WTF? (**NSFW**)

[nunya]

It's not ridiculous, because that's how the argument needs to be framed.  The world does not have a "gun violence" problem, or a "Ryder truck violence" problem.  It has a violence problem.  Madmen commit violence.  That's where we need to focus our efforts and our arguments.  Madmen have used fertilizer, airplanes, fire, gas chambers, trucks, pressure cookers, bombs, guns, knives, hammers, and rope.  The chosen method is irrelevant.  Guns have taken on this bigger than life persona when they are simply tools.  AR-15s are ideally suited for plenty of non-murderous tasks, just like rope is good for a lot more than lynching.  If the locomotive of society decides that guns are bad, there's no stopping the degradation of our rights.  But we'll simply find that when you peel away the "tool" layer, you're still left with a core of violence.  The Brits are learning this now as they move to rearm their police.  

So as to the better idea, let's start with the family.  How can we reinforce the family so it can serve as a training ground for acceptable behavior?

[HossHarris]

2 hours ago, BFM this said:

The second amendment is not about hunting.

The second amendment is not about a home invasion.

The second amendment is not about “toys”.

The constitution does not grant rights.  Neither does the government.  The constitution enumerates our rights.

The constitution does not empower government.  It limits government.

Kinda surprising to be having this conversation on this forum; expecting it from progressives.

 

And back in the founding father’s days, you could buy or make weapons on par with, or superior to, the military and government weapons of the day. 

 

I want a hellfire missile. 

[Buddy Spike]

Some of you are quick to give up rights. 

Here's the problem: once they're gone, you'll never get it back.

The Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms just like the First Amendment protects our right to free speech (Congress shall make no law). It's not a negotiable document. 

As stated above, we have a violence problem and a mental health problem in this country. Making law abiding citizens into criminals won't solve that. Punishing the millions of law abiding gun owners because of the acts of a few psychopaths won't solve that either. 

Whether you agree with it or not, the Second Amendment was designed to defend the First Amendment. We are absolutely intended to be as well armed as the military because the founders wanted the government to fear the people and not the other way around. 

We've already given up enough (NFA, etc). Now is not the time to give up because of one horrific incident.  It's a very slippery slope.

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Buddy Spike

[SocialD]

8 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

And back in the founding father’s days, you could buy or make weapons on par with, or superior to, the military and government weapons of the day. 

Shack!

[BFM this]

12 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

And back in the founding father’s days, you could buy or make weapons on par with, or superior to, the military and government weapons of the day. 

 

I want a hellfire missile. 

Or a cannon and grapeshot.

[RTB]

1 hour ago, Buddy Spike said:

Whether you agree with it or not, the Second Amendment was designed to defend the First Amendment. We are absolutely intended to be as well armed as the military because the founders wanted the government to fear the people and not the other way around. 

So anyone should have access to the full range of military weapons?  This is where the pro-2A argument goes off the rails.  Musket v musket, it made sense.  With today's military weapons, not so much.  Like I said before, there's a reasonable limit beyond which your average joe doesn't need to be armed.  So if that's the case, where do you draw the line?  Does a semi-automatic AR with a 100 round drum magazine and a bump stock make sense?  Should a full-auto rifle be allowed?  Should we let Hoss have his Hellfire missile?  The other side see's our arguments FOR bearing arms as a slippery slope in that direction.  

[HeloDude]

Funny how so many people on here took an oath to support and defend The Constitiution are also the ones who are not supporting and defending The Constitution...

 

Oh and Ratner and the others who are saying they are "Pro-2A" are clearly not.  That's like saying you're against slavery...but that some amounts of slavery are ok...

Edited October 3, 2017 by HeloDude

[Darth]

2 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

The Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms just like the First Amendment protects our right to free speech (Congress shall make no law). It's not a negotiable document.

While not negotiable, it is changeable.

"For an amendment to be proposed or repealed, it requires two/thirds of both federal legislative bodies — House and Senate — to vote in the affirmative (two/thirds in the House, two/thirds in the Senate). It also requires two/thirds of the state legislatures of the 50 states to vote in the affirmative.  The move to propose or repeal can begin with the American people, with a majority of the populations in two thirds of the 50 states voting for the amendment or its repeal. However, even if the people do this, the push to propose or repeal still has to garner two/thirds House, two/thirds Senate, and two/thirds of all 50 state legislatures."

[FighterHopeful12345]

I vote we let @HossHarris have his Hellfire.....laissez faire

[Lord Ratner]

Funny how so many people on here took an oath to support and defend The Constitiution are also the ones who are not supporting and defending The Constitution...

 

Oh and Ratner and the others who are saying they are "Pro-2A" are clearly not.  That's like saying you're against slavery...but that some amounts of slavery are ok...

Funny how people like you believe that black people should only be counted as 3/5s of a person for the purposes of representation and taxation.

 

Jesus do you not see how f&*king ironic your post is. You equate my position to a partial endorsement of slavery, by waiving around a document that originally endorsed slavery!

 

The second amendment is proof that the Constitution was not perfect. The other 26 amendments are additional proof. I'm honestly baffled that you could think that way. It makes me think our gun rights are in bigger peril than I suggested. If the "pro-gun" folks think and debate the issue as you just did, we have no hope of winning this battle after the next few mass murders tilt the balance of public opinion.

[Duck]

I vote we let [mention=1152]HossHarris[/mention] have his Hellfire.....laissez faire

Agreed. What could go wrong?

[Lord Ratner]

Bout time someone posted something that fits the title of this forum. I get the parallel to slavery was a bit much... but what?

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Do you defend the Constitution or not?

[FighterHopeful12345]

13 minutes ago, Duck said:

Agreed. What could go wrong?

