RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (Full Version)

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

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 4:23:11 PM)
quote: So, basically what I am saying is FIX THE LAWS WE HAVE NOW BEFORE ADDING A SHIT TON MORE THAT EITHER LEADS TO AN OUTRIGHT BAN OR SEVERELY IMPACTS THE RIGHTS OF GUN OWNERS! Is that so fucking hard to understand. I don't think a number of people here are prioritising the rights of gun owners just at the moment, unfortunately, JLF. They're prioritising the rights of people who could get slaughtered by a gunman in the next mass killing.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 4:30:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: So, basically what I am saying is FIX THE LAWS WE HAVE NOW BEFORE ADDING A SHIT TON MORE THAT EITHER LEADS TO AN OUTRIGHT BAN OR SEVERELY IMPACTS THE RIGHTS OF GUN OWNERS! Is that so fucking hard to understand. I don't think a number of people here are prioritising the rights of gun owners just at the moment, unfortunately, JLF. They're prioritising the rights of people who could get slaughtered by a gunman in the next mass killing. Panic leads to bad laws.

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 4:36:19 PM)
Pressure cookers are still legal, even after the Boston Marathon, with absolutely no national discussion of a ban, or licensing being required. We have many ineffective gun laws on the books already, that are constantly undermined. And there will always be people willing to give absolutely no fucks about laws preventing them from doing horrible evils, which are almost always already illegal anyway.

PeonForHer -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 4:37:49 PM)
quote: Panic leads to bad laws. That's kind of the point: most of the panic I see here is that of gun owners - who are terrified that this latest massacre might just lead to gun control. You could say - and many have - that it's the ongoing sense of panic about being physically attacked, an overmighty government, etc, etc - that has led to the bad laws allowing so much gun freedom today. But the panic about the possibility of getting killed in the next massacre, that already seems to me to have started to ebb away.

PeonForHer -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 4:41:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Pressure cookers are still legal, even after the Boston Marathon, with absolutely no national discussion of a ban, or licensing being required. We have many ineffective gun laws on the books already, that are constantly undermined. And there will always be people willing to give absolutely no fucks about laws preventing them from doing horrible evils, which are almost always already illegal anyway. I don't know, JVoV. That sounds like an argument along the lines of 'half a bottle of milk is as bad as no milk at all'.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 4:48:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Panic leads to bad laws. That's kind of the point: most of the panic I see here is that of gun owners - who are terrified that this latest massacre might just lead to gun control. You could say - and many have - that it's the ongoing sense of panic about being physically attacked, an overmighty government, etc, etc - that has led to the bad laws allowing so much gun freedom today. But the panic about the possibility of getting killed in the next massacre, that already seems to me to have started to ebb away. You don' think that the claim that all gun owners are a threat is panic? You don't think that calling for being a NRA member being made a capital offense represents panic? Fienstien wants to use this to push to erode our rights is counting on panic? How can you say our concerns are panic when (mostly Democratic) leaders admit they won't stop till they have gutted the 2nd?

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 4:51:58 PM)
After the Oklahoma bombings, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which has done a hell of a lot more to erode the American Justice System more than The Patriot Act. Any new gun legislation needs to be thought out much better, in order to be effective, while still honoring the Second Amendment. The FDA has the sole authority to approve or deny new medications from entering the market. Why shouldn't the ATF have that same authority for new gun models, aftermarket add-ons, and ammo? Is that reasonable? Does it follow the Second Amendment?

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 4:53:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Pressure cookers are still legal, even after the Boston Marathon, with absolutely no national discussion of a ban, or licensing being required. We have many ineffective gun laws on the books already, that are constantly undermined. And there will always be people willing to give absolutely no fucks about laws preventing them from doing horrible evils, which are almost always already illegal anyway. I don't know, JVoV. That sounds like an argument along the lines of 'half a bottle of milk is as bad as no milk at all'. Yes, but our half a bottle of milk expired in 1996.

