USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Tonci87 163]

So you still say that more firearms increase overal safety?

[Hans Ludwig 0]

So you still say that more firearms increase overal safety?

I believe that it was Carl von Clausewitz in his treatise On War who would argue that it wouldn't make you safer per se, but that it would act as a deterrent and definitely make your enemy think twice about their next course of action. Unfortunately this wouldn't work against someone that has already set his eyes on not only committing suicide but taking out others in his evil plan. However, the latter is so statistically insignificant (see my posting titled "Exhibit "A"") that it's hardly something to worry about, as you are more likely to get cancer or be severely hurt in a vehicle accident.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Hans Ludwig

[froggyluv 2130]

Meet William Spengler. Spengler, a New York native lit his house on fire Tuesday to lure in fireman whom were sworn to protect him only to ambush and shoot the two first responders to death. Weapon of choice: .223 Bushmaster (same gunused in Sandy Hook Massacre) along with a flash suppressor. The suppressor was illegal until the 2004 Assault Weapons ban was let to expire.

Spengler was also a convicted killer having spent 17 years in jail after killing his grandmother with a hammer. How can a convicted felon have access to such weapons?

While it is true that Spengler’s acquiring weapons legally would have been next-to-impossible in New York, a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, the same could not be said had he committed his murderous assault 200 miles to the southwest in Ohio, where judges are more lenient in reinstating former felons’ gun ownership rights.

Or Spengler could just have traveled to the nearest gun show and purchased weapons through a loophole that excludes these expos from checking criminal backgrounds. Regardless of his revoked gun owership rights, it’s easy in Ameirca for a psychotic ex-convict to illegally acquire weapons (or in some cases petition for gun rights reinstatement) because states have vastly different approaches to the right to keep and bear arms.

~International Business Times

Clearly something needs to be done about lax gun restablishment rights, gun shows (notoriously bad) and punitive damage to anyone involved this type of distribution. This issue trumps legal, responsible gun ownership as far as I'm concerned.

[scrim 1]

Whilst I do support the right to bear arms, that is just one more thing that I don't understand the reasoning behind ever having allowed to be sold commerically. Why would you need that at all? And who can have a genuinely legitimate interest in not having background checks for buying firearms?

[GRS 10]

So you still say that more firearms increase overal safety?

I don't need to, the statistics already do. But it seems like people aren't interested in them anymore now that they realize that they disprove everything they say. :j:

Sure, close the gun show loophole. Now you guys are talking about keeping guns out of criminal hands. Finally, something sensible; you're going after the right people now. There are some restrictions on guns that ARE reasonable, like not letting known criminals have them. But why anybody cares that a law-abiding person has an AR15 and REGULAR CAPACITY magazines is just not being sensible. Govt. wants to do a background check on me? Fine. But don't try to disarm me or limit my magazines based on no reason.

And, once again, as the statistics even show, there is no reason at all for a person to not be able to get an AR15 and normal capacity magazines. Quit letting your fear or dislike of something get the better of you.

Edited December 25, 2012 by GRS

[[frl]myke 14]

But why anybody cares that a law-abiding person has an AR15 and REGULAR CAPACITY magazines is just not being sensible.

Can't find the source right now but i think to remember that a so-called law-abiding citizen was asked what he think of restrictions. He said that "they would have to take it out of my dead cold hands".

So if there ever will be a law that restrict gun owning, the so-called law-abiding citizen decides to break the law and become criminal instead? Taking it from his dead cold hands means that he would rather shoot law-protecting forces (aka the Police) than obey the law.

Hypotetical question: if a law would be introduce which would mean that you would have to remove your weapons, all or partially, what would you do?

[froggyluv 2130]

And who can have a genuinely legitimate interest in not having background checks for buying firearms?

The NRA. They are the problem here with their fear induced, frenzy creating rhetoric that "THEY are coming for you and your guns. Civilisation is near the brink of breakdown and YOU will be unarmed!" Giving an inch is seen as retreating in the face of Marxist,Liberal, Communist, Facist scum that want to take your guns so that you are defenseless in the face of the ever growing inner-city menace hordes that WILL be coming for you.

