then forfeit their own Constitutional rights as a consequence. It's not the government's role to take away someone's Constitutional rights simply because those people in the government don't like that particular right.

But it does not say that in the Constitution, Night Strike. Nothing. Nada. If you are going to be consistent in the "shall not be infringed" argument, then you must accept what "shall not be infringed" actually means. Are you going to be consistent?

A criminal chose to take away the rights of another person, therefore they lose their rights in return. There's nothing inconsistent about that: the government's role is to protect rights and punish those who take them away.

[Woodruff]

we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want. I didn't take anything out of context. Shall not be infringed is shall not be infringed.

If Congress doesn't have the right to regulate private ownership of firearms, then criminals should be allowed to legally own any gun they choose? The second Amendment does say "shall not be infringed" after all?

But that's different...uh...you know.

A criminal has previously infringed upon the rights of someone else, which is why they then forfeit their own Constitutional rights as a consequence. It's not the government's role to take away someone's Constitutional rights simply because those people in the government don't like that particular right.

But it does not say that in the Constitution, Night Strike. Nothing. Nada. If you are going to be consistent in the "shall not be infringed" argument, then you must accept what "shall not be infringed" actually means. Are you going to be consistent?

A criminal chose to take away the rights of another person, therefore they lose their rights in return. There's nothing inconsistent about that: the government's role is to protect rights and punish those who take them away.

Were you going to point to where that's covered in the Constitution? Because I'm not seeing anything about removing someone's right to bear arms for that reason. And yet, we're infringing on that right. I mean, I know that you firmly believe the Constitution should be the law of the land (when it's in your favor, may change as the issue changes), so surely you recognize that it's not Constitutional to withhold the right to bear arms from anyone for any reason, right?

[Juan_Bottom]

Exactly.

[Juan_Bottom]

Congress won't enact his removal of rights, so Obama will just unilaterally enact them anyway. Who said he doesn't want to be a dictator?

1) It was a Republican President who invented Executive Orders to get around Congress.
2) George Bush II passed a record number of Executive Orders. Many of which were directed at "domestic security."
3) Obama has since rescinded many of George Bush II's Executive Orders.

4) The Executive Branch is separate and equal to Congress. Obama doesn't need permission from senator dickweed to do anything but declare war. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court during George Bush II's second term, when Democrats sued the president to force him to share his top secret documents about meeting exclusively with Oil Lobbyist to set the policy for invading Iraq before Bush II announced his plans to invade Iraq to Congress. The Dems lost the lawsuit.

Also, http://techland.time.com/2013/04/17/whi ... rity-bill/ ; If Obama wants to be a Dictator, why is he threatening to veto internet spying legislation on the grounds that it violates your civil rights?

[Woodruff]

Oh, and by the way, not all felons these days are there because they chose to take away a right of another individual. So even that argument doesn't hold water.

[Woodruff]

Congress won't enact his removal of rights, so Obama will just unilaterally enact them anyway. Who said he doesn't want to be a dictator?

1) It was a Republican President who invented Executive Orders to get around Congress.
2) George Bush II passed a record number of Executive Orders. Many of which were directed at "domestic security."
3) Obama has since rescinded many of George Bush II's Executive Orders.

4) The Executive Branch is separate and equal to Congress. Obama doesn't need permission from senator dickweed to do anything but declare war. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court during George Bush II's second term, when Democrats sued the president to force him to share his top secret documents about meeting exclusively with Oil Lobbyist to set the policy for invading Iraq before Bush II announced his plans to invade Iraq to Congress. The Dems lost the lawsuit.

Also, http://techland.time.com/2013/04/17/whi ... rity-bill/ ; If Obama wants to be a Dictator, why is he threatening to veto internet spying legislation on the grounds that it violates your civil rights?

BECAUSE SOCIALIST!!!!!

