RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


lovmuffin -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 1:25:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
quote:

Talk about absurd


Yes...Talk about absurd... is it limiting your ability to own a car because there are speed limits?

Yep. Just as ridiculous. If there were a conditional prohibition against outlawing speed limits.


Yeah, if only the Founding Fathers were alive during the time of the invention of the automobile and its mass creation (i.e. Ford Motor Co.). Would they have made an amendment about it?

Of course, at that time, advances in firearms were such as to allow rapid firing muskets, that were rifled, easy to reload, and causing mass destruction onto the population. I think they would have defined the 2nd in more....modern terms....for future generations. In fact, they would have learned from their previous mistakes to place an 'as well defining article on the 2nd amendment' as the amendments have in the 20th century!




Oh good, now you're making a presumption on how the founders would have written the 2nd Amendment if they only knew about modern firearms technology. I'm going to presume that they wouldn't have written an amendment for automobiles had they invissioned those because they didn't write an amendment for the horse and carriage.

Answer this joether: If your fantasy interpretation of the Second Amendment is correct, that the right to bear arms only applies if you're in a militia, why didn't the authors write "The right of the *state militia* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" instead of "The right of the *people*". ????????






lovmuffin -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 1:31:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Gun rights people do not want to do evil with a gun, they want to protect themselves from evil.
cept they see everyone as evil, except themselves.
closing loopholes?? you poor babies.


If Republicans don't know what's in the president's new gun policy, why do they hate it?
And if the NRA considers Obama's measures irrelevant, why is the group considering a lawsuit?

Because he is trying to write and pass law, which is unconstitutional.
I don't see you as evil, just dead wrong.


Wayne LaPierre writes all the nutsucker gun laws, why would he sue himself, or are the nutsuckers finally getting a sack and going to sue the NRA? I missed something here.



Yeah, you missed something.




mnottertail -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 1:36:01 PM)

uh, you people need to read madisons notes on the constitutional convention, and his intro to the amendment.

you can bullshit all you want.

the militia was envisioned to quell insurrections, between states, in states, and against federal gov. Nobody wanted there to be standing armies.

here is what he introduced:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/james-madison-speech-june-8-1789.html#ixzz3wPMkQQ1j






mnottertail -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 1:54:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Gun rights people do not want to do evil with a gun, they want to protect themselves from evil.
cept they see everyone as evil, except themselves.
closing loopholes?? you poor babies.


If Republicans don't know what's in the president's new gun policy, why do they hate it?
And if the NRA considers Obama's measures irrelevant, why is the group considering a lawsuit?

Because he is trying to write and pass law, which is unconstitutional.
I don't see you as evil, just dead wrong.


Wayne LaPierre writes all the nutsucker gun laws, why would he sue himself, or are the nutsuckers finally getting a sack and going to sue the NRA? I missed something here.



Yeah, you missed something.


Not really, consider that my posting is sardonic. not sarcastic, not ironic. sardonic.




BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 3:32:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

uh, you people need to read madisons notes on the constitutional convention, and his intro to the amendment.

you can bullshit all you want.

the militia was envisioned to quell insurrections, between states, in states, and against federal gov. Nobody wanted there to be standing armies.

here is what he introduced:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/james-madison-speech-june-8-1789.html#ixzz3wPMkQQ1j




So he thought a draft should be unconstitutional.




Greta75 -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 6:29:22 PM)

quote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-executive-action-gun-control/index.html

Oh wow! Obama using tears now!
His determined to pass whatever he wants to pass before he leaves his Presidency!




Lucylastic -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 6:48:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-executive-action-gun-control/index.html

Oh wow! Obama using tears now!
His determined to pass whatever he wants to pass before he leaves his Presidency!




LOL people make fun out of his tears every time it happens, usually the same kind of people.
heres a sample of the times he has been snapped crying.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=obama+tears&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIy7qTlZTKAhWJJB4KHaa5ACwQ_AUIBygB&biw=1238&bih=893


Personally instead of tears I wish he had actually spoken his mind, the tears didnt move me as much as him NOT saying what he actually felt, a torrent of swear words over the murders of so many innocent lives in his own country would have done.

But...hey different strokes for different folks




ifmaz -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 7:05:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
After my 'short' post, I doubt you'll have to wait long. The gun nuts on here will simple quote the entire post and give a one or two sentence rebuttal that is flimsy, silly, and 'junior high school maturity'. Their best argument is "Fuck off, I like guns".


As opposed to your well-reasoned arguments that eventually lay everything at the feet of conservatives?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
CNN has some good graphs. I like the last graph. Its how active shooting have ended. 3.1% by some 'honest and law abiding' non-'law enforcement' person with a gun. Just above that, an unarmed person was four times more likely to end such an encounter. Nearly tens times that amount by "A well regulated militia...". And nearly thirteen times that 3.1%, by the active shooter whom is a "Honest and Law Abiding Person with a Firearm'. Since in our form of government and law, a suspect is considered 'innocent until proven guilty' in a court of law. Either by their own admonition to the charges and pleading guilty; or found guilty by a jury of their peers.


