Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

And another link:

Celebrity Anti-gun PSA

(snip awesome vid)

Great video.

I don't think the First Amendment should be sacrificed for the Second, but as long as we're talking about tweaking the law under the 2nd, those hypocritical celebs should definitely look themselves in the mirror and talk about tweaking the law under the 1st as well.

Change the MPAA ratings, and enforce them, for starters?

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

When did I make fun of the murders in Conn?

Oh, and here's another link:

Regulating the Militia


There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

RR, there are some major issues with this little snippet. First, it was written somewhere between 1811 and 1832. During that time the assault rifle was a musket. Not exactly an efficient killing machine in the situations we deal with today. If you have 50 guys lined up, pretty efficient. One crazy guy with a musket, easily disabled by 2 people 50 yards away.

Secondly, it clearly illustrates that the motivation behind the 2nd amendment is to be available to defend the country. Regardless of if those attacks come from an internal or an external source. Most importantly, the militia is meant to be a replacement for a military. He illustrates that clearly by making points as to both the fiscal and political burdens that comes with a full-time military. And a leader (president) that has a military at their disposal.

Let's be honest. The constitution was written is 1787. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. That's 221 years ago. I don't believe that rules written in the 1700s are still applicable today. Thomas Jefferson said he didn't believe the dead should rule the living and that the constitution should be updated every twenty years. Legislation has to grow with the culture.

You can't use arguments from 221 years ago to defend actions today. While I'm sure Justice Story was a brilliant man -- there's no way he could forsee the way this country has grown and the way technology has evolved. Using a 200-ish year old decision that you selectively take segments from is not a very strong argument.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

And another link:

Celebrity Anti-gun PSA

Demand Celebrities Go F*ck Themselves [Extended Cut] - YouTube

Yes. There's certainly no difference between their beliefs and the roles they're asked to play. Make believe versus real life. They are paid to take us away into an unrealistic world. Politically I'm sure they disagree with many roles they play. Their roles do not define their beliefs.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Daseal

RR, there are some major issues with this little snippet. First, it was written somewhere between 1811 and 1832. During that time the assault rifle was a musket. Not exactly an efficient killing machine in the situations we deal with today. If you have 50 guys lined up, pretty efficient. One crazy guy with a musket, easily disabled by 2 people 50 yards away.

That's a straw man.

Originally Posted by Daseal

Secondly, it clearly illustrates that the motivation behind the 2nd amendment is to be available to defend the country. Regardless of if those attacks come from an internal or an external source. Most importantly, the militia is meant to be a replacement for a military. He illustrates that clearly by making points as to both the fiscal and political burdens that comes with a full-time military. And a leader (president) that has a military at their disposal.

No, it doesn't it says, in part, 'The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.'

So that would be the tyrannical rule point that the colonials had just rejected from Britain.

Originally Posted by Daseal

Let's be honest.

Just a personal foible, any time someone says 'Let's be honest' or variations thereof I assume that they haven't been honest previously. Otherwise why mention the need. I digress.....

Originally Posted by Daseal

The constitution was written is 1787. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. That's 221 years ago. I don't believe that rules written in the 1700s are still applicable today. Thomas Jefferson said he didn't believe the dead should rule the living and that the constitution should be updated every twenty years. Legislation has to grow with the culture.

If this is the case why wasn't it made part of the Constitution?

Originally Posted by Daseal

You can't use arguments from 221 years ago to defend actions today.

I hear people use scripture (of varying religions) every day to justify their actions. This is at least a decently written document.

Originally Posted by Daseal

While I'm sure Justice Story was a brilliant man -- there's no way he could forsee the way this country has grown and the way technology has evolved. Using a 200-ish year old decision that you selectively take segments from is not a very strong argument.

If we are to attempt to keep pace with a potentially despotic government, as the 2nd Amendment clearly states its goal, then there shouldn't be a limit, should there?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Yes. There's certainly no difference between their beliefs and the roles they're asked to play. Make believe versus real life. They are paid to take us away into an unrealistic world. Politically I'm sure they disagree with many roles they play. Their roles do not define their beliefs.

Or they could say "No, I'm not acting in a movie that glorifies violence"?

Of course they wouldn't, they are whores.

[Giantone]

[QUOTE=RedskinRat;980595]When did I make fun of the murders in Conn?


post#347

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

post#347

That was your posted article, it quite clearly states she's from Zion, NOT a mother of a Conn shooting victim.

The Zionsville, Ind. stay-at-home mother of five was so angry and frustrated after the Newtown shootings that she started a Facebook page and website.

So I didn't make fun of the murders. Apologize, please.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

That was your posted article, it quite clearly states she's from Zion, NOT a mother of a Conn shooting victim.

The Zionsville, Ind. stay-at-home mother of five was so angry and frustrated after the Newtown shootings that she started a Facebook page and website.

So I didn't make fun of the murders. Apologize, please.

You have made a mockery of the whole discussion,which is pretty much what the NRA tells the gun culture in this country to do .

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

That was your posted article, it quite clearly states she's from Zion, NOT a mother of a Conn shooting victim.

