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

Dvr22999874 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 10:36:09 PM)
Lucy, I get the distinct impression that somebody is not happy with us smile.................Don't expect a Christmas card this year............................and if you get an apple, don't bite into it !!! You know what happened to Snow White and who gave it to her

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 10:43:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka I didn't put my foot in anything. I made a true statement. I would be glad to take guns away though from anyone who states online that he would consider doing mass murder. Like you, for example. I said, that if I ever considered it, I would not use a gun. Being ex military and ex law enforcement, I know the limitations of using a firearm in a mass kill scenario. Which is why, and it is only an opinion, I think most of these who do commit these crimes are either wanting to be killed and want to take as many with them as possible, or have some emotional problem that is either poorly treated or not diagnosed. In the case of the Vegas shooter, the guy had been taking Valium for years for an anxiety issue, a fact he admitted to in a court deposition a few years ago, and still had a prescription for it and a partial bottle in his room when he was found. Timothy McVeigh was an avid gun enthusiast, he stated as much in an interview before he was executed, in fact it was one of the reasons he joined the army, lots of chances to shoot and free ammo. However, when he planned his crime, he went with an improvised explosive. And he thought out his means of escape pretty well, except he forgot to get current tags on the car, which is why he was pulled over and how he got caught. He also had a 45 ACP 1911 in his possession when captured. But, you also avoided the direct questions I posed to you, which means 1) you would not fix the problems or 2) you dont give a shit. And this is another point you and I clearly disagree on, I do not believe that any innocent person should die at the hands of another, whether it is with a gun, knife, or whatever. I also believe there is a way that this can be accomplished or at least minimized to an acceptable level given the fact we are not going to do away with crimes of violence until mankind figures out that killing each other is a bad idea. A concept you clearly do not grasp. Let me explain something. Philosophically, I know that there are times when killing another human being is necessary, for self defense or in protecting your country. I also know, from experience, that when you do pull the trigger, even if the other guy was trying to kill you, you have to live with the fact you took another human life. I was a sniper in the army, and I know exactly how many I killed. While the marines got the news and the shit in Beirut, my unit was down on the Lebanese/Israeli border keeping Christians from killing Muslims and the Israelis from blowing away everyone that even remotely looked like a threat. I was involved in the Grenada operation, and I was part of the military personnel sent to Central America during Reagan's war on drugs. So, do I want to kill another human being? No Would I if my family were in danger? In a fucking heartbeat. Problem is that there are people that do not think that way, and those are the ones I want to see unable to get guns. Fix the problem with the present laws, and you will cut that number down significantly. By your logic, a kid killed by another kid is an acceptable cost, or a kid killed in a drive by shooting in south central LA is acceptable. I disagree. I also know that fixing the present laws will keep most, not all guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. But, speaking as a former cop, I know that no matter what, you are not going to keep guns out of the hands of people who want them for criminal reasons. Not when you can download the DIY instructions to make a 9mm combat proven sub machine gun in your garage with basic metal working tools. And certainly not when you can download all the technical specs of an AK47 and then plug them into a cadcam machine and make the parts in some small machine shop. The guy in Vegas bought 33 guns in the last year, that should have raised flags on a system somewhere, and would have IF the system was set up right. I mean shit, after OKC, anyone that buys bulk fertilizer and diesel fuel gets a visit from the ATF if the purchase falls out of their normal purchase patterns or is an infrequent purchase. But buy 200 pounds of gun powder and nothing. Buy 10000 rounds of ammo, nope, no call.

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 10:44:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 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. The assault rifle ban expired, and all attempts to renew or revisit it have failed. And will continue to fail under Republican Congress.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 10:55:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV The assault rifle ban expired, and all attempts to renew or revisit it have failed. And will continue to fail under Republican Congress. Actually the dems let if fail under Obama when they actually had the majority in the house and a simple majority in the senate, concentrating on Obamacare instead. what got me is that when they chose to let it expire, they could have swung it in the Senate because some of the republicans that voted for it the first time were still in the senate. go figure

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 10:56:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV 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. To this, I'll quote a song from Evita: "There is evil, ever around, fundamental. System of government quite incidental." Blame God for that whole 'free will' thing. No State can provide the absolute guarantee of life to every citizen every day. Your government can't. Canada can't. No government has ever been able to. And there are governments, or would be governments, all around the world right now, actively killing their people. In the US, like most of the civilized world, we provide punishments and consequences for crimes. We provide civil processes for victims and their families to seek financial restitution. But we have no way to stop evil deeds done on a daily basis, all over the country, before they happen, without going full 1984. Though the Declaration of Independence is an amazing document, and parts of it should be used as our nation's true goal, most of it's a fuck off to King George III and the rest of Britain. But remember that none of it applied to slaves or Native Americans. And it's "All men were created equal", so none of that gender equality nonsense either. Declaration of Independence isn't law. Yeah. Tell that to the redcoats. But actually, I do know this. Much of what Thomas Jefferson wrote was incorporated into the Constitution though, with liberties being defined more clearly. The pursuit of happiness is far too abstract to legislate, aside from providing equal access to opportunities for all Americans; we're not there yet, but closer than ever. So while it may not be law, it certainly is our Mission Statement.

