Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[obdigore]

This is incorrect. I have no idea where you got the impression that it's somehow a "States VS Federal" issue.

It's to keep guns in the hands of the populace to ensure the government works for and fears the common people, rather than the opposite. (as it is today)

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe

Maybe you were taught that it was written for the defense of the nation from foreign entities, it WAS intended to make sure the government did not enslave the people - and the writers had just finished fighting a war against this.

Sorry, I was taught the same drivel you were. That isn't the interpretation of the second amendment until 2008. I've already posted it in this thread multiple times, with SC statements and decisions that utterly support what I said. The second was never meant to prevent the states or cities from regulating or restricting firearms, and was written ONLY to protect the federal government from doing it, as noted multiple times over the ~200 years of case history, until 2008, as I already noted.

[SirRobin]

But you refuse to address any points brought up in the posts you quote then snip everything out of, so why quote or respond in the first place, except to tell the person they are dumb and you aren't going to respond, when you literally just did. Kind of what you just said to me.

It is clear you have no reasonable response to SirRobin, why can't you just admit that? It isn't hard, you can quote one of his posts, snip out everything you want, and say 'I have no reasonable response to you, Sir, so I'm not going to respond to anything you say, Sir.'.

Kind of like what you are doing now, only quite a bit more honest.

Well thank you.

I think the biggest problem for some of them is that I don't actually have an ax to grind, so to speak, and I do actually have some experience with the subject. So the usual traps have no effect on me. It also means I come at them from directions that, like legal gun owners and legal weapons being the problem, most are quite frankly not prepared to internalize. When you don't get an answer convenient enough to accept or easy enough to discount? Well the response usually ends up being that they just quit responding.

---------- Post added 2012-12-25 at 11:10 PM ----------

Sorry, I was taught the same drivel you were. That isn't the interpretation of the second amendment until 2008. I've already posted it in this thread multiple times, with SC statements and decisions that utterly support what I said. The second was never meant to prevent the states or cities from regulating or restricting firearms, and was written ONLY to protect the federal government from doing it, as noted multiple times over the ~200 years of case history, until 2008, as I already noted.

Yep and it also helps, in my opinion, to not only read the 2nd Amendment, but to read the iterations that lead up to it as well.

[Daerio]

Sorry, I was taught the same drivel you were. That isn't the interpretation of the second amendment until 2008. I've already posted it in this thread multiple times, with SC statements and decisions that utterly support what I said. The second was never meant to prevent the states or cities from regulating or restricting firearms, and was written ONLY to protect the federal government from doing it, as noted multiple times over the ~200 years of case history, until 2008, as I already noted.

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?" - Richard Henry Lee

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" - Samuel Adams

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

These are quotes from the forefathers, not from 2008. There are more you can easily find yourself. They aren't talking about FOREIGN ENTITIES invading and taking over, "and that's why we should be armed." They're talking about OUR CONGRESS. That is why we have the 2nd amendment. Not the nonsense you're talking about.

The wording is "militia", which could just as easily mean "the people rising up against the tyrannical government," which is exactly what I'm talking about. If you're arguing that "militia" can't mean "the common citizen", well - that's semantics, and it's incorrect.

[mrwingtipshoes]

So can anyone define for me what an "Assault weapon" is? Why it is different from an "Assault Rifle" and tell me a single military that uses a semi-auto as their main side arm? I'll give you a hint, mouth breathing gun-tards that call their plastic covered, civilian semi-autos "Assault rifles" are wrong.

If he used only a hand gun. There would people STILL alive because you have to reload and you cant shoot the same number of bullets from a hand gun as from an AK-15. As for the President I do not think he mis spoke. I think he was VERY clear about his intentions. He called it a Military Assault Rifle. When I look the meaning it says assault rifle even store owners are boasting about their Assault rifles.

Bullshit.

I have been shooting since i was 8 and speedshoot pins during the summer for fun and competition. I can load a Browning hi-power with a 15 round clip +1 in the chamber, drop the clip on the 15th shot and reload the gun in 2 seconds and have another 15 rounds. I can do this flawlessly 4 or 5 times in a row while hitting bowling pins, accurately, at 20 yards.

It seems there is a problem with your argument. The biggest one being that i can do this faster with a 9mm handgun than i can do it with a .223 rifle even though the rifle has a clip with double the number of rounds. I use an AR15 to pop metal silhouettes at 100 yards, not shoot or reload fast.

[obdigore]

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?" - Richard Henry Lee

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" - Samuel Adams

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

These are quotes from the forefathers, not from 2008. There are more you can easily find yourself. They aren't talking about FOREIGN ENTITIES invading and taking over, "and that's why we should be armed." They're talking about OUR CONGRESS. That is why we have the 2nd amendment. Not the nonsense you're talking about.

