Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

Oh that's good. Compare the Constitution to the actions of a Missouri Legislator. That makes sense.

It sure does. Thanks for acknowledging that.

Plus, the proposed bill doesn't say you can't make a certain law, it makes it a class D felony to even propose a certain type of law.

How exactly are those different? Why would someone legitimately propose a law if the bill were against the law? The only reason would be to waste the time of the legislature.

And nothing here says that the legislature wouldn't, at any time, be able to amend the bill to allow gun control legislation from being proposed again. But they'd have to first go through that step before attempting any other legislation.

Ultimately, if enough of the assembly votes to agree with this bill, then doesn't that automatically mean there'd be enough support to shoot down any other gun control bill proposed anyway?

They are criminalizing gun control, something that the Supreme Court has ruled to be Constitutional. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer (though I did study Constitutional law), but I'm pretty sure you cannot criminalize something that the Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutional.

Once again, the only group they're trying to police here are themselves. And they'd have the key to unlock said legislation later down the road. I don't see the problem here.

[Sicarus]

Correct. Guess whose job it is to decide whether or not the restriction is "reasonable?" The Courts!!! Guess what they have determined? All those things are reasonable. That was easy.

So, how about a "reasonable" restriction on free speech, or "reasonable" restrictions on protection from search and siezure?

Infringement, like many words, has a few different meanings, and should be looked at in context. The legal definition of Infringement, as is used in the Constitution, being a legal document, would be: *snip*

So when the Constitution talks about infringements, its not discussing whether or not you are bothered by an action, its discussing whether or not a law has been broken. Federal courts have determined that AWB's are not against the law. Therefore, an infringement has not taken place.

Actually, using that definition, violated. Not necessarily broken.

So you're just going to 100% trust the Supreme Court who are probably, as far as I've seen, biased as all hell, questionable, and don't act as a custodian of the law.

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 10:52 AM ----------

So what? A legislator wants to make it a class D felony to propose a bill, and all you have to say is so what? They are criminalizing gun control, something that the Supreme Court has ruled to be Constitutional. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer (though I did study Constitutional law), but I'm pretty sure you cannot criminalize something that the Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutional.

No, they ruled, as you said, "reasonable restrictions" as constitutional, not gun control.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Once again, the only group they're trying to police here are themselves. And they'd have the key to unlock said legislation later down the road. I don't see the problem here.

So when a Republican legislator attempts to criminalize something the United States Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutional, you don't see a problem. But when Obama supports constitutional legislation, you flip your shit. Makes sense.

[Sicarus]

So when a Republican legislator attempts to criminalize something the United States Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutional, you don't see a problem. But when Obama supports constitutional legislation, you flip your shit. Makes sense.

Constitutional legislation to what?

[starlord]

Funny that you want to talk about facts.

Fact: There are around 300 million firearms in the US and only 10k homicides by firearm per year. So less than 1 in 30k firearms is used in a shooting. And since many firearms are used in more than one homicide, the number of firearms used is even smaller.

Fact: The number of firearms in the US just keeps going up and up.

Fact: Homicide rates are half of what they were 20 years ago and at their lowest point in 40 years.

Soooo... fact: Even with more firearms than ever, deaths by guns are still reduced.

and yet the US death by firearm rate is only comparable to those of third world countries.

You're trying to compare the armed conflict of nations with someone who panics, gets mad, and/or makes a dumb decision to use a tool at their disposal to hurt another person? The difference in scope is huge. Militaries use firearms not just because they're the most effective tool, but also because they can guarantee that their opponent will be using them, too. If a random, mentally deficient individual makes a bad decision, he's usually doing so against someone who isn't capable of fighting back in kind, and therefore might just as easily choose to use a knife, a bat, or a car if there's no handy firearm to be found.

so why are guns needed by civilians then? untrained, uneducated civilians unlikely to ever encounter an armed soldier.