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 11:01:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV The assault rifle ban expired, and all attempts to renew or revisit it have failed. And will continue to fail under Republican Congress. Actually the dems let if fail under Obama when they actually had the majority in the house and a simple majority in the senate, concentrating on Obamacare instead. what got me is that when they chose to let it expire, they could have swung it in the Senate because some of the republicans that voted for it the first time were still in the senate. go figure Priorities... Deciding if people that get shot have adequate healthcare, or trying to prevent their shootings in the first place... But really, the ban expired under Dubbya in 2004, and there hasn't been enough momentum or support to get it going again. There's little evidence that the ban prevented any deaths while it was in effect, though the available studies have been interpreted every way possible.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 11:08:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV The assault rifle ban expired, and all attempts to renew or revisit it have failed. And will continue to fail under Republican Congress. Actually the dems let if fail under Obama when they actually had the majority in the house and a simple majority in the senate, concentrating on Obamacare instead. what got me is that when they chose to let it expire, they could have swung it in the Senate because some of the republicans that voted for it the first time were still in the senate. go figure Priorities... Deciding if people that get shot have adequate healthcare, or trying to prevent their shootings in the first place... But really, the ban expired under Dubbya in 2004, and there hasn't been enough momentum or support to get it going again. There's little evidence that the ban prevented any deaths while it was in effect, though the available studies have been interpreted every way possible. Statistically, an assault weapon is used less than pistols, even in the cases of mass shootings. The DoJ proved that years ago. The most commonly used weapons are shot guns and semi automatic hand guns, even in mass shootings, since it is close range. There is something else to consider, guns that were turned in in police buy back programs have, after being turned in, shown up at crime scenes on a number of occasions, a point that the DoJ found alarming.

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 5:09:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 There is something else to consider, guns that were turned in in police buy back programs have, after being turned in, shown up at crime scenes on a number of occasions, a point that the DoJ found alarming. Somebody doing over the warehouses, or just the bluebottle selling the guns on to raise a bit of quick cash? I'd imagine if they were planted by somebody in the department at a crime scene to making shooting (rather than apprehending) somebody look less objectionable, they'd have removed the identifying marks from either the gun, their logs, or both.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 5:35:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 There is something else to consider, guns that were turned in in police buy back programs have, after being turned in, shown up at crime scenes on a number of occasions, a point that the DoJ found alarming. Somebody doing over the warehouses, or just the bluebottle selling the guns on to raise a bit of quick cash? I'd imagine if they were planted by somebody in the department at a crime scene to making shooting (rather than apprehending) somebody look less objectionable, they'd have removed the identifying marks from either the gun, their logs, or both. The insane thing is, that even though gun retailers have to keep records on every fire arm sold and to whom it was sold to, while not actually having to forward that information to any government agency on any level, just put the paper work in a box, filed by day, month, year, many of these weapons that go through a buy back program are either a) stolen and legitimately reported as such or b) have no record of sale associated with the weapon, which in most cases means the weapon was stolen at some point in the supply/retail chain, or came into the country illegally in the first place. Now, as to point b, the weapon was stolen at some point between the factory and the destined retailer, that means that at some place in the distribution network, the weapon was removed from a secured holding area, taken from the warehouse and sold on the street. As to the ones that came into the country illegally, it is a hell of a lot easier to smuggle guns into the country than it is drugs, and we all know, unfortunately, the volume of illegal drugs that enter the US.

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 6:14:46 AM)
Good points. It is, if we're honest, totally laughable expecting the retailers to keep records of sales while requiring them to forward none of this information to the government agencies that are supposed to be regulating this stuff. I don't know that it is going to be easier to smuggle firearms into the country than it is drugs, though: you can hardly walk through customs at an airport with a Kalashnikov stuffed up your arse, can you?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 7:18:16 AM)
quote: I don't know that it is going to be easier to smuggle firearms into the country than it is drugs, though: you can hardly walk through customs at an airport with a Kalashnikov stuffed up your arse, can you? There is an awful lot of coastline, and not a lot of Coast Guard, sooooo......

