Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/9/2017 10:36:09 PM   
Dvr22999874


Posts: 2849
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 241
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/9/2017 10:43:31 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 242
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/9/2017 10:44:35 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 243
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/9/2017 10:55:46 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 244
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/9/2017 10:56:47 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 245
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/9/2017 11:01:26 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 246
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/9/2017 11:08:07 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 247
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 5:09:52 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 248
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 5:35:04 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 249
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 6:14:46 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline 		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?

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 250
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 7:18:16 AM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
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......

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 251
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 8:06:03 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 252
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 8:08:22 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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....


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 253
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 8:28:46 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 254
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 8:40:24 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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).


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 255
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 8:48:05 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 256
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 9:36:53 AM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 257
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 9:54:01 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
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.








_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 258
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 10:01:54 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 259
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/10/2017 10:09:02 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 260
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094