No. There's also the generally-understood cognizance that one act is murder and the other is self-defense. Morality is all about knowing the difference between right and wrong and not following the wrong course of action.

lots of people are murdered in "self defense". all the victim had to do was be scary to the other person.

Well, then, it sounds like you wouldn't be a very responsible teacher. It's a good thing most people don't think the same way as you.

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 02:15 AM ----------

Anyway, I'm off to bed for the night, so no more responses from me.

i was taught about guns, and to never ever point them at anything i was not comfortable killing. anyone who gets a gun "for self defense" is comfortable with killing another person, theres no getting around that.

[Deadvolcanoes]

So, how about a "reasonable" restriction on free speech, or "reasonable" restrictions on protection from search and siezure?

We have these. Welcome to the Constitution.

Actually, using that definition, violated. Not necessarily broken.

A violation of a law is the same thing as breaking the law...Are you even being serious?

So you're just going to 100% trust the Supreme Court who are probably, as far as I've seen, biased as all hell, questionable, and don't act as a custodian of the law.

And now we're delving into conspiracy theories. You don't have to trust them, you just have to listen to them. Of course you could do the opposite, but then you'd be shitting on the Constitution, the very document that gave you the right to bear arms. Your choice.

No, they ruled, as you said, "reasonable restrictions" as constitutional, not gun control.

You can't be serious here...

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 12:00 PM ----------

Constitutional legislation to what?

Ban assault weapons durrrrrrrrrrr?

[Sicarus]

and yet the US death by firearm rate is only comparable to those of third world countries.

Because other countries can't own guns like the U.S.

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 11:12 AM ----------

We have these. Welcome to the Constitution.

Point them out, yo.

A violation of a law is the same thing as breaking the law...Are you even being serious?

Well there are many definitions of violation you see.

And now we're delving into conspiracy theories. You don't have to trust them, you just have to listen to them. Of course you could do the opposite, but then you'd be shitting on the Constitution, the very document that gave you the right to bear arms. Your choice.

Totally conspiracy theories when you disagree with their decisions.

You can't be serious here...

Well how we interpret it is very crucial to our opinions and facts, y'know.

Ban assault weapons durrrrrrrrrrr?

OBAMA WANTS TO BAN GUNS!!!111ONE ZOMG BUT I THOUGHT HE WAS THE PRO-EST GUN PRESIDENT!

[Deleted]

You're severely over-estimating the courage the average person has. You're also severely under-estimating the time it takes to reload.

You're also making it sound like theater shootings and school shootings are happening every second of every second, when they're not, sure they might happen every week or so, but that really doesn't mean anything. If you'd actually take note, places that have the strictest gun control are the places being shot up.

Also I like how you made Obama shooting as your avatar as if that gives anything he has to say any credibility about his obvious policies towards guns, I can tell you three things wrong with that just by looking at it for a few seconds.

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 09:32 AM ----------



I like how everyone thinks the congress is supposed to work every second of every day, they're not, they're supposed to convene every so often, not get paid huge salaries for playing solitare and voting on every other bill.

And that's good, what he's done, if you actually read the amendments to The Constitution, you'll see these words on the Second Amendment, "shall not be infringed".

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 09:33 AM ----------



Have you ever had to take a life, Rich?

Unfortunately, yes. It is because of this I am so aghast that people consider property more important than a human life, shooting someone should be the last resort, not the first.

[FusedMass]

There's a difference between spending and wasting.

They're spending their time to pass one bill so that they don't have to waste their time not passing many other proposed bills.

Let's Propose a bill to ban anyone trying to pass a bill to cut spending. Sounds insane..that's because it is. It goes against the founding Fathers and they're intent for democracy to a bedrock foundation. Lets be honest. You're only for it because it has to directly do with Gun Control.

