President Obama In Office 1 Day And I Am Pissed.

[Black Dog]

He has been in office for 1 day and I am already disappointed.

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals.They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent." - Urban Policy

Change :roll:

The assault weapons ban was really stupid and accomplished nothing (feel good legislation at it's best). Removing the Tiahrt Amendment is nothing more than a big brother move and invasion of privacy. I don't even want to know what "commonsense measures" he could be talking about.

Good going President Obama, keep up the un-American work. The framers of the Constitution would be proud.

 

[rathi]

I support the closing of gun show loopholes, as I support means of preventing criminals ending up with guns. The Tiahrt amendment is too restrictive, although it does serve a good purpose in protecting sensitive data. However, I feel it should be rewritten or amended, not simply repealed. The assault weapon ban is a terrible piece of legislation and has no business being returned from its rightful death. It was written by a bunch of morons who clearly had no clue about firearms. Banning bayonet mounts and pistol grips should be a daily show skit, not something a politician seriously promotes. Its about as stupid as Ted Stevens making laws about the internet.

 

[Black Dog]

I support the closing of gun show loopholes, as I support means of preventing criminals ending up with guns. The Tiahrt amendment is too restrictive, although it does serve a good purpose in protecting sensitive data. However, I feel it should be rewritten or amended, not simply repealed. The assault weapon ban is a terrible piece of legislation and has no business being returned from its rightful death. It was written by a bunch of morons who clearly had no clue about firearms. Banning bayonet mounts and pistol grips should be a daily show skit, not something a politician seriously promotes. Its about as stupid as Ted Stevens making laws about the internet.

I agree with this.

The gun show loophole is one I did not highlight for the same reason. Whenever a politician says "common sense laws" in 99.9% of the cases it means people who know nothing about the subject will be making the laws. This is the same kind of garbage that gave us the assault weapons ban.

In the end I don't care about President Obama's political affiliation and I wanted to give him a chance. But this is a very bad start in my opinion.

 

[danarhea]

My whole problem with gun laws is that, historically, governments have used them as a first step in disarming its citizens. Why blame the guns? We should be blaming the people who use them to commit crimes. The way I see it, if a citizen wants a machine gun, he can have one. Criminals already have them because they don't believe in obeying the law. We should not penalize everybody else, and take away their right to defend themselves from those who would make them victims. That is why I am against ALL gun laws, except one - The Second Amendment.

 

[Thorgasm]

My whole problem with gun laws is that, historically, governments have used them as a first step in disarming its citizens. Why blame the guns? We should be blaming the people who use them to commit crimes. The way I see it, if a citizen wants a machine gun, he can have one. Criminals already have them because they don't believe in obeying the law. We should not penalize everybody else, and take away their right to defend themselves from those who would make them victims. That is why I am against ALL gun laws, except one - The Second Amendment.

Where would you draw the line at for limiting ownership of weapons?

 

[the makeout hobo]

My whole problem with gun laws is that, historically, governments have used them as a first step in disarming its citizens. Why blame the guns? We should be blaming the people who use them to commit crimes. The way I see it, if a citizen wants a machine gun, he can have one. Criminals already have them because they don't believe in obeying the law. We should not penalize everybody else, and take away their right to defend themselves from those who would make them victims. That is why I am against ALL gun laws, except one - The Second Amendment.

So you think that someone who just got out of prison for gang violence, lets say, should be able to go out and get a gun? This seems dangerous to me.

 

[danarhea]

So you think that someone who just got out of prison for gang violence, lets say, should be able to go out and get a gun? This seems dangerous to me.

He is going to be able to get one anyways, because he does not obey the law. Why penalize me by limiting what I am able to use to defend myself?

 

[the makeout hobo]

He is going to be able to get one anyways, because he does not obey the law. Why penalize me by limiting what I am able to use to defend myself?

If only convicted criminals are allowed to have guns, this shouldn't affect you. And you're assuming he can get one. You might be able to get a gun on the street, but they're expensive and that's assuming he has the right connections. Why should we let convicted criminals have guns?

 

[DeeJayH]

So you think that someone who just got out of prison for gang violence, lets say, should be able to go out and get a gun? This seems dangerous to me.

If only convicted criminals are allowed to have guns, this shouldn't affect you. And you're assuming he can get one. You might be able to get a gun on the street, but they're expensive and that's assuming he has the right connections. Why should we let convicted criminals have guns?

wow :shock: tell me you are just ****ing with dan

 

[the makeout hobo]

wow :shock: tell me you are just ****ing with dan

That I don't think convicted criminals should be allowed to buy guns? I am not ****ing with dan.

 

[celticlord]

Where would you draw the line at for limiting ownership of weapons?

I wouldn't. The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is the most categorically phrased of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights--and I believe it is so for a reason: the people are to be as well armed as the government, to keep the government in it's proper subservient place.

The Nanny state is an oppressive state.

 

[Thorgasm]

I wouldn't. The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is the most categorically phrased of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights--and I believe it is so for a reason: the people are to be as well armed as the government, to keep the government in it's proper subservient place.

