Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You were the one who brought up the point asking who will protect the non-gun owners against bad people who use guns in their wrongdoing. And I wish more people would think that guns are tools and not some scary demonic device that goes off and kills people.
If the intent of the second amendment was to protect the right to self defense from government then why limit it to firearms? Why not include canons, swords, axes and other methods of self defense?
Nonsense. I've protected myself, and an occasional neighbor just fine without ever owning a gun. A gun is nothing more than a tool. Safety should not depend on tools, but the human minds ability to reason and plan.
The sad truth is that we would all be "safer" if only the criminals and the police had guns. No one thinks that will work here but we need to at least miniimize the risks so our gun culture isn't so destructive to innocents. What we don't want is for everyone to "need" a gun or think that having a gun will make you safer from gun violence, that is a lie and is unacceptble given the additional deaths it would cause. The other statistic that is undisputable is the one that says more guns = more gun violence. Is that what the "gun nuts" really want? More shootings, more murders?
No, I didn't. I would that a silly conversation, which is why I said so. However, both sides too often see them as more than tools. Emotions are too often feverish all the way around.
By putting safer in quotes I think you would agree it really would not make us safer.
Appropriate education would minimize accidents with guns. Eliminating gun free zones would also work to make us safer from those who target the disarmed.
The main point is that some of the worst violence that occurs in ares where guns are strongly restricted and the local police force lightly patrols and comes in only for investigations.
From what I know where gun bans have been placed violent crime has gone up not down.
Even though guns are tools it is a fundamental right for self defense to be able to have one as well as a tool to fight against a Tyrannical government.
collectivists and statists do not consider governments killing dissidents to be a bad thing
you may remember when Anti war activist Joan Baez condemned one of the communist nations that started killing massive numbers of people after the Viet Nam war ended. Radical communist lawyer William Kunstler chided Ms Baez noting that he thought it was wrong for her to criticize "progressive governments" where there were human rights violations.
far lefties loathe the thought of people being able to resist and even kill collectivist government agents and leaders
Not only are you arbitrarily labeling the potential measure a violation of the Amendment without a clue as to the contents, you're also claiming the President has no authority through EO to alter existing legal measures. Both are simply opinions and unfounded ones at that.If Congress should not infringe on the 2nd Amendment most certainly the President has no authority to do so.
Futhermore if there is a insurmountable division that is a sign that the public cannot agree on a solution and we do not need some President to make a decision by fiat
since this violates both the idea of our government being a democracy or a republic.
It is a position of autocracy.
Not only are you arbitrarily labeling the potential measure a violation of the Amendment without a clue as to the contents, you're also claiming the President has no authority through EO to alter existing legal measures. Both are simply opinions and unfounded ones at that.
Opinion based jargon, not much to discuss here.
The concept and legal repercussions of the executive order has been found to be within the scope and powers of the federal government through judicial review previously, despite some insisting otherwise.
Poor choice of wording. Executive orders are subject to judicial review as are legal measures approved by congress.
Possibly, depending on the contents within.And the court system is where an EO concerning limiting the 2nd amendment rights of American's will end up.
Meanwhile, The President, who took an oath to protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, get's to wipe his ass with it.
31 pages...Hmmmm...
Let's put some perspective to this fear and anxiety over the President possibly issuing an Executive Order on "gun control". Unless that order reads "No American citizen can purchase any gun or riffle fr any type in the U.S. unless they are part of a state militia or military force," you can relax.
Restrictions on gun sales (i.e., types of weapons allowed to be sold to the general public for personal protection), types/calibers of ammunication or points of sale (i.e., general/sporting goods stores vice trade shows/flea markets) aren't the same as an all-out ban on selling any and ALL weapons. So, gun enthusiast, get a grip!
Possibly, depending on the contents within.