It's insane. That we would seriously consider a bill. That banned it being spoken or action on or another law would lock them in jail. This isn't China. If law's like that even worked in slightest. The Republicans would have passed several, numerous measures a long time ago. It will do nothing. You can pass a bill as long as you have majority in you're district

That doesn't mean a state law will pro bit federal law. When people seriously consider this. Not only that but have nothing against it. It just is an example of how extreme a person will go out of fear they're losing their weapons. Take a nice good look. Is this the poster image of democracy. In fact let's ban anyone who wants to cut any spending.

If they can do a bill anti new laws on guns. I'd say it's logical can do an anti cut spending bill. I mean it's exact same measure just applied to different situations.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Point them out, yo.

If you're unaware of the reasonable restrictions that we have on free speech then discussing the Constitution with you is an exercise in futility. I don't feel like educating you every step of the way just so you can keep up.

[starlord]

Because other countries can't own guns like the U.S.

right. other countries with laws as loose or looser than the US (or at least have unenforced ones) are comparable.
our gun owners are not "responsible" on the whole because they are not required to be, unlike most other first world countries.

[mrwingtipshoes]

Do not try to use the Jedi mind tricks on me. HuffPost is not biased.

Huffingpost is a known biased liberal news source and provides some incredibly one sided and articles. (not saying places like Fox News aren't biased the other way) Stop trying ot say they are not. on top of that you have the fact that your little group that you have posted things from already moveon is a liberal lobbyist group. So what is it then? One side may post from obviously biased sources but not the otherside may not? So you can stick your fingers in your ears when someone posts a non-liberal biased source?

Talk about head in the sand and willful ignorance.

[PhaelixWW]

So when a Republican legislator attempts to criminalize something the United States Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutional, you don't see a problem. But when Obama supports constitutional legislation, you flip your shit. Makes sense.

I'm sorry, when did I "flip my shit"? I think you have me confused with someone else.

And I think you're unclear on the concept of Constitutional law, here.

The SC only ruled that restrictions to the 2nd Amendment weren't unconstitutional, not that the ability to restrict the 2nd Amendment was a Constitutionally protected right. That's two completely different angles of the same topic, and if you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

If the Missouri legislature wants to make a self-governing law about the lawmaking process, it's within their ability to do so.

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 09:41 AM ----------

and yet the US death by firearm rate is only comparable to those of third world countries.

And there are a lot of other things that factor into that rate than simply firearm presence.

so why are guns needed by civilians then? untrained, uneducated civilians unlikely to ever encounter an armed soldier.

But they could potentially face an armed intruder. And with any other means of self-protection, the physical factor becomes a much larger difference.

lots of people are murdered in "self defense". all the victim had to do was be scary to the other person.

Lots of people may try to claim self-defense when murdering someone, but that doesn't mean that they believe that it was self-defense. The law already gives definitions of what is allowed and not allowed in self-defense. Like I said, it's not a carte blanche license to kill.

i was taught about guns, and to never ever point them at anything i was not comfortable killing. anyone who gets a gun "for self defense" is comfortable with killing another person, theres no getting around that.

No, you're just being obtuse. There are plenty of people who get a firearm who hope to everything they hold sacred to not have to have cause to use it. To say that they're "comfortable with killing another person" is a huge fucking straw-man.

[mrwingtipshoes]

I'm pretty sure even most of the pro-gun posters in this thread have admitted that shotguns are by far and away the best for home and self defense.

Of course I'm sure someone will take issue with it since it's Fused that posted it, and not for the content of it.

While yes I would for most people suggest a shotgun there are several problems with it. first off a double barrel is a TERRIBLE idea, low capacity, slow to reload and racking the slide of a pump scares most people away with out having to do anything else. Second off if you read the entire quote from him he told his wife to get a double barreled shot gun and shoot off both barrels at once....

WHAT?

How stupid are you? Double blast of 12 gauge isn't going to do anything but destroy some walls, is one shot, uncontrollable and there is no possible way to follow up with out having to break the gun and reload two barrels. Biden has also admited that an assault weapon ban will do nothing.

[Deadvolcanoes]

And I think you're unclear on the concept of Constitutional law, here.