Considering a majority of mass shootings occur in supposed "gun-free zones", is it any surprise? Law-abiding citizens would abide by the law by either avoiding the gun-free zone or disarming. If only criminals would obey the laws.

And again you wish to have your cake and eat it too: guns are bad but people with guns don't save enough people.

I suppose you'd like to have tests done to determine how additional armed people could stop mass shooters, right? Or does your 'scientific' approach to things no longer matter now that you've heard what you want to hear?




ifmaz -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 7:15:14 PM)

FR

I though this was amusing.

[image]https://i.imgur.com/ONzZyfl.png[/image]




itsSIRtou -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 8:44:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: teentie

I wonder why americans need guns. what do they say when normal people get shot, sorry, but I can carry a gun. should be ashamed .glad we do not have the problem here.

This can be complicated in countries who are happy and doing fine without guns.

But the US believes in their right to protect themselves against the government, INCASE the government turns evil and turns on them and attacks them. They need to have the arms to protect themselves. It's written in their constitution, I think to prevent anything like dictatorship ever happening. It's protection for democracy too. So the power will always be in the people's hands.

I am always on the fence about this issue, because, fact is, many countries do have blind faith in their government, and assume, such a scenario is laughable.

But if it did happen, some people will be happy to have guns, if my government turn tyrannical, I would probably wish I have a gun. But the possibility of that happening, just feels so slim that I feel safe enough to just only give police and military the right to guns and forego my right to have a gun. It could be complacency.



IMO this is THE single most lame ass argument for the abuses of the second amendment by the gun nuts & lobby, especially when they are usually the problem of unrest in this country more than the government itself.
Why? because the only true way the government can "turn evil" is to ELECT a president AND a congress (and in Germany's case a chancellor.) that IS evil to start with.

And that is usually born of voting from fear rather than reason. A selfish mistrust of your own kind. The gun nuts know they took this land mass from its indigenous people, via guns and now they feel that they have to take it via guns from their own kind that they disagree with. Because they really have no other way to stay in control.








BamaD -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 8:48:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: teentie

I wonder why americans need guns. what do they say when normal people get shot, sorry, but I can carry a gun. should be ashamed .glad we do not have the problem here.

This can be complicated in countries who are happy and doing fine without guns.

But the US believes in their right to protect themselves against the government, INCASE the government turns evil and turns on them and attacks them. They need to have the arms to protect themselves. It's written in their constitution, I think to prevent anything like dictatorship ever happening. It's protection for democracy too. So the power will always be in the people's hands.

I am always on the fence about this issue, because, fact is, many countries do have blind faith in their government, and assume, such a scenario is laughable.

But if it did happen, some people will be happy to have guns, if my government turn tyrannical, I would probably wish I have a gun. But the possibility of that happening, just feels so slim that I feel safe enough to just only give police and military the right to guns and forego my right to have a gun. It could be complacency.



IMO this is THE single most lame ass argument for the abuses of the second amendment by the gun nuts & lobby, especially when they are usually the problem of unrest in this country more than the government itself.
Why? because the only true way the government can "turn evil" is to ELECT a president AND a congress (and in Germany's case a chancellor.) that IS evil to start with.

And that is usually born of voting from fear rather than reason. A selfish mistrust of your own kind. The gun nuts know they took this land mass from its indigenous people, via guns and now they feel that they have to take it via guns from their own kind that they disagree with. Because they really have no other way to stay in control.






The Chancellor was appointed.




lovmuffin -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 9:17:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

IMO this is THE single most lame ass argument for the abuses of the second amendment by the gun nuts & lobby, especially when they are usually the problem of unrest in this country more than the government itself.
Why? because the only true way the government can "turn evil" is to ELECT a president AND a congress (and in Germany's case a chancellor.) that IS evil to start with.

And that is usually born of voting from fear rather than reason. A selfish mistrust of your own kind. The gun nuts know they took this land mass from its indigenous people, via guns and now they feel that they have to take it via guns from their own kind that they disagree with. Because they really have no other way to stay in control.


Excellent post, you're almost at joethers level. [sm=alien.gif]




lovmuffin -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 9:22:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Gun rights people do not want to do evil with a gun, they want to protect themselves from evil.
cept they see everyone as evil, except themselves.
closing loopholes?? you poor babies.


If Republicans don't know what's in the president's new gun policy, why do they hate it?
And if the NRA considers Obama's measures irrelevant, why is the group considering a lawsuit?