PeonForHer -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 4:56:13 PM)
quote: You don' think that the claim that all gun owners are a threat is panic? You don't think that calling for being a NRA member being made a capital offense represents panic? Fienstien wants to use this to push to erode our rights is counting on panic? How can you say our concerns are panic when (mostly Democratic) leaders admit they won't stop till they have gutted the 2nd? As far as I can see there's been a panicky terror of 'They're coming for our guns!' that's never abated - fuelled as it constantly has been by so many vested interests out there. But, again, even getting into this debate has the effect of sidelining that debate which is much more important, in my view - the debate about the right and the freedom not to get shot and killed.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 5:07:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Pressure cookers are still legal, even after the Boston Marathon, with absolutely no national discussion of a ban, or licensing being required. We have many ineffective gun laws on the books already, that are constantly undermined. And there will always be people willing to give absolutely no fucks about laws preventing them from doing horrible evils, which are almost always already illegal anyway. And only requires a simple fix. But, hey, why not just condemn all gun owners as potential criminals and go from there. But hey, Bill Maher pointed something out in his final monologue last night. It seems that a Democrat recently introduced a bill to make it mandatory for car makers to put motion detectors with a warning light and buzzer in cars to warn parents they left their kid in the back seat. He then went on to speak on the simple fact that Dems have a nasty habit of wanting more regulations, instead of fixing the ones that we already have, without mentioning guns, but mentioning the EPA and other agencies and minor issues. He closed with it is beginning to be perceived as the Republicans are the party of freedom and the Dems are the party that wants to micromanage peoples' lives. He cited the democrat proposed and passed law that requires every business in California to post a sign that basically warns that in the vicinity of any business in California, substances may be found that have been linked to cancer in lab animals. And he said, "that is the reason we ended up with an EPA director that does not care about the environment." While I am not a big fan of his, I have to agree that he is right. The democrat party went from defending the rights of all Americans, and pushing for laws that, while did regulate some aspects, did not curtail, or eliminate the rights of Americans. Ask any NRA member and they will agree, gun violence is a problem. However, because we do not agree that we need more regulations before the obvious, glaring problem with the one is fixed, we need more, stricter laws. And because we are vocally opposed to new laws before the issues of the present ones are addressed, we are anti gun law. Then you have groups like Gun Owners of America that openly advocate not banning bump stocks (the NRA has no problem banning them) and the complete repeal of all gun regulations with no gun laws replacing them. And those groups are gaining strength because more and more gun owners are getting tired of being demonized by anti gun proponents for the actions of people that do not even make up a tenth of a percent of gun owners. And then there are those on this board who use the same terms as the anti gun groups, and then when called on it, posts something to the effect she is not categorizing all gun owners with those terms, and in her very next post, she uses the general anti gun terms again. The very terms that basically paint every legal, law abiding gun owner as a maniac waiting for a target. Shit I already get phone calls from feds when I buy a few tons of fertilizer the same day I buy a tank of diesel, but have yet to hear from the feds when I make a bulk purchase of ammo. Hell I got curious earlier this year to see what happened when I bought 200 pounds of gun powder. No calls, no visits, nothing. And done right, you can make a damn big hole with 200 pounds of gun powder.

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 5:22:27 PM)
I fully agree that current regulations need to be combed through, and enforced.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 5:23:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV After the Oklahoma bombings, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which has done a hell of a lot more to erode the American Justice System more than The Patriot Act. Any new gun legislation needs to be thought out much better, in order to be effective, while still honoring the Second Amendment. The FDA has the sole authority to approve or deny new medications from entering the market. Why shouldn't the ATF have that same authority for new gun models, aftermarket add-ons, and ammo? Is that reasonable? Does it follow the Second Amendment? No it doesn't fit the 2nd. The ability to stop new firearms leads to no new firearms and so on.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 5:25:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: You don' think that the claim that all gun owners are a threat is panic? You don't think that calling for being a NRA member being made a capital offense represents panic? Fienstien wants to use this to push to erode our rights is counting on panic? How can you say our concerns are panic when (mostly Democratic) leaders admit they won't stop till they have gutted the 2nd? As far as I can see there's been a panicky terror of 'They're coming for our guns!' that's never abated - fuelled as it constantly has been by so many vested interests out there. But, again, even getting into this debate has the effect of sidelining that debate which is much more important, in my view - the debate about the right and the freedom not to get shot and killed. It hasn't been abated because so many office holders and editorials advocate the very thing.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 5:26:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV After the Oklahoma bombings, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which has done a hell of a lot more to erode the American Justice System more than The Patriot Act. Any new gun legislation needs to be thought out much better, in order to be effective, while still honoring the Second Amendment. The FDA has the sole authority to approve or deny new medications from entering the market. Why shouldn't the ATF have that same authority for new gun models, aftermarket add-ons, and ammo? Is that reasonable? Does it follow the Second Amendment? No it doesn't fit the 2nd. The ability to stop new firearms leads to no new firearms and so on. Someone needs to do some research into everyone that came up with the law on private ownership of full auto capable weapons, it is the same gun rights group presently agreeing to banning bump stocks.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 5:33:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV After the Oklahoma bombings, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which has done a hell of a lot more to erode the American Justice System more than The Patriot Act. Any new gun legislation needs to be thought out much better, in order to be effective, while still honoring the Second Amendment. The FDA has the sole authority to approve or deny new medications from entering the market. Why shouldn't the ATF have that same authority for new gun models, aftermarket add-ons, and ammo? Is that reasonable? Does it follow the Second Amendment? No it doesn't fit the 2nd. The ability to stop new firearms leads to no new firearms and so on. Someone needs to do some research into everyone that came up with the law on private ownership of full auto capable weapons, it is the same gun rights group presently agreeing to banning bump stocks. Full auto is already illegal (for open sale) my position does not stop regulation of something that sidestep regulating them. Allowing ATF to have control over every new gun getting to the market on the other hand......