The SC only ruled that restrictions to the 2nd Amendment weren't unconstitutional, not that the ability to restrict the 2nd Amendment was a Constitutionally protected right.

Where are you getting your information? Citation please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller --DC v Heller, the courts decided that the Second Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions.

If the Missouri legislature wants to make a self-governing law about the lawmaking process, it's within their ability to do so.

The Missouri legislature is attempting to criminalize something that has been ruled constitutional. If you're okay with that, then there's nothing more to discuss.

[PhaelixWW]

Let's Propose a bill to ban anyone trying to pass a bill to cut spending. Sounds insane..that's because it is. It goes against the founding Fathers and they're intent for democracy to a bedrock foundation. Lets be honest. You're only for it because it has to directly do with Gun Control.

Actually, I never said if I was for it or against it. I just said that there was no Constitutional block to them doing it. And you're right, it's not a permanent block because if the political climate in Missouri shifted, then the ban could be amended right back out of existence. But realistically, if they have the votes to pass this law, then they'd have the votes to stop any gun control legislation anyway, so the only real net effect of this bill would be to save some legislative time from wasted bill proposals.

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 09:52 AM ----------

Where are you getting your information? Citation please.

I don't have time to get into it at length as I'm running late to work, but just consider this: Something being allowed doesn't always mean that the opposite isn't allowed.

Basically, they said that the government had the power to put restrictions. If the government chooses to put restrictions on the restrictions, then that's within their power, too. It's not like some external party is telling the government that they can't do it.

[FusedMass]

Huffingpost is a known biased liberal news source and provides some incredibly one sided and articles. (not saying places like Fox News aren't biased the other way) Stop trying ot say they are not. on top of that you have the fact that your little group that you have posted things from already moveon is a liberal lobbyist group. So what is it then? One side may post from obviously biased sources but not the otherside may not? So you can stick your fingers in your ears when someone posts a non-liberal biased source?

Talk about head in the sand and willful ignorance.

Talk about talking about situations several pages back that has nothing to do with now. HuffPost is not biased against the Truth.

Example: Obama Golfed With Oil Men As Climate Protesters Descended On White House

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2719338.html

It's talking about Obama golfing with Big Oil Executives. If they were fully biased against the truth. They'd paint Obama as a savior to all mankind and delete or reject any articles about him. It has to pass the truth test. Fox News is least credible news source in history. That's not just me saying that records reflected accurate the dropping creditably around them.

HuffPost tells the truth. For the last time. Compare their articles and information against Fox News. And find out which is biased and which one tell's flat out lies then claim its the truth. Want an example..sure you do.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli...mas_india_trip

This story has spread rapidly among the president's critics, but there is simply no evidence to support it. And common sense should lead anyone to doubt it. For example, the entire U.S. war effort in Afghanistan currently costs less than that — about $5.7 billion per month, according to the Congressional Research Service, or roughly $190 million per day. How could a peaceful state visit cost more than a war?-Lie created by Fox News with virtually no proof and they pushed it as fact.

As far as Move On it's a resources for activists. Instead of depending on big corporations for millions of dollars in exchange for favors from Political People. It takes money from its members at a modest 5-10 dollars each(Not thousands in exchanges for favors). It's a community where people with same goals..aka common sense can contribute not just finically also petition letters to their senators.


Let's stop this bashing of Move On and stop using the word ignorant. It's lost all meaning by the time it's repeated. Let's for a change actually focus on my message today instead of a Liberal Group I said was associated with day's ago. Fact you'd look up past posts shows you have nothing credible to say for today.

Also to Poster above me. It matters not if all republicans filled all 50 states and were against the ban. If supreme court say's it's dangerous and unusual and bans them...it bans them in ALL states even with states that law's conflict with Federal. Federal One wins. Fact that some don't understand that the court is capable. (Not that it will) but is capable of doing this is baffling.