Because he is trying to write and pass law, which is unconstitutional.
I don't see you as evil, just dead wrong.


Wayne LaPierre writes all the nutsucker gun laws, why would he sue himself, or are the nutsuckers finally getting a sack and going to sue the NRA? I missed something here.



Yeah, you missed something.


Not really, consider that my posting is sardonic. not sarcastic, not ironic. sardonic.


It seems most of the stuff you post is sardonic which I find ironic.




Greta75 -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/5/2016 10:31:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

Why? because the only true way the government can "turn evil" is to ELECT a president AND a congress (and in Germany's case a chancellor.) that IS evil to start with.

This is the problem right? IF 51% elected such a person, there is still 49% who will need their protection against this person. That's the problem with democracy is that it does not guarantee a good person will be elected. And what I think US did that was unique is to cover this problem by the 2nd Amendment. So people can protect themselves in such a scenerio.

In reality, most other countries choose to have blind faith that the military, police and the government will always work in their best interest and protect them, so they are the ones trusted with arms. Civilians are suppose to hide behind them for protection if shit happens.

The people who believe in the unlimited 2nd Amendment, clearly simply lacks this blind faith and if their own country was being attack, they would probably like to play a part in defending themselves too.

Fear based worked both ways. But both believe in a safer America with their point of view. Those who want guns, because they believe it will make them safer, and those who do not want guns, because they believe it will make them safer.





Lucylastic -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 9:26:34 AM)

The missing piece from the GOP’s anti-Obama pitch on guns

In his remarks yesterday on addressing gun violence, President Obama tried his best to lower the rhetorical temperature. “I’m not on the ballot again; I’m not looking to score some points,” he said. “I think we can disagree without impugning other people’s motives or without being disagreeable. We don’t need to be talking past one another.”

It was right around that time that Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign posted an “OBAMA WANTS YOUR GUNS” message online, alongside a fake image of the president in a military helmet, which appeared to be designed to resemble a Nazi propaganda poster from World War II.

So much for disagreeing without impugning other people’s motives.

Obviously, Cruz wasn’t alone. Even before the president spoke, Republican presidential candidates were apoplectic about Obama making modest, incremental changes to current law, which even the NRA concedes would have little practical effect.

Away from the campaign trail, congressional Republicans began making threats about blocking the White House’s policy.
Leading Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee and from the party’s conservative wing vowed to use the appropriations process to block Obama’s executive actions and deny the president the necessary funding to implement some of his proposals.

“What the president has done is unconstitutional and any action Congress can take, we should, including appropriations,” said Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) a member of the House’s Freedom Caucus.
Before the administration’s policy was even announced, one GOP lawmaker raised the specter of shutting down the Justice Department over gun policy.

There was, however, one missing element in the Republican’s pushback.

At no point yesterday did any Republican candidates or lawmakers point to anything specific in the president’s policy that they found objectionable. Not one measure, not one idea, not one initiative, not one paragraph, nothing.

Marco Rubio said Obama’s approach “undermines” the Second Amendment, but he didn’t (and couldn’t) say how. Carly Fiorina said the president’s incremental changes to implementing current law are “lawless,” but she offered nothing in the way of substantiation.

This isn’t just about pointing and laughing at the inanity of criticisms so painfully foolish that Republican voters ought to feel insulted. It’s not even about the degree to which yesterday helped prove why policy debates are effectively impossible in D.C. right now.

Rather, the broader point here is that Republicans have abandoned the pretense of seriousness. The dirty little secret, which went largely unmentioned yesterday, is that GOP officials simply couldn’t find any specific problems with the White House’s plan, so they screamed bloody murder just for the sake of doing so.

The lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association, for crying out loud, was willing to say on the record in reference to Obama and his team, “They’re not really doing anything.” Republicans understood this, but they had to break with the NRA, go through the motions, and throw a tantrum anyway, because in their minds, that’s what the political circumstances require.

It was a rather pathetic spectacle, even by contemporary standards, on an issue of great national significance. Republicans didn’t spend the day outraged; they spent the day lying. The difference matters.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-missing-piece-the-gops-anti-obama-pitch-guns?cid=sm_fb_maddow


http://support.tedcruz.org/obama-wants-your-guns/aa/




mnottertail -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 9:45:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

uh, you people need to read madisons notes on the constitutional convention, and his intro to the amendment.

you can bullshit all you want.

the militia was envisioned to quell insurrections, between states, in states, and against federal gov. Nobody wanted there to be standing armies.

here is what he introduced:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/james-madison-speech-june-8-1789.html#ixzz3wPMkQQ1j




So he thought a draft should be unconstitutional.



no. epic fail




mnottertail -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 9:47:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Gun rights people do not want to do evil with a gun, they want to protect themselves from evil.
cept they see everyone as evil, except themselves.
closing loopholes?? you poor babies.