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 8:06:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I don't know that it is going to be easier to smuggle firearms into the country than it is drugs, though: you can hardly walk through customs at an airport with a Kalashnikov stuffed up your arse, can you? There is an awful lot of coastline, and not a lot of Coast Guard, sooooo...... Very true. (Wasn't el presidente insisting that he could pay for his wall by cutting the coast guard service at one point?) The crack about concealing an assault rifle up your bum was just an attempt at a joke about how guns are a bit more bulky and so unwieldy to smuggle than drugs, which are a lot easier to conceal generally, and take up less space in whatever vehicle you're sneaking over a border.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 8:08:22 AM)
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. When you've lived through it, and fought against it, I'm going to go ahead and guess, it's not a sense of panic anymore....

DesideriScuri -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 8:28:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV I'm not OK with weaponizing Stephen Hawking, or with addons that enhance the designed specs of a gun in any way. What disabilities could potentially require an aftermarket add-on to give the physically impaired the same ability with a firearm as someone without disabilities? Is it a good idea for someone with Parkinson's to be armed? Should someone with a brain tumor surrender their guns (ideally to family) while going through treatment? These are serious questions, and have to all be part of the conversation. Those are serious questions? Those are absurd questions. I'd be willing to bet the addons that allow a disabled shooter more control over a weapon won't work for Stephen Hawking, or someone with Parkinson's.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 8:40:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Yeah. Tell that to the redcoats. But actually, I do know this. Much of what Thomas Jefferson wrote was incorporated into the Constitution though, with liberties being defined more clearly. The pursuit of happiness is far too abstract to legislate, aside from providing equal access to opportunities for all Americans; we're not there yet, but closer than ever. So while it may not be law, it certainly is our Mission Statement. I like that, at least for the initial parts. Once it gets to the part of listing the "long train of abuses," I don't think that mission is still applicable. But, PFH stopped his quoting of the DoI just a tad short. I mean the very next line is quite important; "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]" I do believe that the DoI laid the foundation upon which our Constitution was written. We believe in these inalienable rights, and we create government to secure them. And, here's what we've come up with (US Constitution).

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 8:48:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV I'm not OK with weaponizing Stephen Hawking, or with addons that enhance the designed specs of a gun in any way. What disabilities could potentially require an aftermarket add-on to give the physically impaired the same ability with a firearm as someone without disabilities? Is it a good idea for someone with Parkinson's to be armed? Should someone with a brain tumor surrender their guns (ideally to family) while going through treatment? These are serious questions, and have to all be part of the conversation. Those are serious questions? Those are absurd questions. I'd be willing to bet the addons that allow a disabled shooter more control over a weapon won't work for Stephen Hawking, or someone with Parkinson's. It's probably a joke: there was something on the Onion a few years back about building Hawking a military grade cyborg body, iirc.

Nnanji -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 9:36:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 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. The assault rifle ban expired, and all attempts to renew or revisit it have failed. And will continue to fail under Republican Congress. And during the ten years of the assault weapon ban it affected crime rates exactly zilch.

PeonForHer -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 9:54:01 AM)
quote: While I agree with the fundamentals of your argument, I disagree with your solution, that being to deny the rights of the 187000000 gun owners who have never taken another human life, or harmed another human with a gun. You have posted the numbers of US citizens killed by guns, but you fail to grasp that it is less than one percent (not even a one hundredth of a percent of gun owners) who have committed these heinous acts. Answered, before I had to hit the hay last night. quote: So the only solution is to punish the guilty and innocent equally? The fact that you see it as a 'punishment' hints at the underlying gun culture in the USA. That didn't exist in the UK in the 1920s; I doubt that anything approaching it existed in Australia in 1996. That's the root issue, to me. quote: So, I am curious, how would you handle the fact that in 2016, 330,000 people were injured in accidents caused by texting and driving? Just about every state has laws against it, but it still goes on, by people ignoring the law? The number of people killed in these accidents is, admittedly slightly lower at approximately 20,000. This is an 'if it doesn't work perfectly, everywhere, it's useless, anywhere,' argument. Obviously you legislate in order to reduce X and make X harder to do. Similarly you have speed restrictions on roads - and wouldn't get rid of them just because some don't adhere to them.

PeonForHer -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 10:01:54 AM)
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. Fair point- why haven't they been banned? By the same token, if they're weapons because they've been used as such - why not arm the military and law enforcement with pressure cookers? (Obviously, concealed carry of pressure cookers by plain clothes cops in the relevant states where the laws pertain. And really, really big pressure cookers to be carried by warships, etc. [;)] ) The answer is: Clearly because pressure cookers are not as easily and efficiently used as weapons. This is in part because guns were designed to wound and kill; pressure cookers were not.

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 10:09:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 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. The assault rifle ban expired, and all attempts to renew or revisit it have failed. And will continue to fail under Republican Congress. And during the ten years of the assault weapon ban it affected crime rates exactly zilch. You'll be saying the war on drugs was a massive failure and a waste of time and resources next.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625