The wording is "militia", which could just as easily mean "the people rising up against the tyrannical government," which is exactly what I'm talking about. If you're arguing that "militia" can't mean "the common citizen", well - that's semantics, and it's incorrect.

/yawn. Your arguments are old and tired, and ignoring case law and fact. Do you also say we should disband the standing military? Do you HONESTLY think that if the standing military sided with the government your small arms fire would have any chance of rebellion? Anyone who claims small arms are going to give them teh power to stand up to the 'big bad government' is delusional, in my eyes.

[SirRobin]

So can anyone define for me what an "Assault weapon" is?

Sure, assault weapon, assault rifle, semiautomatic rifle. Assault weapon is also often brought up in relation to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

The term, assault weapon, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic).

It seems there is a problem with your argument. The biggest one being that i can do this faster with a 9mm handgun than i can do it with a .223 rifle even though the rifle has a clip with double the number of rounds. I use an AR15 to pop metal silhouettes at 100 yards, not shoot or reload fast.

Which is why I reference semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic pistols as being a problem. Not just semiautomatic rifles. We should also not discount the psychological effect of an assault weapon. The ego-boost, so to speak, which can help further build the wacko's confidence.

[Daerio]

/yawn. Your arguments are old and tired, and ignoring case law and fact. Do you also say we should disband the standing military? Do you HONESTLY think that if the standing military sided with the government your small arms fire would have any chance of rebellion? Anyone who claims small arms are going to give them teh power to stand up to the 'big bad government' is delusional, in my eyes.

When Should You Shoot a Cop? - This is a pretty good video describing the indoctrination you're talking about.

Realistically, the police and military could, and probably should side with the people. If it really came down to a revolution, the people overthrowing the government (which happens all the time, and was something our forefathers believed in very deeply) - the police force and military ARE part of the common people. Would a military-trained marine really shoot his mother, his brother, because he was ordered to? Well, they're certainly working on instilling that level of following orders, but I don't think we're there yet, thankfully.

The people don't need to "beat" the police or military. I think it's delusional to think that.

[obdigore]

Realistically, the police and military could, and probably should side with the people. If it really came down to a revolution, the people overthrowing the government (which happens all the time, and was something our forefathers believed in very deeply) - the police force and military ARE part of the common people. Would a military-trained marine really shoot his mother, his brother, because he was ordered to? Well, they're certainly working on instilling that level of following orders, but I don't think we're there yet, thankfully.

The people don't need to "beat" the police or military. I think it's delusional to think that.

So, we seem to agree that the second amendment is to prevent the federal government (judging by your quotes) from preventing the people from obtaining weapons should they so choose. Supreme Court supports that (well, reasonable weapons), and before 2008 it was ONLY a brake on the federal government. The second was never incorporated into the fourteenth, but somehow in 2008 it was decided by the SC that neither states nor cities could regulate against firearms.

[Daerio]

So, we seem to agree that the second amendment is to prevent the federal government (judging by your quotes) from preventing the people from obtaining weapons should they so choose. Supreme Court supports that (well, reasonable weapons), and before 2008 it was ONLY a brake on the federal government. The second was never incorporated into the fourteenth, but somehow in 2008 it was decided by the SC that neither states nor cities could regulate against firearms.

Didn't watch the video I linked, didn't respond. (no surprise there)

So you're saying as long as the states choose to ignore the 2nd amendment, it's "OK" - the 2nd amendment only prevents the FEDERAL government from disarming the populace - As long as we're creating loopholes in the constitution, no problem. Well, that certainly doesn't address anything I, or the forefathers were talking about. We certainly don't seem to agree on anything, and I personally think you're crazy. Bah bah sheep.

[obdigore]

Didn't watch the video I linked, didn't respond. (no surprise there)

So you're saying as long as the states choose to ignore the 2nd amendment, it's "OK" - the 2nd amendment only prevents the FEDERAL government from disarming the populace - As long as we're creating loopholes in the constitution, no problem. Well, that certainly doesn't address anything I, or the forefathers were talking about. We certainly don't seem to agree on anything, and I personally think you're crazy. Bah bah sheep.

No, I didn't watch a youtube video about shooting police.

And yes, the second amendment was ONLY to stop the federal government from preventing states from being able to arm/train militias. As noted, it was NEVER incorporated into a personal right using the fourteenth, nor was it ever seen as a brake upon state or city governments, until the judicial activision by scalia in 2008.

But please, call me a sheep because I discuss facts and history instead of youtube videos about when to shoot police.

[Daerio]

No, I didn't watch a youtube video about shooting police.