If Republicans don't know what's in the president's new gun policy, why do they hate it?
And if the NRA considers Obama's measures irrelevant, why is the group considering a lawsuit?

Because he is trying to write and pass law, which is unconstitutional.
I don't see you as evil, just dead wrong.


Wayne LaPierre writes all the nutsucker gun laws, why would he sue himself, or are the nutsuckers finally getting a sack and going to sue the NRA? I missed something here.



Yeah, you missed something.


Not really, consider that my posting is sardonic. not sarcastic, not ironic. sardonic.


It seems most of the stuff you post is sardonic which I find ironic.



Such a dichotomy is untenable, as well as contradictory. Not even a dilemma.




Lucylastic -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 10:23:03 AM)

If Republicans don't know what's in the president's new gun policy, why do they hate it?
And if the NRA considers Obama's measures irrelevant, why is the group considering a lawsuit?

I wrote that a couple of days ago, one person responded with
quote:

Because he is trying to write and pass law, which is unconstitutional.

So far I havent seen much of anything calamitous as alex jones called it,
and nothing...unconstitutional.....
Any one have a more detailed opinion or comment?




LadyConstanze -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 1:13:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: teentie

I wonder why americans need guns. what do they say when normal people get shot, sorry, but I can carry a gun. should be ashamed .glad we do not have the problem here.

This can be complicated in countries who are happy and doing fine without guns.

But the US believes in their right to protect themselves against the government, INCASE the government turns evil and turns on them and attacks them. They need to have the arms to protect themselves. It's written in their constitution, I think to prevent anything like dictatorship ever happening. It's protection for democracy too. So the power will always be in the people's hands.

I am always on the fence about this issue, because, fact is, many countries do have blind faith in their government, and assume, such a scenario is laughable.

But if it did happen, some people will be happy to have guns, if my government turn tyrannical, I would probably wish I have a gun. But the possibility of that happening, just feels so slim that I feel safe enough to just only give police and military the right to guns and forego my right to have a gun. It could be complacency.



IMO this is THE single most lame ass argument for the abuses of the second amendment by the gun nuts & lobby, especially when they are usually the problem of unrest in this country more than the government itself.
Why? because the only true way the government can "turn evil" is to ELECT a president AND a congress (and in Germany's case a chancellor.) that IS evil to start with.

And that is usually born of voting from fear rather than reason. A selfish mistrust of your own kind. The gun nuts know they took this land mass from its indigenous people, via guns and now they feel that they have to take it via guns from their own kind that they disagree with. Because they really have no other way to stay in control.






The Chancellor was appointed.



A bit more complicated, technically always appointed but a rather complicated election process before that...

https://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/bundestag/function/chancellor




itsSIRtou -> RE: Obama enforcing Gun Control (1/6/2016 2:36:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
There is a story in the St. Louis Post today that shows an FBI report on how weapons used in crime were obtained... It turns out 2/3's of the weapons were legally purchased from unlicensed gun dealers either privately or from gun shows... This loop hole is what Obama wants to close... now how is this limiting your right to purchase a gun?


....because the ones selling guns are unscrupulous people do not care about what happens down the road as long as they get money? The ones buying guns would normally be barred from obtaining them due to existing reasons. Reasons like being found unstable mentally and/or emotionally, raping others, spousal abuse, threatening people in the community, highly prone to 'anger management issues' / 'road rage'.

By the President's action, it makes it harder for criminal types to obtain firearms through legal means. That has the added effect of raising black market prices on guns. Less guns falling into that system, thus, creating less supply, with as normal demand creates higher prices for firearms on the black market. So long as this remains in effect, that supply will become less and less, and thus, the price on the black market growing each year.

Using logic, over time, criminals will break into houses that most likely have guns, and sell them rather than TVs and computers (easier to move and sell without drawing attention). How will those criminals know whose house to break into? The ones with NRA stickers on their cars and trucks!

Those opposing the President want criminals and terrorists to have as easy a time as possible to get guns.



I will only comment on your last line. STUPID





And My comment on your last line is Thanks for proving his point. You can only make that lame comment because you know the rest IS true.

By keeping the status quo, by keeping it easy for the "responsible gun owner" to buy whatever the hell they want, gun nuts are enabling the very killers they so-call want to "protect" themselves from.

Black Market guns largely come stolen from the "responsible gun owner" already. you know, the owner who hides it under a pillow, bed, hanging on the wall(s) along side their "other" trophies, or has a beautiful stained wood & glass gun case that shows off their collection to "visitors"....including thieves.

And before the ink on the "responsible gun owner" home insurance companies check is dry, (1) the stolen guns have been sold to another criminal, (2) somebody has been adversely affected by those stolen guns.

If you are going to in any way deny that's how that works then I submit that you are purposely your own comment.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.640625E-02