Gun Control

[BigBallinStalin]

That's not what the second amendment says.

Unless I don't understand what you're referring to, it really does say "shall not be infringed".

Did you see "can of soup" in your copy of the Constitution?

(I did).

[Juan_Bottom]

That's not what the second amendment says.

Unless I don't understand what you're referring to, it really does say "shall not be infringed".

I'm talking about the whole thing, because wackos without perspective like to lie and say that the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" so they have the right to own whatever weapon they want. But immediately before that, it says "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state." PS is taking the words wholly out of context. It's the context of the words that I'm talking about, because they matter.
So yeah, Congress does have the authority to "infringe" upon that "right" of the individual owning assault rifles, so long as they don't try to keep state's from controlling their own armories. And if you're not a part of a well-regulated militia, then it's pretty easy to argue that you're acting outside of the framer's intentions. They were trying to protect the right of individual states to defend themselves against a tyrannical central government, not give the individual the authority to own a battleship.

[Phatscotty]

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.

Here's the deal as far as all this is concerned. Obama and the Democrat's said they wanted a vote, and they got the vote. Part of getting the vote, is dealing with the results of the vote. They tried to pass something that cannot pass, in a political effort to appear compassionate and "doing something".

As an aside, I've been curious to know what those who thought Romney was the same as Obama...Would Romney really be drooling for all this senseless gun control?

[Juan_Bottom]

Why is it senseless?
Speaking of Romney, as you know his family got in a shoot-out with the Mexican government a short while ago, and they killed a Mexican soldier. They bought their guns illegally in the US with the gun-show loophole, as do the drug cartels.

[Phatscotty]

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?

[Phatscotty]

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?

Another thing. Obama is straight up misleading people on gun control. Ya see, Adam Lanza failed a background check. The law worked as much as the law is gonna work and is meant to work. But Obama has been going around, misleading people with the statement "Adam Lanza never got a universal background check". It's bullshit man

Lanza stole the gun, and if his mom didn't have one, assuming by the "years" of research he did planning his murder spree, he would have stole one from somewhere, most likely someone who did pass a background check.

And this just happened here tonight. These are the kinds of guns that get used to murder people and are not for defense. How is it even possible to do a background check here??

Major Metro Transit Union Investigation Underway

Metro Transit officials confirm there is a major investigation underway at its light rail Hiawatha maintenance shop. 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has learned the investigation started in December and is still in progress. Metro Transit says it does involve staff at the maintenance facility, but would not specify which employees were under investigation. Sources tell 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS it does involve managers as well as hourly employees. Those same sources say part of the allegations that lead to the investigation include the exchange of pills and firearms for coveted overtime shifts at the maintenance facility.

Metro Transit officials told us they have hired an outside agency to conduct the investigation and that Metro Transit management takes the investigation and allegations "very seriously." Sources tell 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Metro Transit has hired an outside law firm to conduct the investigation and the probe should be concluded within the next few weeks. Metro Transit officials would not want to talk about disciplinary action, because it involves personnel issues. But a Metro Transit spokesperson told us there have not been any terminations and disciplinary measures handed out "just yet."

There are 63 employees at the Metro Transit maintenance facility. Sixty-one of those employees are represented by unions and two workers are non-union. Light rail has an annual budget of roughly $30 million.

http://kstp.com/news/stories/s3002246.shtml

The government is about as able to prevent criminals from accessing guns as they are able to prevent people from buying weed, pills, Molly, cocaine, or any of it. Hell, all this happened in a "gun free zone" too, at a government facility. It is senseless. They have no business tinkering with our rights or seeking to gain more power with more bullshit promises of things we know they can't deliver on.

[rdsrds2120]

we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want.

I'll grab the nukes -- you get the kinetic bomb to come in from space. I have the feeling this is the beginning of a great thing!

BMO

[Phatscotty]

we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want.

I'll grab the nukes -- you get the kinetic bomb to come in from space. I have the feeling this is the beginning of a great thing!