[Tinykong]

So what? A legislator wants to make it a class D felony to propose a bill, and all you have to say is so what? They are criminalizing gun control, something that the Supreme Court has ruled to be Constitutional. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer (though I did study Constitutional law), but I'm pretty sure you cannot criminalize something that the Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutional.

The proposed bill would make it a felony to propose further restrictions. It remains to be seen if the proposed AWB expansion will even pass, and further it those restrictions will be upheld. I'll side with no, since the firearms that would be restricted are a tiny fraction of gun violence, and the SCOTUS can separate hysteria and lunacy from real danger.

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 06:08 PM ----------

Let's Propose a bill to ban anyone trying to pass a bill to cut spending. Sounds insane..that's because it is. It goes against the founding Fathers and they're intent for democracy to a bedrock foundation. Lets be honest. You're only for it because it has to directly do with Gun Control.

Government spending has nothing to do with Constitionally protected rights. Fail analogy is fail.

[FusedMass]

The proposed bill would make it a felony to propose further restrictions. It remains to be seen if the proposed AWB expansion will even pass, and further it those restrictions will be upheld. I'll side with no, since the firearms that would be restricted are a tiny fraction of gun violence, and the SCOTUS can separate hysteria and lunacy from real danger.

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 06:08 PM ----------



Government spending has nothing to do with Constitionally protected rights. Fail analogy is fail.

You actually trying to either A: Convince people this can be done or B: Do not understand how laws work. You cannot ban law's anything against the founding fathers. In fact the Supreme court has yet to define what a Military Style Assault weapon is. There is a good reasons we cannot buy heat seeking missiles. Because we cannot use weapons that are outside of self defense. Till the Supreme Court defines this weapon either as safe or bans it. Then we know not if it's constitutional therefore may not even apply to weapons protected in our bill of rights.

I'd love to debate that Republicans could in theory push a law that throws ANYONE in jail who wants to create laws around things. But it's just not possible. Can you imagine seeing a Senator handcuffed and thrown in jail on a felony. I cannot because we have freedom of speech and that law would run counter productive to our free speech.

BTW Updated:

Universal Background Checks Backed By Republican Rep. Joe Heck

WASHINGTON -- The prospects of passing an important part of President Barack Obama's gun control agenda improved a bit on Tuesday when a House Republican announced his support for universal background checks for firearm purchases.

"I think the idea of background checks across the board, I'm not opposed to them," Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.) told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "And I disagree with people who say that this is going to be the first step to gun registration, which leads to gun confiscation. Look, about 40 percent of folks already undergo background checks when they get their guns. And that information is purged after a short period."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2725239.html

[Tinykong]

You actually trying to either A: Convince people this can be done or B: Do not understand how laws work. You cannot ban law's anything against the founding fathers. In fact the Supreme court has yet to define what a Military Style Assault weapon is. There is a good reasons we cannot buy heat seeking missiles. Because we cannot use weapons that are outside of self defense. Till the Supreme Court defines this weapon either as safe or bans it. Then we know not if it's constitutional therefore may not even apply to weapons protected in our bill of rights.

I'd love to debate that Republicans could in theory push a law that throws ANYONE in jail who wants to create laws around things. But it's just not possible. Can you imagine seeing a Senator handcuffed and thrown in jail on a felony. I cannot because we have freedom of speech and that law would run counter productive to our free speech.

You just regurgitated what I said: the expansion of the AWB hasn't been passed, or upheld by the SCOTUS, so until that point, complaining about a State wanting to prevent further bills and measures on it really doesn't mean anything.

We don't even know what the climate is in this situation, the State legislators might be dealing with constant talk about guns and such, and have other more important matters to deal with but can't because they are being inundated with calls from hysterial constituents on both sides of the issue, and they just want to get other things done. They don't work 9-5 Monday through Friday 52 weeks a year, they have a limited amount of time to accomplish whatever it is they want to accomplish, and this assault gun ban/control/restriction idiocy is just a giant waste of time and distraction.