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 6:01:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: You don' think that the claim that all gun owners are a threat is panic? You don't think that calling for being a NRA member being made a capital offense represents panic? Fienstien wants to use this to push to erode our rights is counting on panic? How can you say our concerns are panic when (mostly Democratic) leaders admit they won't stop till they have gutted the 2nd? As far as I can see there's been a panicky terror of 'They're coming for our guns!' that's never abated - fuelled as it constantly has been by so many vested interests out there. But, again, even getting into this debate has the effect of sidelining that debate which is much more important, in my view - the debate about the right and the freedom not to get shot and killed. Yet, cities have tried to ban guns completely, and once that happens, only a legal fight can change anything. The Constitution is a fairly sacred document to many Americans, even the ones that haven't read it since high school (of they went to high school). And like Christians and the Bible, we focus on the parts we like, and that justify our positions. And Americans rely on that Constitution, more than Brits rely on the Magna Carta. Canadians were able to have their Independence mostly through political means, so anything similar to the Second Amendment wasn't as necessary under their 'Constitution', which has only been handled by Canadian government since 1982. Our freedoms and Independence were won by violence, and some of us believe that we may have to defend those freedoms with violence again.

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 6:19:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV After the Oklahoma bombings, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which has done a hell of a lot more to erode the American Justice System more than The Patriot Act. Any new gun legislation needs to be thought out much better, in order to be effective, while still honoring the Second Amendment. The FDA has the sole authority to approve or deny new medications from entering the market. Why shouldn't the ATF have that same authority for new gun models, aftermarket add-ons, and ammo? Is that reasonable? Does it follow the Second Amendment? No it doesn't fit the 2nd. The ability to stop new firearms leads to no new firearms and so on. I'm talking about new models, specifically. That has nothing to do with banning any current model. How often are totally new gun models introduced? Wiki has the latest Smith & Wesson handgun 'series' released in 2012, and latest rifle coming in 2008. And with no control of aftermarket addons being introduced, what good is any legislation?

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 6:52:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV After the Oklahoma bombings, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which has done a hell of a lot more to erode the American Justice System more than The Patriot Act. Any new gun legislation needs to be thought out much better, in order to be effective, while still honoring the Second Amendment. The FDA has the sole authority to approve or deny new medications from entering the market. Why shouldn't the ATF have that same authority for new gun models, aftermarket add-ons, and ammo? Is that reasonable? Does it follow the Second Amendment? No it doesn't fit the 2nd. The ability to stop new firearms leads to no new firearms and so on. I'm talking about new models, specifically. That has nothing to do with banning any current model. How often are totally new gun models introduced? Wiki has the latest Smith & Wesson handgun 'series' released in 2012, and latest rifle coming in 2008. And with no control of aftermarket addons being introduced, what good is any legislation? Under the very broad definition of 'assault rifle' you can see where there might be a problem. As for the addons, there are some that allow a disabled shooter more control of the weapon, but according to at least one senator the only reason anyone would want that particular modification is to kill people. Do you understand the point? that does not mean I agree with all add ons, but seriously, some do have practical uses besides murdering other people.

PeonForHer -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 6:52:42 PM)
quote: The Constitution is a fairly sacred document to many Americans, even the ones that haven't read it since high school (of they went to high school). And like Christians and the Bible, we focus on the parts we like, and that justify our positions. Sure, I get that it's considered sacred. I see how that's desirable, too. But even more sacred than that is surely that part of the Declaration of Independence that states 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. Of course, those 59 dead have been deprived of their liberty and their ability to pursue happiness, along with their lives. It strikes me, from my no doubt simple outsider's point of view, that it's even more important than anything in the Constitution - including the 2nd, obviously - that America has failed most fundamentally of all insofar as it's not protected those people's rights to those three absolutely essential things.

tamaka -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 7:24:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: The Constitution is a fairly sacred document to many Americans, even the ones that haven't read it since high school (of they went to high school). And like Christians and the Bible, we focus on the parts we like, and that justify our positions. Sure, I get that it's considered sacred. I see how that's desirable, too. But even more sacred than that is surely that part of the Declaration of Independence that states 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. Of course, those 59 dead have been deprived of their liberty and their ability to pursue happiness, along with their lives. It strikes me, from my no doubt simple outsider's point of view, that it's even more important than anything in the Constitution - including the 2nd, obviously - that America has failed most fundamentally of all insofar as it's not protected those people's rights to those three absolutely essential things. 59 out of hundreds of millions is not even a blip on the radar.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625