I can think of a few things....but hey

[Buddy Spike]

2 hours ago, RTB said:

So anyone should have access to the full range of military weapons?  This is where the pro-2A argument goes off the rails.  Musket v musket, it made sense.  With today's military weapons, not so much.  Like I said before, there's a reasonable limit beyond which your average joe doesn't need to be armed.  So if that's the case, where do you draw the line?  Does a semi-automatic AR with a 100 round drum magazine and a bump stock make sense?  Should a full-auto rifle be allowed?  Should we let Hoss have his Hellfire missile?  The other side see's our arguments FOR bearing arms as a slippery slope in that direction.  

Yes. Next question.

 

[Buddy Spike]

1 hour ago, Darth said:

While not negotiable, it is changeable.

"For an amendment to be proposed or repealed, it requires two/thirds of both federal legislative bodies — House and Senate — to vote in the affirmative (two/thirds in the House, two/thirds in the Senate). It also requires two/thirds of the state legislatures of the 50 states to vote in the affirmative.  The move to propose or repeal can begin with the American people, with a majority of the populations in two thirds of the 50 states voting for the amendment or its repeal. However, even if the people do this, the push to propose or repeal still has to garner two/thirds House, two/thirds Senate, and two/thirds of all 50 state legislatures."

 

Go for it.  While you're at it, let's fix the anchor baby and term limits issues. 

[brickhistory]

It's against the law to shoot somebody unless in self-defense, right?

It's against the law to murder somebody, right?

 

Let's pass more laws.

 

 

Riiiiiight....

[HeloDude]

33 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Do you defend the Constitution or not?

Well, first off, The Constituition never mentioned anything about race when counting slaves.  Second off, since slavery was banned in 1865 by The Constitution (yep, same one I'm referring to), not a single person has been counted as "3/5 of a person".  

So yes, I still do support The Constitution and its banning of slavery.  

[Kenny Powers]

[MooseAg03]

I have to admit, I had no idea what a bump stock was until I watched the video of the chick on YouTube installing one and testing it with a drum magazine. If full auto weapons are highly regulated and require permitting, how can anyone modify an AR like that? It seems to me to be a technical way of circumventing federal laws.

I don’t own an AR yet, but I do have a concealed carry permit and enjoy the right to carry to protect myself if needed. I also know no additional laws will prevent all future events like Vegas, but imagine what the backlash will be 5 years from now when a Pulse nightclub or Vegas massacre happens every few months. I hope that’s not the reality, but our society’s morals are eroding by the day. I’d hate to see a vote for full on modification or repeal of the 2A when enforcing current gun laws or modifying regulations could possibly help the situation. How we go about doing that, I have no idea but I’m at least willing to entertain the thought.

[magnetfreezer]

4 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

I have to admit, I had no idea what a bump stock was until I watched the video of the chick on YouTube installing one and testing it with a drum magazine. If full auto weapons are highly regulated and require permitting, how can anyone modify an AR like that? It seems to me to be a technical way of circumventing federal laws.

I don’t own an AR yet, but I do have a concealed carry permit and enjoy the right to carry to protect myself if needed. I also know no additional laws will prevent all future events like Vegas, but imagine what the backlash will be 5 years from now when a Pulse nightclub or Vegas massacre happens every few months. I hope that’s not the reality, but our society’s morals are eroding by the day. I’d hate to see a vote for full on modification or repeal of the 2A when enforcing current gun laws or modifying regulations could possibly help the situation. How we go about doing that, I have no idea but I’m at least willing to entertain the thought.

We probably have a moral problem not a gun problem... these folks https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html who are not right leaning by any means (Nate Silver's 538 analysts) can't find a gun control solution that will work, and Chicago (where guns are almost 100% illegal, and 100% illegal for felons) had 57 murders in September alone. 

[Kenny Powers]

[MooseAg03]

We probably have a moral problem not a gun problem... these folks https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html who are not right leaning by any means (Nate Silver's 538 analysts) can't find a gun control solution that will work, and Chicago (where guns are almost 100% illegal, and 100% illegal for felons) had 57 murders in September alone. 

Yes, I agree that more gun ownership generally correlates to lower crime. But that doesn’t mean that any jackass with money to burn and no criminal record should be able to buy an AR and modify it to effectively be a full auto weapon with a 200 round capacity.

Even though “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech” you still can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. All rights have limits. Those limits are where your rights begin to infringe on someone else’s right to life, liberty, and happiness. The catch 22 is that even if you outlaw bump stocks, who’s to say you won’t see people making them with 3D printers. I don’t know what the answer is, but we better start thinking about it before it gets any worse.

[brickhistory]

11 minutes ago, Kenny Powers said:

Young man, I like the way you think.

I see a promising future...

[HeloDude]

3 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

 

Yes, I agree that more gun ownership generally correlates to lower crime. But that doesn’t mean that any jackass with money to burn and no criminal record should be able to buy an AR and modify it to effectively be a full auto weapon with a 200 round capacity.

Even though “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech” you still can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. All rights have limits. Those limits are where your rights begin to infringe on someone else’s right to life, liberty, and happiness. The catch 22 is that even if you outlaw bump stocks, who’s to say you won’t see people making them with 3D printers. I don’t know what the answer is, but we better start thinking about it before it gets any worse.

 

I can yell fire in a theater...if there's a fire.  I just can't intentionally induce a panic for no reason.  Just like I can have firearms, but I can't point them at people (or worse fire them)...unless I'm defending my life.  If guns are the problem, that means that alcohol is to blame for people being murdered via drunk driving.

Besides, if stricter gun control laws worked, then Mexico would be a much safer country than the US.  

[magnetfreezer]

24 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

All rights have limits. 

 

Except voting - plenty of opposition to ID requirements or even the current ban on felons voting.