More caricature based analysis. Legal analysis is best obtained from folks who actually work within said field as opposed to opinion based junk and armchair analysis from blogosphere bird brains.
this is idiotic because you either intentionally ignore or are ignorant of the incremental program to destroy gun rights. If Obama came out tomorrow and said he was going to ban all guns his administration would be over effectively that day because he would be impeached. But what we have seen was a many year program to ban guns. Bans on automatic weapons has been cited as precedent for bans on semi automatic weapons. 30 round magazine limits then ten round limits (NY and other states) and now Cuomo wants 7 round limits.
Yeah, I got that.Nonsense, we are members of this forum to discuss our opinions on a range of subjects.
You don't like that others have negative opinions of Obama and his actions
so your argument is to dismiss others opinions, and label them something less than worthy of discussion in a true Sol Alenski-esque application debate
that begs the question if you are not here to honestly discuss opinions with others that may disagree with you, then why are you here?
What bill approved by Congress and signed into LAW by our nation's 44th President bans the sale of any and all weapons in the United States?
You know the answer is NONE, but you enjoy spewing your hyperbolic anti-Obama/anti-Liberal rants just to foster an atmospher of fear and anxiety. Do get over yourself, TD, and try to get a grip on reality.
And on the other hand you've arbitrarily assigned extreme and draconian motives to those you disagree with. Both degrees of silliness and naivety I'm afraid.I get tired of people playing dumb on this issue. You pretend that unless there is a complete ban, there is no intent to ban.
and while one can support one of the steps without personally supporting the ultimate goal, you are still supporting those who want a total ban
I get tired of people playing dumb on this issue. You pretend that unless there is a complete ban, there is no intent to ban. Sadly for you, those of us who actually follow this issue are well aware that those who want bans have publicly noted that a complete ban, right away won't work, so it has to be gradual
so anything that is designed to
1) ban some stuff
2) desensitize the public to bans
3) create legal precedent for bans
are part of the program to ban guns
and while one can support one of the steps without personally supporting the ultimate goal, you are still supporting those who want a total ban
Yeah, I got that.
Actually, I'm not personally in favor of further gun control, as I feel it wouldn't adequately address the root of such events. I'm actually on board with LaPierre's suggestion. What I do dismiss frequently and without hesitation are claims of knowledge and foresight regarding the constitutionality of alterations to current law before the specifics are so much as released. Easy to do and fun too!
Hmm..Must be Saul's cousin or something. By the way, Saul doesn't exactly have a monopoly on mockery interjected into conversation. Could just as easily be traced back to Rodney Dangerfield or Groucho.
Oh I discuss and argue a great deal, although I can't say I value opinions much at all regarding nuts and bolts, black and white issues. By the way, just what have I presented thus far that would qualify as dishonest as you suggest?
Where do you get off saying that Hitler, Stalin and Mao disarmed the population?
The sad truth is that we would all be "safer" if only the criminals and the police had guns.
Or hammers. Don't forget hammers. :roll:
that is as idiotic as saying no one needs chemotherapy or surgery because you have cured a pimple with a tube of Neosporin
By putting safer in quotes I think you would agree it really would not make us safer.
Appropriate education would minimize accidents with guns. Eliminating gun free zones would also work to make us safer from those who target the disarmed.
The main point is that some of the worst violence that occurs in ares where guns are strongly restricted and the local police force lightly patrols and comes in only for investigations.
From what I know where gun bans have been placed violent crime has gone up not down.
Even though guns are tools it is a fundamental right for self defense to be able to have one as well as a tool to fight against a Tyrannical government.
Not only are you arbitrarily labeling the potential measure a violation of the Amendment without a clue as to the contents, you're also claiming the President has no authority through EO to alter existing legal measures. Both are simply opinions and unfounded ones at that.
Opinion based jargon, not much to discuss here.
The concept and legal repercussions of the executive order has been found to be within the scope and powers of the federal government through judicial review previously, despite some insisting otherwise.
Poor choice of wording. Executive orders are subject to judicial review as are legal measures approved by congress.
No one has argued you can't defend yourself. Nor that a gun can't be one of those options. There is virtually no chance that option will be removed. The worse like to happen is a return to the the assault weapons ban. Very little else.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?