Spring 2013 Poll: Democratic Presidential Candidate for 2016

[Nakura Chambers]

Or you know, it's about making the fact that we have background checks make those background checks still legitimate. This flea market is also, as far as I am aware, 100% legal. Last I heard since these people don't make a significant amount of their income from guns, they don't need a dealer's license.

I realize that you think there's some kind of sinister conspiracy behind any gun control whatsoever, but our current laws are really shitty when you get right down to it.

Or we could just fix our prison system so that we actually rehabilitate criminals.

There is a sinister conspiracy behind gun control. Look back a few weeks and you'll see the true face of the gun control lobby. Or how the gun control lobby and politicians said that their proposals were "stepping stones to more gun control."

Or just listen to the statements made by the people who proposed the bills:

[Cthulhu 2020]

So because Feinstein and a couple of cronies talk about extreme gun control measure, all gun control has an agenda to end gun ownership in the USA? Or are you open to the idea that maybe most people just want to reduce the number of criminals with guns?

[Nakura Chambers]

So because Feinstein and a couple of cronies talk about extreme gun control measure, all gun control has an agenda to end gun ownership in the USA? Or are you open to the idea that maybe most people just want to reduce the number of criminals with guns?

Even the author of the background checks bill, which you seem to support, admits that he intends for this to become a de facto registration system:



Gun control doesn't reduce violent crime. If you want to lower crime rates, then we need to focus on the heart of the problem; economic factors. We need to work on eliminating poverty, reforming our education system, reforming our prison system and fixing our healthcare system.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Considering that in the gun control thread, there's proof that it does work that oft gets ignored or hand waved away, and that you're arguing the slippery slope for a conspiracy theory... I'm not really sure this discussion is going anywhere.

[Nakura Chambers]

Considering that in the gun control thread, there's proof that it does work that oft gets ignored or hand waved away, and that you're arguing the slippery slope for a conspiracy theory... I'm not really sure this discussion is going anywhere.

Except there isn't any proof that gun control works. And how is it a conspiracy theory? The author of the background check bill, Senator Chuck Schumer, said that he intends for the background check system to be used as a de facto gun registration database.

[Cthulhu 2020]

There was plenty of proof posted in the other thread, not liking it or choosing to selectively ignore it doesn't mean there isn't any.

Feinstein's bill was also shot down by Democrats before it even made it to the floor. That should tell you how even most Dems feel about the more extreme gun control laws.

[paralleluniverse]

I don't see how we are ever going to fix this economic mess we're in. We seriously re-elected Obama and are staring at electing Clinton in 16, and the only other option is Warren. God help us.

The main reason we're still in a economic mess is because of the Republicans. They've blocked everything and led to cuts in government spending while the private sector is also cutting spending.

If public sector cuts spending and private sector cuts spending, i.e. everyone cuts spending, then less total spending = less economic growth.

[Sky High]

Who decides that the United Nations should dictate what "human rights" are? What about rights not mentioned by the United Nations? What about non-members, such as Abhkazia, Kosovo, Palestine, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Switzerland (pre-2004), Taiwan, Transnistria, Western Sahara, etc.? What about the fact that the very countries that the UN accuses of violating "human rights," are also on the United Nations Human Rights Council?

look this up yourself, point being on issues like "free speech" the US does't get to tell other countries what is and isn't free speech. if you are massacring your people the UN can enact sanctions against you, other then that they have no real authority over any country that is a apart of it or not. out right war is up to whomever wants to wage it, be direct or indirect.

[LichslayerX]

You know, you might be on to something here...

My favorite avatar is the one the LichslayerX is going to have next though.

Temporary love. Only temporary and thus really not with teeth. Pissing the lot of you off though was totally worth it. >:-) I gave up posting serious things the day Sunshine stole my Account info, and worked his ass off to create issue on my handle.

[mvaliz]

Except there isn't any proof that gun control works. And how is it a conspiracy theory? The author of the background check bill, Senator Chuck Schumer, said that he intends for the background check system to be used as a de facto gun registration database.

Except for that tiny little piece of proof called "Australia having no mass shootings in nearly 20 years prior to strict gun control laws, when before the law was inacted it was nearly 1 mass shooting every year for the past 15 years."

[Nakura Chambers]

There was plenty of proof posted in the other thread, not liking it or choosing to selectively ignore it doesn't mean there isn't any.

Feinstein's bill was also shot down by Democrats before it even made it to the floor. That should tell you how even most Dems feel about the more extreme gun control laws.

Sorry, but I'm not going through 800 pages in that thread. Could you post the examples here?

Actually, the Democrats passed it the first time. The reason the FAWB didn't make it to the floor isn't because elitist Bloomberg-owned tyrants love the Second Amendment, it's because it didn't have enough votes to pass.


I said "elitist Bloomberg-owned tyrants," because there are plenty of Democrats who actually do support the Second Amendment and I didn't want to insult them.

[Elegiac]

Sorry, but I'm not going through 800 pages in that thread. Could you post the examples here?

Actually, the Democrats passed it the first time. The reason the FAWB didn't make it to the floor isn't because elitist Bloomberg-owned tyrants love the Second Amendment, it's because it didn't have enough votes to pass.