Read "Ricochet, Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist" -written by 20year NRA insider Richard Feldman.

Once, I'd naively viewed the association as the resourceful advocate of citizens' Second Amendment guarantees to "keep and bear arms." But I'd been forced to recognize that, despite its sacrosanct facade, the NRA is actually a cynical, mercenary political cult. It is obsessed with wielding power while relentlessly squeezing contributions from its members, objectives that overshadow protecting Constitutional liberties.

In fact, the fervor of its activist members is just as inflexible as that of Muslim, Christian, or Jewish zealots. But the organization's present leaders have contemptuously manipulated those passions to consolidate political power and keep the money stream flowing steadily. For loyal rank-and-file members, however, their zeal blinds them to this reality.

Just after the Sandy Hook Massacre news host Piers Morgan asked NRA President LaPierre what if anything he would do to enforce gun regulations in which LaPierre refused to answer. A petition has since been filed to have Piers Morgan deported...

NRA is the problem in this regard.

[scrim 1]

Sooo, it's a matter of not giving a damn about the First Amendment if it's someone critisizing the Second Amendment? Sounds sort of like that old cowboy movie cliché: "This town isn't big enough for the both of us." But with the law protecting free speech, in favor of the law that isn't really so much about your right to shoot the shit as to arm the people to defend the aforementioned law? Makes total sense...

[[frl]myke 14]

Well, since Piers Morgan should be deported, at least if the NRA could decide, there is not much "free speech" there. Tell what you think and you will be deported. Welcome Freedom.

[GRS 10]

Myke;2268905']Can't find the source right now but i think to remember that a so-called law-abiding citizen was asked what he think of restrictions. He said that "they would have to take it out of my dead cold hands".

So if there ever will be a law that restrict gun owning' date=' the so-called law-abiding citizen decides to break the law and become criminal instead? Taking it from his dead cold hands means that he would rather shoot law-protecting forces (aka the Police) than obey the law.

Hypotetical question: if a law would be introduce which would mean that you would have to remove your weapons, all or partially, what would you do?[/quote']

Such laws would be unconstitutional, one of the reasons we the people are armed. That is why this is so enraging to me. It's bullshit. A change of law like that would create criminals that have no intention of being so other than that they realize that it is the government that is breaking the law, but do nothing to eliminate the existing ones, who are committing the murders and shooting; ie: not the people who just have guns for defense and sport. The law-abiding-citizen who makes the "cold dead hands" remark is actually the legal one anyways. The government is the criminal in such an example as the constitution is to protect the american people from the government. It is the laws that the government must obey. And, with a little research, one could learn that the BoR is "just a tad" more untouchable than the rest of the amendments. It exists to keep the government in line, so while the official story by big brother would label the gun owners as criminals, the reality, according to US national law, would be quite the opposite causing that hypothetical to fall flat.

And seriously, the ripping on the NRA is old and pointless. Froggy: no, that is not how it went down. Yes the NRA has flaws. No the NRA does not promote gun violence.

And the Piers Morgan crap? I find that hilarious. I'd love to see that shitbag kicked out, but there is no real grounds to do that and to claim that the small number of people that actually take that little deportation joke seriously, then that is just as weak as suggesting that the 800 accidental deaths outweigh the 100,000+ DGU's. I don't even know, is he an American citizen as well? If not, the first amendment doesn't really apply to him anyways. Not to mention the right to freely say that you wish he would be deported is protected by 1A. It's quite the double-edged blade isn't it? ANybody who actually thinks he will is a fool. The whole thing doesn't even qualify as an argument about the amendments.

Edited December 26, 2012 by GRS

[froggyluv 2130]

And seriously, the ripping on the NRA is old and pointless. Froggy: no, that is not how it went down. Yes the NRA has flaws. No the NRA does not promote gun violence.

.

Wrong. They are front and center by declaring my son's nursary school teachers need to start packin AR's. They are front and center by espousing "pro-American" war rants such as "Liberty!Freedom! THEY are gonna get you!" -I've been around the block long enough to remember this type of flag waving that sent our country into a war it had no place being.