It's a pretty good video, I didn't expect you to watch it - it doesn't agree with your viewpoint, so you ignore it, as I'm sure you do most things.

[PhaelixWW]

Or the handguns in question are semiautomatics too. I know... Gosh darn those inconvenient little details, right?

Inconvenient for whom, exactly? As far as I can tell, you're the only one talking about semi-automatic firearms as a whole. This thread is about the proposed renewal of an assault weapons ban, not a semi-automatic weapons ban. The only time I bring up semi-automatic weapons is to point out the hypocrisy of banning so-called "assault weapons" while not banning the similarly effective but untouched semi-automatic rifles.

I don't know of any politician who is seriously contemplating a semi-automatic rifle ban, let alone a ban on all semi-automatic firearms. Probably because there's no chance in hell of such a ban passing. The only thing the politicians seem interested in going after are what they've decided to call "assault weapons", simply because they can use the fact that they look scary to drum up the support they need. The data, however, does not support the idea that these assault weapons are inherently more dangerous than other types of firearms.

And for the record, there have been more mass killings from non-semi-automatic firearms than from assault weapons. So... yeah.

Seriously guys, could you at least try policing yourselves or something? You are not leaving the rest of us much choice.

Police yourselves? So now every gun-owner is to blame for the 1 in 100,000 that manages to get or steal a firearm and then go do something tragic? How about you just blame the crazy gunman?

[obdigore]

It's a pretty good video, I didn't expect you to watch it - it doesn't agree with your viewpoint, so you ignore it, as I'm sure you do most things.

Protip for you, Deario, youtube videos aren't factual nor are they generally used in any kind of debate. If you are going to ignore Supreme Court decisions stating that the second amendment is only a brake upon the federal government, such as United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), or Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), or even United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) showing that the Federal Government can ban weapons that have no real use in the training or arming of a militia, that is your problem.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

When Should You Shoot a Cop? - This is a pretty good video describing the indoctrination you're talking about.

Realistically, the police and military could, and probably should side with the people. If it really came down to a revolution, the people overthrowing the government (which happens all the time, and was something our forefathers believed in very deeply) - the police force and military ARE part of the common people. Would a military-trained marine really shoot his mother, his brother, because he was ordered to? Well, they're certainly working on instilling that level of following orders, but I don't think we're there yet, thankfully.

The people don't need to "beat" the police or military. I think it's delusional to think that.

So far I'm about 2.5 minutes into the video and so far it's extremely one-sided. So far it's cited examples of military oppression, not police oppression. It also uses probably intentionally provocative language stating that the world would be a better place of there were more cop killers.

Pretty much the guy seems to be against cops entirely, calling them gang members, fascists, etc. Watching further, despite making some good points, he doesn't seem to understand the purpose of a lot of laws.

[wowaccounttom]

like everything else in the country, something is overblown out of proportion.


should they have waited till a bunch of kids got shot at, along with those firefighters? no

should there be a law enforcing gun control like there was before? yes

[Daerio]

Protip for you, Deario, youtube videos aren't factual nor are they generally used in any kind of debate. If you are going to ignore Supreme Court decisions stating that the second amendment is only a brake upon the federal government, such as United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), or Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), or even United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) showing that the Federal Government can ban weapons that have no real use in the training or arming of a militia, that is your problem.

Protip obdigore, before commenting about readily available material, perhaps you should actually look at it first. It's hard to claim something isn't factual without looking at it first. Just because it 'generally isn't used in any kind of debate' - well, this isn't really a debate. It's just well put together video segment that describes people like yourself who are entirely unwilling to challenge authority in any form, no matter what the authority may be willing to do to you.

The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd amendment) was added to the Constitution in 1791. The 14th amendment was in 1868 - 77 years later. Unfortunately, our forefathers had nothing to do with it, nor any of the other court rulings that you're talking about.

The discussion was, "Why was the 2nd amendment created in the first place?" You're talking about "How have lawyers been distorting it for 220 years to get to the point where they could overturn it?"

As I said, the 2nd amendment was created, by our forefathers, to protect the people from our own government. That's fact. That's also what you're trying to ignore, and "will away" by saying, "100 years later, states COULD ignore the 2nd amendment, that was only written for the FEDERAL government!"

So far I'm about 2.5 minutes into the video and so far it's extremely one-sided. So far it's cited examples of military oppression, not police oppression. It also uses probably intentionally provocative language stating that the world would be a better place of there were more cop killers.

Pretty much the guy seems to be against cops entirely, calling them gang members, fascists, etc. Watching further, despite making some good points, he doesn't seem to understand the purpose of a lot of laws.