The Nanny state is an oppressive state.

So George Soros can have a nuclear missile? :shock:

 

[celticlord]

So George Soros can have a nuclear missile? :shock:

He can. So can I. So can you.

 

[Thorgasm]

He can. So can I. So can you.

Even the mentally ill?

It sounds like you endorse anarchy.

 

[celticlord]

Even the mentally ill?

It sounds like you endorse anarchy.

I endorse liberty. Liberty means I do not have government looking over my shoulder all the damn time. Liberty means I am not restrained from owning such weapons as I desire, but am rather held accountable for the manner in which I keep, maintain, and use them.

As for the mentally ill.....yes, they can own whatever weapons they desire as well. Of course, if a person is judged to be unable to manage his own affairs, the power to exercise that right would devolve to his or her conservator or guardian. (Trivia note: totalitarian states such as the USSR have been justly infamous for using psychatric confinements to silence their more irritating dissidents.)

"shall not be infringed." Simple, categorical, unequivocal.

 

[Zyphlin]

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade."

I'm interested to hear if Liberals agree with this, the restriction of peoples freedom and constitutional rights in the name of saftey?

 

[winston53660]

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade."

I'm interested to hear if Liberals agree with this, the restriction of peoples freedom and constitutional rights in the name of saftey?

Is this a privacy rights issue to you? I really don't understand your position.

 

[celticlord]

So you think that someone who just got out of prison for gang violence, lets say, should be able to go out and get a gun? This seems dangerous to me.

Once a prison sentence has been served, that should be the end of the matter--all rights should be restored to a person immediately upon successful completion of sentence. This is especially true of the right to keep and bear arms.

Tainting a person's rights due to a period of incarceration is a subtle shift from the supremacy of the people (which is what our Constitution is meant to guarantee) to a supremacy of the state (which our Constitution is meant to prevent).

 

[Zyphlin]

My position is its a limitation on peoples freedom and constitutional rights (The right to bare arms) in exchange for saftey (better ability to trace guns and providing tools to solve crime and stop arms trade).

Whether I'm in favor of it or not has not been stated yet.

My question was asking liberals how they felt about the repeal of that amendment.

 

[winston53660]

My position is its a limitation on peoples freedom and constitutional rights (The right to bare arms) in exchange for saftey (better ability to trace guns and providing tools to solve crime and stop arms trade).

Whether I'm in favor of it or not has not been stated yet.

My question was asking liberals how they felt about the repeal of that amendment.

The part quoted and repealed I really don't see as preventing from anyone from purchasing firearms.

 

[Zyphlin]

The part quoted and repealed I really don't see as preventing from anyone from purchasing firearms.

By repealing it allows the government to create a database of information tracing ownership of guns and allowing law enforcement agencies access to the information.

This is, if not an outright violation of the 2nd amendment, is at least a WEAKENING of the freedom of gun owners in the name of security.

Namely, their guns will now have to be allowed to be tracked by the government and that information can be used by law enforcement. This is in the name of "security" so that they can better address crime and arms smugglers.

My question, once again, to liberals is whether the reduction of freedom previously held by the citizenry in the name of security acceptable and why?

 

[winston53660]

By repealing it allows the government to create a database of information tracing ownership of guns and allowing law enforcement agencies access to the information.

This is, if not an outright violation of the 2nd amendment, is at least a WEAKENING of the freedom of gun owners in the name of security.

Namely, their guns will now have to be allowed to be tracked by the government and that information can be used by law enforcement. This is in the name of "security" so that they can better address crime and arms smugglers.

My question, once again, to liberals is whether the reduction of freedom previously held by the citizenry in the name of security acceptable and why?

The only issue I see is a privacy one not one concerning the Second.

 

[Zyphlin]

Citizens have a right to bare arms with out any infringement from the government. Mandating that my guns must be tracked, meaning that if I sell my gun between two consenting people or give my gun to someone else I must somehow give the state acknowledgement of this, while also allowing the state to monitor what weapons I have or don't have is an infringing upon my right to bare arms.

But even going with that, its been established that there's an apparent right to privacy that exists within the constitution, so even if you wish to base it off that it still applies.

Do the liberals on this board agree with the notion of reducing liberty and freedom of someone by limiting their rights in the name of stopping crime and saftey?

 

[winston53660]

Citizens have a right to bare arms with out any infringement from the government. Mandating that my guns must be tracked, meaning that if I sell my gun between two consenting people or give my gun to someone else I must somehow give the state acknowledgement of this, while also allowing the state to monitor what weapons I have or don't have is an infringing upon my right to bare arms.

Have any of your guns been taken away? Does the repeal of this mean your guns are going to be taken away? Heck every time I buy a car it has to registered with the State.

 

[Zyphlin]

Every question you've asked for clarification, I've answered. I've stated my question, clearly. You've not once answered my question, instead choosing to constantly deflect and change the direction of the conversation while completely ignoring my question. If you're not actually interested in having a discussion and simply want to play 20 questions, be my guest. I'm not in the mood to play.