Secondly: The Gov't DOES have the right to decide what weapons are legal under the 2nd and what are not. There is no guarentee of AR's in the constitution as there are none for tactical nukes. You think your little AR is going to protect you from the big, bad Gov't should they choose to oppress you? You would need a personal nuke as a deterrent to tyranny -you up for that?

[GRS 10]

No, the government does not have any right to regulate what type of gun or magazine under the constitution. It says the "right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" not "right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed except for ___________." There is nothing complicated about it. 1A doesn't list exceptions. Obviously it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, just as it is illegal to go and shoot people in a crowded theater. I don't give a damn if I'm outgunned. If it came to that I'd rather die a free man than live oppressed as you have suggested. And really, what good would a nuke be? That's just ridiculous. You really think the gov. will threaten to use nukes on their own country even in a civil war, if it somehow came to that? So why would I need a nuclear deterrent for a threat that doesn't exist? Not to mention nuclear deterrent doesn't matter. I don't use it, they do, we both lose. I do use it, we both lose. Brilliant... And you really think that all of the military would obey illegal orders? So why should the government be allowed to change the laws that it must obey? By suggesting they can, one is giving them unlimited power to own their soul (metaphorically speaking).

And you've obviously been around one side of the block for a while...

Now then, how about we end this stupid ideological debate, and you provide me with a practical reason why there should be some type of ban, this time backed up with facts such as statistics or research (that actually outweigh the ones I've already provided which have shot down all your fantasy-land claims so far). I've yet to see one, and because of that I see no reason to ban anything. If there is no reason to ban anything, there is no reason to talk about the matter. Perhaps we should discuss something useful, like.... how to prevent criminals from becoming criminals in the first place? If that didn't happen, then guns would not be used in crime because crime wouldn't exist (in an ideal world) and criminals would not use all of those many illegal guns already out there that would not be affected by bans anyways.

Edited December 26, 2012 by GRS

[[frl]myke 14]

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well, regulating what arms people may bear wouldn't be against the second amendment. It says about a right to bear arms, not what type of or how many of them. It also doesn't say a word about magazine size. Theoretically it could be limited to one single shot revolver and it would still respect the second amendment.

And since i know that US tend to be very religious, here is another amendment:

You shall not murder

No exceptions. None.

[GRS 10]

Froggy, when did the NRA say that teachers need to pack AR-15's?

Myke;2268937']Well' date=' regulating what arms people may bear wouldn't be against the second amendment. It says about a right to bear arms, not what type of or how many of them. It also doesn't say a word about magazine size. Theoretically it could be limited to one single shot revolver and it would still respect the second amendment.

And since i know that US tend to be very religious, here is another amendment:

No exceptions. None.[/quote']

Exactly, it doesn't list any exceptions does it? How about that "shall not be infringed" part?

in·fringe

/inˈfrinj/

Verb

Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".

Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Synonyms

violate - transgress - break - contravene - trespass

Contrary to popular belief, 2A is not a complicated nor poorly worded amendment. It makes perfect sense if you just read it carefully. We the people already face dramatic infringement. I'd argue that some "infringment" is good, like not letting known criminals have guns. Other infringements are stupid and unfounded, like wanting to ban standard capacity magazines or muzzle devices.

I don't understand what you are getting at with the second half of that post. Yeah, murder is wrong. And guns are used in defense more than offense in the US, by a very large margin, so what's the problem?

Edited December 26, 2012 by GRS

[froggyluv 2130]

@GRS: Like Myke said -it doesn't guarentee you what type of arms you may or may not bear. Hence the ban on destructive devices/machineguns/grenades -all decided by the Gov't. They can deem AR-15 in that category whether you protest or not Im afraid. As for "being around one side of the fence..." -you dont know me mate and haven't the foggiest of my full spectrum of political beliefs which range from Left to Center to sometimes further Right then Hannity -thats why Im a Centrist and don't need a money whoring, bloated fear inducing, politician bribing DC lobbying group to tell me how to think.

Exactly, it doesn't list any exceptions does it? How about that "shall not be infringed" part?

