|
joether -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 11:21:55 AM)
|
Your understanding of reality is quite mistaken....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75
This gotta be the biggest news now! The end of his Presidential leadership is near.
Big news for the moment until some moron walks into a location and blows everyone away with an AR-15.....(the country is overdue for...ANOTHER...mass shooting).
President Obama's second term does end next year (January 20th of 2017). The man had a conviction on the view of firearms in the nation. His view is shared by tens of millions if not over a hundred million Americans. He is not ending his term in office due to some political viewpoint, but due to Constitutional restrictions (i.e. the 22nd Amendment).
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75
And I see that his gonna exit with a spectacular upheave, by being the first President that go head on against the 2nd Amendment.
This is not his last 'Hurrah'. There is still plenty of time between now and then for the GOP/TP to fuck up even more shit that he'll have to repair to keep the nation pushing forward. He is not dealing with the 2nd amendment directly either. Why? The Executive branch (just like the Judaical branch), can neither create, modify or remove amendments. Only Congress (i.e. the Legislative branch) in one of four ways can perform this action. What the President is doing, is taking action on existing laws and in specific areas. The 2nd amendment remains untouched, assuming you do two things:
1 ) Do not ignore the first half of the amendment
2 ) Do not reinterpret the second half to have an unlimited right to firearms.
Something that conservatives are very know to do in these debates.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75
I live in a gun-free country, so it's hard for me to understand why people want guns, except, because precisely of the distrust and incompetency of government to protect innocent people from evil gun owners, so everyone feels the strong need to be responsible for their own safety, thus the guns.
Fear. Plain and simple. Look at the political viewpoints of people that have firearms. The one central characteristic they all have in common is fear. Fear of what? Fear of the unknown. They are afraid of things that could happen to them. Believing that a firearm will protect them from any and all harm. Like the Christians did in the early part of America, by nailing crosses to their doors. Didn't work for the Christians, and now it doesn't work for gun owners. A family with a gun in the home is many times more likely to have an accident with it, rather than any sort of criminal action.
For those firearm owners and gun nuts (they are two separate groups in my mind), if fear is not the reason, then simply remove all guns from your lives. We all know you cant do it for an instant. The sensation that something....bad.....could happen at.....any time.....simply gnaws away on your mind every second of the day. For gun nuts this sensation is even more obvious just by talking to them. Suffering from paranoia, conspiracy theory rantings, an without a decent education they often can not handle life without access to a firearm. Unlike firearm owners whom could over come the sensation either on their own or through therapy, gun nuts are simply well beyond help. We might have to place them in a facility and hope through drugs, therapy and luck, they 'snap out' of their situation.
Having a fear that is not based on anything rational, is simply asking for trouble. Most people have never performed a 'threat assessment' to determine whether they need a gun or not. They say "better to have one that without'. Ok, if that is the rational, then why are they not wearing NBC suits 24/7/365? A NBC suit is a Nuclear, Chemical, Biological warfare suit. One is many times more likely have skin cancer than be in a mass shooting. One is many times more likely to have a trip to the ER because two groups of household chemicals mixed together at the wrong time. And one is ten times (if not a hundred times) more likely to catch the flu. The really bad versions of the flu can cause internal injuries and death!
So if the ones with guns are being rational about needing a gun, why are they not also wearing NBC-suits? Because the public would think they are mentally and/or emotionally unstable. Just like some of the mass shooters. How do we know any of these people are not compromised? They would resist every effort to show the public that they are physically, mentally, and emotionally fit to have and use a firearm just like anyone in "A well regulated militia..." (aka the Police).
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75
I guess that is understandable if one has no faith in their law enforcement.
This applies more to gun nuts then gun owners. It seems most gun owners do have faith in law enforcement. The gun owner when confronted with an suspect outside their home, will stay inside, call the cops, and stay in a secured place. The gun nut on the other hand, might call the cops, but WILL move to confront the person and most likely kill them (claiming self defense).
Gun nuts believe they have a right (under the 2nd amendment) to behave in any manner they feel is justified. That preemptive self defense is better than letting some dude walking down a side walk whom isn't bothering anyone to live. These folks give firearm owners a REALLY bad reputation towards the rest of the nation. Gun nuts often believe they can take the law into their own hands. Combine that with the political conservative notion of "The Ends Justify The Means", means bad things will likely happen to good people.
Just google 'Sovereign Citizen Movement' if your really curious of how gun nuts behave. Those morons out in Oregon are not Sovereign Citizens, they are people like Timothy McVeigh. They have justified in their minds that all their actions are noble, correct, and lawful. All the while threatening other US Citizens, taking over federal buildings, and being a pest to the nation.