[isaiah40]

"Shall not be infringed" means just that, lawful citizens or criminals alike. We all know that criminals are going to get a gun if they so choose no matter what law you pass. Criminals are just that, criminals, law breakers! Which is why I don't believe that the government should require background checks. If you, being a law-abiding citizen, went to purchase a gun, filled out the background check form, waited your time (usually 7 days in most states), and then found out that you were denied because of one little thing the government didn't like how would you feel. Some will say that the government is protecting you and you family. But, I come along and decide to rob you with a gun, what are you going to do? I then go next door to your neighbors, and try the same thing but he/she has a gun and shoots me. Who protected their family from me? You or your next door neighbor?

Chicago has gun control, where is their crime rate? Houston has no gun control, what is Houston's crime rate. I can guarantee you that Houston has a lower crime rate than Chicago!

[Woodruff]

"Shall not be infringed" means just that, lawful citizens or criminals alike. We all know that criminals are going to get a gun if they so choose no matter what law you pass. Criminals are just that, criminals, law breakers! Which is why I don't believe that the government should require background checks. If you, being a law-abiding citizen, went to purchase a gun, filled out the background check form, waited your time (usually 7 days in most states), and then found out that you were denied because of one little thing the government didn't like how would you feel. Some will say that the government is protecting you and you family. But, I come along and decide to rob you with a gun, what are you going to do? I then go next door to your neighbors, and try the same thing but he/she has a gun and shoots me. Who protected their family from me? You or your next door neighbor?

So you're in favor of making it EASIER for a criminal to get that gun? Like Night Strike, you speak as though these laws do not affect the criminal element, but that is simply not true at all, as even a brief objective look into the issue shows.

Look, I believe very strongly in the right to own firearms. I also recognize that intelligent and very reasonable controls on them are not a bad thing.

[notyou2]

Whooptifuckingdo

[BigBallinStalin]

Back in the day, tax collectors were tarred and feathered when the people deemed that they were being taxed enough already.

With the relative rise in power of the state, the people lack that credible deterrent. As the people's ability to counterbalance the federal government decreases, then we should expect more expansion of the federal government---into our pockets and into our daily lives.

[Phatscotty]

Don't forget the premise. Obama "simply wanted a vote on the issue". Okay, ya got the vote, now respect the will of the people, be tolerant of Democracy, and STFU!

[Nobunaga]

Back in the day, tax collectors were tarred and feathered when the people deemed that they were being taxed enough already.

With the relative rise in power of the state, the people lack that credible deterrent. As the people's ability to counterbalance the federal government decreases, then we should expect more expansion of the federal government---into our pockets and into our daily lives.

Also, it has become quite difficult to find actual tar. I thought Home Depot or Menard's might stock it, but when I went looking.... out of luck.

[Phatscotty]

Back in the day, tax collectors were tarred and feathered when the people deemed that they were being taxed enough already.

With the relative rise in power of the state, the people lack that credible deterrent. As the people's ability to counterbalance the federal government decreases, then we should expect more expansion of the federal government---into our pockets and into our daily lives.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

[Donelladan]

isaiah40 has really nice argument

Chicago has gun control, where is their crime rate? Houston has no gun control, what is Houston's crime rate. I can guarantee you that Houston has a lower crime rate than Chicago!

Would you then compare US crime rate and any european country with gun control?

1st part was actually also nice I think :

Some will say that the government is protecting you and you family. But, I come along and decide to rob you with a gun, what are you going to do? I then go next door to your neighbors, and try the same thing but he/she has a gun and shoots me. Who protected their family from me? You or your next door neighbor?

Let's say I am robber and I have a gun.
I want to rob you. You dont have a gun. I do rob you. Everything go smoothly
I go to your neighbour. I try to rob him. He has a gun. So I kill him before he killed me when I see the gun,

You sure having a gun is always the best option to protect you ?

I think you hold something there. Does having a gun in US make you people safer ? Are they less criminal in US because everyone can I have a gun and protect themself?
Because somehow it is your argument. Guns should allow honnest people to defend themself, and so since everytime a criminal try to robb you, you kill him, I guess criminality should be very low.
So why not try and compare with another country? Well I can give you the answer. Doesn't work !

You know all pro guns people. I keep trying. But I cant find any good reason "why do you want to have a gun" ?