The Zionsville, Ind. stay-at-home mother of five was so angry and frustrated after the Newtown shootings that she started a Facebook page and website.

So I didn't make fun of the murders. Apologize, please.

So a woman does something she feels might be helpful in anyway after the killings in Conn,you mock her,and think I need to apologize,cold day in hell.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So a woman does something she feels might be helpful in anyway after the killings in Conn,you mock her,and think I need to apologize,cold day in hell.

So a woman as an activist is above mocking? Funny, after one of the most negative presidential campaigns in recent history, NOW you're against mocking people in politics? THAT'S what you want to focus this discussion on now?

As RR said earlier, "If that's the best you've got..."

I can understand not LIKING his joke. But the one making a mockery of the discussion, or should I say making a mockery THE discussion, at this point is yourself.

Here's hoping the discussion gets back on track. I've enjoyed reading what others have said, both agreeing and disagreeing.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

So a woman as an activist is above mocking? Funny, after one of the most negative presidential campaigns in recent history, NOW you're against mocking people in politics? THAT'S what you want to focus this discussion on now?

As RR said earlier, "If that's the best you've got..."

I can understand not LIKING his joke. But the one making a mockery of the discussion, or should I say making a mockery THE discussion, at this point is yourself.

Here's hoping the discussion gets back on track. I've enjoyed reading what others have said, both agreeing and disagreeing.

This has nothing to do with a Presidental campaign,this is not political but again the NRA will tell it is,so you believe.I know many a lifetime republican who is for very strict gun control,I also know a few hunters who as long as they are allowed to hunt are fine with more laws,they agree no one needs to own a AK47 or machine gun to hunt.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

This has nothing to do with a Presidental campaign

It's the overall tone to your argument, the same tired tactics.

Originally Posted by Giantone

....this is not political but again the NRA will tell it is,so you believe

Yeah, all gun owners are NRA members. <rolls_eyes> It's more your side telling everyone that the case. It IS political, but driven from the liberal, anti-gun adjenda.

Originally Posted by Giantone

I know many a lifetime republican who is for very strict gun control,I also know a few hunters who as long as they are allowed to hunt are fine with more laws,they agree no one needs to own a AK47 or machine gun to hunt.

Some of my best friends are black. GTFOOH, you lying weasel!

You're on the wrong end so you attempt to change the conversation to something you're more comfortable with.

At no point did I mock the Conn shooting victims and it's pretty low for you to even suggest it. It's also similar in the way liberals throw the word racism around when they want to bring a conversation back to their terms.

Point being, you accused me of something anyone here can see I didn't do. You are now trying to reframe the 2nd Amendment as a 'hunters only' issue. What part of the 2nd Amendment do you need explained to you?

You're an utter cunt for trying to use a vile assertion like making fun of shooting victims. You know you're wrong, and like another poster on here, when your position is shown to be invalid you use bluff, demands and misdirection in an attempt to garner popular support.

Back on track: This is about gun control. We have an overwhelming amount to gun laws on the books, they should be better enforced.

People need to be better neighbors, care for each other more and get help for people who need it.

[RedskinRat]

Here's my solution:

From birth your behavior is recorded on a database.

For every positive action you gain credit, for every negative you lose credit. When you need to learn to drive, buy a house, a gun, drugs etc your rating is checked against the database. Simple.

This would also give 'society' as a whole a chance to correct negative behavior.

“Gun control is half-baked pacifism that…has as its corollary a duopoly of force in the hands of the state and the criminal.” C Hitchens

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Here's my solution:

From birth your behavior is recorded on a database.

For every positive action you gain credit, for every negative you lose credit. When you need to learn to drive, buy a house, a gun, drugs etc your rating is checked against the database. Simple.

This would also give 'society' as a whole a chance to correct negative behavior.

“Gun control is half-baked pacifism that…has as its corollary a duopoly of force in the hands of the state and the criminal.” C Hitchens

Play god much?

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

This has nothing to do with a Presidental campaign,this is not political but again the NRA will tell it is,so you believe.

So you are OK with mocking, just only when it suits you. If you really feel this is not political, then don't propose any changes to current law in this thread.

Wow, the NRA must have me believing that concealed carry is wonderful then. Oh wait I think I said something about that earlier. I think you owe me an apology in this thread too. Nevermind whether you have any independent thoughts of your own on this.

Originally Posted by Giantone

I know many a lifetime republican who is for very strict gun control,I also know a few hunters who as long as they are allowed to hunt are fine with more laws,they agree no one needs to own a AK47 or machine gun to hunt.

And there are many people I know, and there are more democrats here in NC than people you know, that are opposed to any new gun control laws. I guess that settles it in favor of not having any new gun laws, right?

And again, how are people with legal gun ownership EVER going to trust anybody arguing as you are, after the stunt that newspaper pulled? It's proof that some people, including yourself from your reaction to it this thread, can't be trusted to not abuse any registrations that are put in place. This stunt didn't have the effect the folks at the paper wanted, because they (like you) evidently don't understand people who disagree with them. But the intent to harass people following the law was clear.