BMO

as extreme as your point is (the most extreme possible) I will step out on a limb and say that there probably won't be a time when we need to arm ourselves with nukes. But, much more realistically (than nukes anyways), if, say, a hardcore Conservative Gov't who delayed all elections decided to crack down on, say...Liberals, and they were using tanks against that segment/"enemy" in a civil war, then yes, you have the right to fight back with a tank, or whatever you can find most likely.

[Donelladan]

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 !

[rdsrds2120]

we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want.

I'll grab the nukes -- you get the kinetic bomb to come in from space. I have the feeling this is the beginning of a great thing!

BMO

as extreme as your point is (the most extreme possible) I will step out on a limb and say that there probably won't be a time when we need to arm ourselves with nukes. But, much more realistically (than nukes anyways), if, say, a hardcore Conservative Gov't who delayed all elections decided to crack down on, say...Liberals, and they were using tanks against that segment/"enemy" in a civil war, then yes, you have the right to fight back with a tank, or whatever you can find most likely.

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

BMO

[Night Strike]

That's not what the second amendment says.

Unless I don't understand what you're referring to, it really does say "shall not be infringed".

I'm talking about the whole thing, because wackos without perspective like to lie and say that the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" so they have the right to own whatever weapon they want. But immediately before that, it says "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state." PS is taking the words wholly out of context. It's the context of the words that I'm talking about, because they matter.
So yeah, Congress does have the authority to "infringe" upon that "right" of the individual owning assault rifles, so long as they don't try to keep state's from controlling their own armories. And if you're not a part of a well-regulated militia, then it's pretty easy to argue that you're acting outside of the framer's intentions. They were trying to protect the right of individual states to defend themselves against a tyrannical central government, not give the individual the authority to own a battleship.

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?

[Phatscotty]

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 !

That's not my argument. What the second amendment means, is that we have a right to bear arms in defense of tyranny. If someone is coming to murder you or raze your house with your family inside or take your family into slavery, you can defend yourself, ALL THE WAY. I don't know where your attitude is coming from, but it sounds like you are asking me to just bow down and admit I am a slave or something, because there is no way anyone could ever stand up for themselves in defense of systematic slaughter? And maybe you don't know this, but there are private citizens who do own tanks and jets and howitzers and fully automatic rifles of all kinds.

Having the same weapon is only one thing, and can be dealt with, if say....they were outnumbered by millions of people

[Donelladan]

A jet is not a war plane.
There is private people who do own tanks? For real? WTF I had no idea but discussing the matter is already pointless then ...

And to your question, if someone want to take your family into slavery? Someone? Well are we speaking of government or individuals? If you speak of individuals, and you are living in the US I think you have police and army to defend you. If you are speaking of your government I'd refer to my previous statements and stick to it. Whatever weapons you own you will still have less power than your government. Just tell me how strong is US army to be sure ? I mean you are not realistically speaking of citizens fighting the most powerful army in the world he? Yes I stink this is BS even if a few of you have tanks.

I mean, understand me well, you may die with a guns at your hand, but you'll still die and your family will become slave ( if it was the purpose as you mentioned ),

Do you think it is your personnal weapons that prevent your government of becoming a tyranny? If yes may I know what's prevent most of European government or Japanese government to become a tyranny? ( Taking only country with supposed same level of "development" and democracy ).


And I didnt read all 7 pages before so I was just reacting to your post speaking about tank and civil war against your government.
If your 2nd amendment is saying that you can all have a gun. Then change the 2nd amendment, nothing is stone, constitution can be changed, what people wrote once cannot be true forever, what people wrote 200 years ago should not be true now.

[Phatscotty]

In all correct perspective, it was in response to individuals right to own personal nukes. Take it for what it was

per slavery: anyone or anything

"When the people fear their government, their is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is Liberty"

[Nobunaga]

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 !

Germany must certainly be a paradise.

If you spent any time here in the US you would come to realize that our high death rates are concentrated in the poor sections of large cities, with the very occasional newsworthy slaughter. The vast majority of gun deaths are committed by the poor and uneducated against the poor and uneducated, sometimes caught up in a culture that actually promotes such activity.

As regards tyranny, it's incremental, too much so for the average reality-TV watching goombah to notice... but it gains ground just about every day.

I agree however that fighting the armies of the united states would be suicide... Until half of them joined up with you (huge support for my way of thinking in the US military).