[thegreekdog]

Congress won't enact his removal of rights, so Obama will just unilaterally enact them anyway. Who said he doesn't want to be a dictator?

1) It was a Republican President who invented Executive Orders to get around Congress.
2) George Bush II passed a record number of Executive Orders. Many of which were directed at "domestic security."
3) Obama has since rescinded many of George Bush II's Executive Orders.

4) The Executive Branch is separate and equal to Congress. Obama doesn't need permission from senator dickweed to do anything but declare war. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court during George Bush II's second term, when Democrats sued the president to force him to share his top secret documents about meeting exclusively with Oil Lobbyist to set the policy for invading Iraq before Bush II announced his plans to invade Iraq to Congress. The Dems lost the lawsuit.

Also, http://techland.time.com/2013/04/17/whi ... rity-bill/ ; If Obama wants to be a Dictator, why is he threatening to veto internet spying legislation on the grounds that it violates your civil rights?

BECAUSE SOCIALIST!!!!!

You guys are a hoot. Or perhaps delusional... but you can still be a hoot while being delusional.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/24/ ... of-rights/

The framework targets only the private sector's activities, not the government's. G-men can still, in certain situations, rifle through Americans' personal data without a search warrant.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/03/why_doe ... liberties/

Let us stipulate, as lawyers like to say, that President Obama has a deplorable record on civil liberties, one that threatens long-term damage to the country’s constitutional culture.

Why, then, has his base of support not been eroded decisively? Why have so many on the left fallen silent, after railing against George W. Bush’s rights violations, as Obama has prolonged and codified most of the same practices? And why have so few on the right, riding a groundswell of resentment toward big government, failed to resent the biggest governmental intrusions into personal privacy since the FBI’s domestic spying during the Cold War?

Hopefully you guys can answer some of Salon's questions. Perhaps JB can answer the second one?

The facts are not in dispute. While Obama has ordered an end to CIA kidnapping and torture, he has personally approved kill lists containing the names of American citizens to be targeted by drones. While he has tried to move the accused masterminds of 9/11 and others from Guantanamo to civilian courts (only to be blocked by congressional Republicans), he has also embraced military commissions and indefinite detention. He voiced misgivings about a bill subjecting suspected terrorists to military arrest — whether foreigners or Americans, whether in Afghanistan or Alabama — and then signed it into law.

In practically every significant court case, his administration has argued for an expansive encroachment on individual rights, much as the Bush administration did. Obama’s Justice Department has successfully opposed the habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo prisoners, persuading conservative judges to rule in one case that sketchy, unverified intelligence reports must be presumed correct. This absurdity has now entered case law as an erosion of the venerable right, dating from the Magna Carta, to summon your jailer before an impartial magistrate.

The administration has continued undermining the Fourth Amendment. It argued in the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully, that law enforcement should be free to attach GPS tracking devices to vehicles without showing probable cause and getting warrants. It has vigorously used a tool that Obama denounced in the 2008 campaign: the administrative subpoenas known as National Security Letters, which are issued without warrants to acquire the library, Internet, banking and other records of individuals suspected of nothing at all. His Justice Department has invoked state secrets, as did Bush’s, to deny wrongfully imprisoned and tortured victims the right to sue the government. The administration has sought broad immunity for Secret Service agents and others in law enforcement who arrest people exercising their First Amendment right to speech.

Obama’s solicitor general has just made a catch-22 argument before the Supreme Court that could exempt from constitutional challenge the law that authorizes the interception of Americans’ international communications without probable cause — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, broadened in 2008 with Obama’s vote as senator. Because the surveillance by the National Security Agency is secret, his administration argues, there is no way for the lawyers, journalists and rights organizations who suspect they are being monitored to prove that they are, in fact, targets of surveillance, and therefore they have no standing to sue.

[BigBallinStalin]

Nice post, TGD. I love the inconsistency from the opposition (Obama fans, anti-Bushers, "left-wingers" in general, etc.).

Obama is a nice example of soft despotism, in that all it takes is a charming leader for people to cheer on as he does terrible things.