I said "elitist Bloomberg-owned tyrants," because there are plenty of Democrats who actually do support the Second Amendment and I didn't want to insult them.

You're still extraordinarily insulting, both to Democrats and anyone with an actual grasp of Constitutional law.

It's not a matter of Second Amendment v. Gun Control. The Second Amendment allows for gun control; the only people that paint it as black and white are gun manufacturers looking for a buck and the idiots that believe them.

[Deleted]

You're still extraordinarily insulting, both to Democrats and anyone with an actual grasp of Constitutional law.

It's not a matter of Second Amendment v. Gun Control. The Second Amendment allows for gun control; the only people that paint it as black and white are gun manufacturers looking for a buck and the idiots that believe them.

Nah, the world is a false dichotomy, you're either with em, or against em.

[Nakura Chambers]

Except for that tiny little piece of proof called "Australia having no mass shootings in nearly 20 years prior to strict gun control laws, when before the law was inacted it was nearly 1 mass shooting every year for the past 15 years."

Except for the facts that:
1. Australia has had mass shootings since their gun ban.
2. Australia has never had a history of mass shootings, not even before the gun ban.
3. All of Australia's mass shootings happened AFTER they passed strict gun control laws.
4. Violent crime rates in Australia have gone up since the gun ban.

[vastx]

DNC wants Hillary so bad.

Because -
1) another history making election (female)
2) they know a lot of people erroneously attribute the economic boom of the 90s to Bill Clinton, and somehow that false feat has rubbed off on Hillary...

Yes, #2 is a view many supporters seem to share for some fucked up reason.

[Nakura Chambers]

You're still extraordinarily insulting, both to Democrats and anyone with an actual grasp of Constitutional law.

It's not a matter of Second Amendment v. Gun Control. The Second Amendment allows for gun control; the only people that paint it as black and white are gun manufacturers looking for a buck and the idiots that believe them.

That's right, anyone who disagrees with you is a corporate shill working for the gun manufacturers, just keep believing that. Also, anyone who supports the Founding Fathers' definition of the Secondment Amendment is also a corporate shill.

You do realize that a good deal of those gun control laws you support would actually help the firearms industry right?
-Banning private firearms transactions helps both gun manufacturers and gun store owners; all for the same reason video game publishers are cracking down on used game sales.

-Banning 3D printers will help gun store owners and gun manufacturers by requiring law abiding gun owners to buy their firearms from them.

-Banning or heavily restricting gunsmithing will have the same affect as above.

-Banning so-called "assault weapons" means that manufacturers will be required to make other rifles that are the exact same as the "so-called assault rifles," but simply lacks the cosmetic features. Without having to add-on the expensive cosmetic features, firearms manufacturers save a great deal of money, meaning they can lower the price of their firearms and increase both sales and revenue.

-Banning standard capacity magazines, machineguns, etc. raise the networth of such items after they have been grandfathered. Why do you think legal machineguns go for hundreds of thousand of dollars? It's because the government is artificially inflating the price by limiting the number of legal machineguns that are in private hands.

-Having the federal government purchase billions of rounds of ammunition raises the overall worth of ammunition (as there is less ammunition in circulation). Not to mention how the federal government is then giving money to ammo manufacturers.

-Even mentioning the words "gun control" will cause firearms sales to skyrocket.

[Elegiac]

That's right, anyone who disagrees with you is a corporate shill working for the gun manufacturers, just keep believing that. Also, anyone who supports the Founding Fathers' definition of the Secondment Amendment is also a corporate shill.

Depending on the definition they use, yes.

Do you define the Second Amendment as a safeguard against slave rebellions?

Furthermore, the definition of irony is lost upon you (accusing people of having a black and white view and then presenting a black and white view).

[Nakura Chambers]

Depending on the definition they use, yes.

Do you define the Second Amendment as a safeguard against slave rebellions?

Furthermore, the definition of irony is lost upon you (accusing people of having a black and white view and then presenting a black and white view).

Why not just admit that people who disagree with you aren't on the payroll of H&K, but rather, are individuals who disagree with you?

No, I support the Fourteenth Amendment. During the Founding Fathers' lifetimes, the Second Amendment (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights) only limited the federal government, not state governments. To my knowledge, the federal government wasn't involved in regularly putting down slave rebellions.

[Elegiac]

Why not just admit that people who disagree with you aren't on the payroll of H&K, but rather, are individuals who disagree with you?

No, I support the Fourteenth Amendment. During the Founding Fathers' lifetimes, the Second Amendment (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights) only limited the federal government, not state governments. To my knowledge, the federal government wasn't involved in regularly putting down slave rebellions.

That's exactly the point. The Second Amendment was designed in part to give the slave states a means of recourse against slave revolts without federal intervention.

So unless you agree with that, you're not "defining it how the Founders did".

[Nakura Chambers]

That's exactly the point. The Second Amendment was designed in part to give the slave states a means of recourse against slave revolts without federal intervention.

So unless you agree with that, you're not "defining it how the Founders did".

The Second Amendment didn't apply to the states at all until the Fourteenth Amendment. It wasn't designed to kill slaves, it was designed to protect against tyranny and foreign invaders.