Again wrong. You may not bear ANY arms you wish -only those deemed appropriate by the Gov't.

[[frl]myke 14]

You shall not murder

Like you point that the second amendment of the BoR doesn't exclude/include any sort of weapons, the sixth amendment doesn't exclude defensive. Even when you kill someone in defense, you're breaking it. As you said and i reminded you: no exceptions.

[mosh 0]

Now you are throwing religion into this... great. Next you'll be quoting Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. ;) jk

Not everyone in the US is as religious as you think. And isn't "You shall not murder" a commandment, not an ammendment?

Amyway it's getting silly reading everyone go back and forth. Two (or more) completely different cultures refuse to see middle ground. I respect everyone's right to think what they want and you all have made it perfectly clear how you feel.

I'll leave you with a little story...

This weekend is the last weekend for youth hunt for Whitetail deer in Missouri. My friend's 9 year old daughter asked me if she could use one of my AR-15s again. She used it a few weeks ago for the first weekend of youth season. She likes how it is small and doesn't have much of a kick, kind of like a .22, she said.

I'll remember how scared you all are of AR-15s next time I watch this little 9 year old girl shoot it. She really enjoys it.

[GRS 10]

Myke;2268941']Like you point that the second amendment of the BoR doesn't exclude/include any sort of weapons' date=' the sixth amendment doesn't exclude defensive. Even when you kill someone in defense, you're breaking it. As you said and i reminded you: no exceptions.[/quote']

Murder is a legal term. Killing in self defense is justified murder according to the government.

Froggy, nope. The government doesn't (or shouldn't) get to change the rules that they must obey. Again, by saying that, you are only giving them unlimited power, which is the thing that the constitution exists to prevent. The government is the law. It must obey the law while enforcing it. It is not above the law that it may change the law to it's advantage, especailly when the change is unfounded. It may only change laws in accordance with the laws of how they may do so (constitution). Pretty simple concept actually.

I'm done replaying to this thread. If anyone can actually provide me with a reason why we should ban AR-15's and standard capacity magazines, that has't already been disproven by the statistics that were asked for, send me a PM and I'll consider answering again. Until then, I don't feel like wasting my time typing the same responses to personal, but unfounded and disproven claims and misinterpretations of US law. I've made my case. I'm still waiting for someone to make the opposite one out of something more than unfounded beliefs that they refuse to let go of. You don't like guns? Fine, don't own or carry one. But don't try to tell me that I shouldn't have certain ones when the evidence and logical reason is against you.

Edited December 26, 2012 by GRS

[froggyluv 2130]

Froggy, nope. The government doesn't (or shouldn't) get to change the rules that they must obey. Again, by saying that, you are only giving them unlimited power, which is the thing that the constitution exists to prevent. The government is the law. It must obey the law while enforcing it. It is not above the law that it may change the law to it's advantage.

Seriously how are you not getting this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/fa1996102/

The Gov't can and will decide how you can obtain, what you can obtain and where you can obtain arms. Period.

The Right to Bear Arms -is a vague statement that is perpetually regulated and monitored by the government. Thats why I keep bringing up nukes -it's an extreme example of how this Right isn't all enabling without further discussion or regulation.

[GRS 10]

No Froggy, the gov has decided to go above the law and change how and what we can obtain, that does not mean it was legal according to the constitution. Kinda like how that health care thing was ruled unconstitutional but allowed to go on. That doesn't make it legal, that just means that the courts suck at their job of upholding the law. The nukes example is stupid. Who can afford a nuke? Gotta keep them nukes out of gangbanger billy's hands I guess since that is such a huge threat. Refer to my last post. Until anyone has something meaningful and supported, I'm done arguing. That especially applies to you, froggy. I see no reason to discuss the constitution and how it works when the argument is about banning certain items, and there is no supported reason to do so as I have shown through evidence and reason, making this argument irrelevant and unnecessary.

Edited December 26, 2012 by GRS

[froggyluv 2130]

The Constitution did not clearly define what weaponry so it behooves us modern men to best interept that. So forget the nuke, you can not buy a machinegun now -why? The Gov't. They are arms -why are you not going to war with the Gov't over this? You cannot buy grenade or equip chemical weapons -why? Same reason. The point is not all arms are accessible and it's up to the Gov't to determine what is and what is not legal arms.