Some of the people on here will try to spin truth and fact. They are...ANOTHER....kind of gun nut that plagues this nation. They are ones that enjoy the corrupted version of the 2nd amendment. When a law becomes corrupted, it allows for evil people to do evil things upon the good citizens of the land. Given all the destruction due to mass shootings and the like experienced, I would say that is indeed happening in the nation.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75
I've read alot of debates of what the 2nd Amendment means, and there seems to be many different point of views about the interpretation of what it means.
Before the current 'crop' of conservative Justices from the US Supreme Court were on the bench; the understanding of the 2nd amendment was quite stable, sane, and worked for the nation. When individuals like Scalia, Thomas and others came together, they (with help from the GOP) changed the firearm laws to more help their supporters (i.e. the National Rifle Association). Fear as you know, is a BIG money maker. The gun industry gains by pushing the concepts of fear upon uneducated, and fear-prone people. There is a huge pile of beliefs and myths that gun nuts on here will tell you. When they have been tested; have been found to be superstitions and bullshit.
A good example of corruption is Heller verse DC. This case had been decided in the lower courts as not being a violation of the 2nd amendment. Mr. Heller's argument was shown not to have merit to qualify for a change in DC's laws on firearms. It is unusual if not rare for the US Supreme Court to take a case in which both the original court and the appetite court agreed upon. The case was taken for political reasons and NOT Constitutional ones (you know, what the US Supreme Court should be doing). When it was taken the Republican Party (whom got those five Justices onto the bench) needed a will. They were losing on all fronts to the Democrats (their arch rivals). By having the 'conservative activist judges' rule in the NRA's favor rather than the Constitutional way; the 2nd was fractured and soon corrupted.
Again the gun nuts on here will spin their bullshit. But I think anyone whom takes an objective look at US History as it relates to the 2nd amendment can see that the law's meaning and definition were changed for negative reasons. The Justices in the Heller vs DC case basically did an 'end run around' the 2nd. They reinterpreted the amendment. This is something the Judicial branch of our government is...NOT ALLOWED TO DO.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75
Those against gun control says it's going against the 2nd Amendment.
Yes, they feel the 2nd allows for an unlimited right. This is incorrect. The 1st amendment allows for five different concepts: Freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to assembly peacefully, and sue the government over grievances. One does not have an unlimited right. For example, ritual sacrifices of virgins (or claiming someone is virgin) is NOT ALLOWED. The 4th amendment allows for protection against unreasonable search and seizure unless by probable cause. That amendment has a pile of exceptions. Each of the amendments have limits. They are usually reasonable limits. Gun nuts would have you believe that this one amendment, the 2nd, has an unlimited right. And their evidence? They have none.
Gun Nuts have no humor on the 2nd amendment. If you cant have humor about the US Constitution your taking life way to seriously.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75
But if Obama's plan legally goes through, then perhaps his interpretation of how the 2nd Amendment can be applied will be the more legally standing one?
His plan will legally go through. That is why it is called an 'executive order'. Can it be challenged in the courts? Yes (a right covered under the 1st amendment). Can the NRA-slaves in Congress defund things? They can try. But to remove the corruption of the 2nd as it stands would take the action of a more sane US Supreme Court session. I imagine we might see that in the next Presidential session.
Again, gun nuts totally oppose the President. But then, they oppose things that most of the nation want in place: background checks on....ALL....purchases (including private collections). Gun nuts make up a small percentage of the Republican Party at the moment; and currently helping (indirectly) in getting Democrats into public office in the election. Their viewpoint on Sandy Hook and San Benadino run counter to the majority of Americas. Even firearm owners would like to have more rules to make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands.
They even oppose the Center For Disease Control (CDC) from examining the gun culture. Gun nuts (particularly on this forum) know that the CDC will use science to remove the myths and superstitions to reveal facts and useful information. To citizens and legislators alike. That we place money to form semi-live action experiments to test a variety of hypothesis to determine what works and want doesn't before we spend huge gobs of money on NRA-sponsored bullshit.
But the gun nuts on here, whom will no doubtfully oppose this post of mine, will by their own words, help law breakers, criminals and terrorists as easy a chance to obtain firearms as possible. That way they can claim their irrational fear has some sort of justification. That's right, they, through their words and actions, place Americans at risk so they do not have to face therapy like adults. They have a HUGE amount of distrust for everyone but demand unconditional trust from everyone towards them with guns. As you might know, trust, is a two way street. They want the rest of the nation's trust; they have to earn it! They dont want to earn it; then they do not need the guns....
Law enforcement can show why they need guns. And they will go through all the hurdles, exams, and checks to be allowed access to a firearm. That is what the 2nd amendment was designed to handle. It was not designed to allow thugs with guns to threaten other Americans. You know, like those 'militia' hold up in Oregon right now?
|
|
|
|