[Symmetry]

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 !

Germany must certainly be a paradise.

If you spent any time here in the US you would come to realize that our high death rates are concentrated in the poor sections of large cities, with the very occasional newsworthy slaughter. The vast majority of gun deaths are committed by the poor and uneducated against the poor and uneducated, sometimes caught up in a culture that actually promotes such activity.

As regards tyranny, it's incremental, too much so for the average reality-TV watching goombah to notice... but it gains ground just about every day.

I agree however that fighting the armies of the united states would be suicide... Until half of them joined up with you (huge support for my way of thinking in the US military).

Is this why you're named after a military dictator?

[thegreekdog]

I've heard a lot of burglars use armor-plated deer as a distraction.

I think armor piercing bullets would also help you against supervillains, like the Juggernaut.

Oh shit, what am I saying? Armor-piercing bullets wouldn't work against the Juggernaut!

Then obviously uranium-depleted bullets must be available on the free market. Juggernaut's gonna get bitched slapped.

INCOMING BACKYARD ENRICHMENT FUCKERRRRRRRRRZZZZZZZZZ!

If I was a nerd and read comics, I would know that even uranium-depleted bullets wouldn't harm the Juggernaut.

[thegreekdog]

ITT we have a pointless argument about a law that doesn't really restrict gun ownership in any meaningful way and will not result in less gun violence.

YAY AMERICA!

ITT we also have a less pointless discussion about the Juggernaut (please, please, would someone discuss comic books with me?)

[AndyDufresne]

I've heard a lot of burglars use armor-plated deer as a distraction.

I think armor piercing bullets would also help you against supervillains, like the Juggernaut.

Oh shit, what am I saying? Armor-piercing bullets wouldn't work against the Juggernaut!

Then obviously uranium-depleted bullets must be available on the free market. Juggernaut's gonna get bitched slapped.

Agreed.

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.

Shall not be infringed shall not be infringed. Impeccable logic.

Germany must certainly be a paradise.

If you spent any time here in the US you would come to realize that our high death rates are concentrated in the poor sections of large cities, with the very occasional newsworthy slaughter. The vast majority of gun deaths are committed by the poor and uneducated against the poor and uneducated, sometimes caught up in a culture that actually promotes such activity.

As regards tyranny, it's incremental, too much so for the average reality-TV watching goombah to notice... but it gains ground just about every day.

I agree however that fighting the armies of the united states would be suicide... Until half of them joined up with you (huge support for my way of thinking in the US military).

If you really feel like you will some day end of fighting the government, I have a couple of nuclear bunkers I'd like to sell you.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

That's not what the second amendment says.

Unless I don't understand what you're referring to, it really does say "shall not be infringed".

welcome back Woodruff!

Somehow I suspect you won't feel that way as this discussion progresses...

[Woodruff]

Why is it senseless?

Because it will only affect the people who follow the law.

Surely you recognize that this just isn't true, don't you? Why is it that you're so willing to wallow in lies?

The fact of the matter is that CURRENTLY, individuals who should not be able to legally purchase weapons are able to EASILY purchase weapons legally.

It is not senseless to try to make this more difficult for them, or to at least force them into illegal purchases.

If you'd just be honest about the discussion instead of, as usual, trying to twist your bullshit like you're a birthday party clown and it's some sort of a balloon-animal carnival act, people might respect you a bit more.

[AndyDufresne]

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


--Andy

[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.

[ooge]

Why is it senseless?

Because it will only affect the people who follow the law.

Surely you recognize that this just isn't true, don't you? Why is it that you're so willing to wallow in lies?

The fact of the matter is that CURRENTLY, individuals who should not be able to legally purchase weapons are able to EASILY purchase weapons legally.

It is not senseless to try to make this more difficult for them, or to at least force them into illegal purchases.

If you'd just be honest about the discussion instead of, as usual, trying to twist your bullshit like you're a birthday party clown and it's some sort of a balloon-animal carnival act, people might respect you a bit more.

woody;you cant reason with the unreasonable or use logic with the illogical. The only way to get this to change is for those who support the status qua gun laws is for them to be defeated in an election.

[Phatscotty]

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"