[[frl]myke 14]

I'll remember how scared you all are of AR-15s next time I watch this little 9 year old girl shoot it. She really enjoys it.

I will remember you when she accidentally shots someone in the head.

Pretty simple concept actually.

And flawed. I prefer the swiss concept. The government can't change laws either. They can propose changes to us, the people, and we can vote for or against it. If they want to change something but we say no, there is nothing the government can do.

And you do realize that the BoR is over 220 years old. Time has changed, weapons have changed. I doubt it that it would be phrased that way if they knew of automatic rifles and school massacres. The world has turned since 1791. Living in the past might kill your future.

Not everyone in the US is as religious as you think. And isn't "You shall not murder" a commandment, not an ammendment?

Blame it on my lousy english. For some terms i rely on goolge translate which i know it isn't always accurate.

Murder is a legal term. Killing in self defense is justified murder according to the government.

Hmm...i do think that god might be a higher level than government. So i don't think that a government (any) is allowed to rephrase them if they aren't allowed to rephrase ammendments on their own level.

[GRS 10]

Myke;2268951']I will remember you when she accidentally shots someone in the head.

And flawed. I prefer the swiss concept. The government can't change laws either. They can propose changes to us' date=' the people, and we can vote for or against it. If they want to change something but we say no, there is nothing the government can do.

And you do realize that the BoR is over 220 years old. Time has changed, weapons have changed. I doubt it that it would be phrased that way if they knew of automatic rifles and school massacres. The world has turned since 1791. Living in the past might kill your future.

Blame it on my lousy english. For some terms i rely on goolge translate which i know it isn't always accurate.

Hmm...i do think that god might be a higher level than government. So i don't think that a government (any) is allowed to rephrase them if they aren't allowed to rephrase ammendments on their own level.[/quote']

-Typical unfounded fear of guns.

-We are not actually a democracy. That is flawed too. It is obvious that many people are unaware of (or unwilling to accept) the facts of gun crime and defensive gun use, so they would be voting based on ignorance and unfounded fear, much like many of these counter-arguments I am reading. The majority of people thinking a certain way does not make it actual fact.

-I'd love to see how they would phrase it if they knew of how utterly rare school massacres were, as I have proven over and over again.

-I don't get it, nor am I religious.

The Constitution did not clearly define what weaponry so it behooves us modern men to best interept that. So forget the nuke, you can not buy a machinegun now -why? The Gov't. They are arms -why are you not going to war with the Gov't over this? You cannot buy grenade or equip chemical weapons -why? Same reason. The point is not all arms are accessible and it's up to the Gov't to determine what is and what is not legal arms.

Re-read the definition I posted of "infringe" and then re-read the constitution. You are wrong.

And as I have said, until you give me a reason why we should ban any of the things currently under fire, then there is no reason to discuss the legality of doing so. And try giving a reason that hasn't already been dis-proven this time.

I am not going to continue arguing with facts to people who refuse to listen and use them to think reasonably to provide a real, supported reason to ban AR15's and standard capacity magazines, goodbye.

Edited December 26, 2012 by GRS

[[frl]myke 14]

-Typical unfounded fear of guns.

It's more the fear of people with those guns.

[froggyluv 2130]

Re-read the definition I posted of "infringe" and then re-read the constitution. You are wrong.

And as I have said, until you give me a reason why we should ban any of the things currently under fire, then there is no reason to discuss the legality of doing so. And try giving a reason that hasn't already been dis-proven this time.

Goodbye.

LOL, I don't need to re-read the Constitution to know what the 2nd Amendment says. Ive read it and know that it does not clearly define what arms are guarenteed -only that we have the right to be armed. Being armed spans from a rock to a missile with much in between. It's the in-between that is decided by modern day folk as again, the Constitution does not define it. Ive never stated that AR-15 should be banned -I've said the Gov't has the right to decide what is and what is not legal as per the 2nd amendment. And at the end of the day, neither you or I will really have a say either way.