And in most of the video, he's talking about Nazi Germany and Fascist China, along with other examples. I feel like you're only listening to what you want to hear.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Protip obdigore, before commenting about readily available material, perhaps you should actually look at it first. It's hard to claim something isn't factual without looking at it first. Just because it 'generally isn't used in any kind of debate' - well, this isn't really a debate. It's just well put together video segment that describes people like yourself who are entirely unwilling to challenge authority in any form, no matter what the authority may be willing to do to you.

The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd amendment) was added to the Constitution in 1791. The 14th amendment was in 1868 - 77 years later. Unfortunately, our forefathers had nothing to do with it, nor any of the other court rulings that you're talking about.

The discussion was, "Why was the 2nd amendment created in the first place?" You're talking about "How have lawyers been distorting it for 220 years to get to the point where they could overturn it?"

As I said, the 2nd amendment was created, by our forefathers, to protect the people from our own government. That's fact. That's also what you're trying to ignore, and "will away" by saying, "100 years later, states COULD ignore the 2nd amendment, that was only written for the FEDERAL government!"

Do you really think you could stop the federal government from oppressing you?

[Grizzly Willy]

Do you really think you could stop the federal government from oppressing you?

The general response to this question is that they wouldn't attack and kill members of the government, but the unarmed and innocent civilians that support said government. You know, like real freedom fighters.

[Dillon]

Penn & Teller separate militia and people when they are not actually separate. They are actually one in the same as shown by the early versions like "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." The militia is the people. The people is the militia.

Might want to note, also, that the Luby's Massacre was committed by George Hennard who legally owned both of the semiautomatic weapons he used to commit that crime. So, yes, another mass shooting committed not by hardened criminals who illegally acquired their firearms but by a legal gun owner instead. That's the tragedy that one woman lost her parents in.

Now I do agree that you can't stop insane people. What you can do is minimize their body counts by restricting their access to the kinds of firearms that let them puff up their body counts.

I don't disagree with your observation that Penn and Teller paused with dramatic effect between the clauses to further their argument. I don't agree with their decision to do so, I might add.

But, in the next portion of your contention, acknowledging the truthfulness of the fact that "the militia" is comprised of the people, and in the reverse, I don't feel that is an argument against a personal right to bear arms. Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your argument, but if anything I think this contention indeed furthers an enumerated personal right to arms.

Continuing to your next contention (or is it simply a statement?), referring to the Luby's Massacre. If someone legally obtained a weapon, that doesn't stop them from using it illegally. Personally, I don't see this as a valid argument, what, that legal gun owners can be criminals too? Murder is illegal, independent of the legality of other activities the person in question may have been up to. Unless I'm missing the point completely of what you said, I see no causation here.

With your last statement, I literally cannot agree more, and have little else to say. Also, I thank you for and value your civility, especially since...

I find it very interesting. A person with an avatar mocking Obama in a hat with a beard might think I did something to create a new low. To be a hundred percent sincere Timmy McVeigh actually that did happen. You can Google the local listing for that program that was on last night. It was a two hour espoide about his entire life with recording that he did that explained WHY he did what he did and what went through his mind. Nothing I said about him was made up and I hardly think I'm losing the debate.

People are being murdered last night. Two Firemen and One Police Officer. 20 Children were murdered a few weeks ago. And Obama has promised to push new bills into congress with help of Joe Biden. I hardly think I'm losing anything. I simply repeated what I saw on TV. Just because it did not favor your argument doesn't fit the bill that I see myself as losing.

You do understand regardless of their name. Bush did the exact same thing Obama did. He traced the guns. He started the operation. True Obama had the name changed but it was the exact same operation.

I see no purpose to mock anything, except the very mockable indeed. I would say that nothing could be intellectually gained from mocking the president, however who am I to say what others cannot glean valuable knowledge, to them, from truly anything at all. That is to say, my intentions were not to "mock" Obama, as you put it. I found it humorous and cool, so I used it as an avatar; and indeed, what relevance would me mocking Obama even have to this debate, or even my avatar itself, and my avatar to this debate? And, I might add, no one is immune, and nor should they be sir, or ma'am, from mockery, especially those with political relevance, and to suggest it would be something I must disagree with on its most fundamental level.

Your comparison of Seran to McVeigh is very much indeed to be grasping at straws, showing nothing real to add to a debate of any kind except to personally attack your opponent through the means of demonizing their character by implying they are "disturbingly similar" to an individual many find to be loathsome and insane.

In addition to all of this, you restate terribly unfortunate events as if it somehow advanced your argument in a legitimate fashion, let alone any argument, and then you redirect to Bush (someone I find particularly loathsome).

[Daerio]

Do you really think you could stop the federal government from oppressing you?

I don't understand - you comment about the video I posted, but didn't read the post it came from? I already addressed this. It's post #4248. The same one with the video link.

I don't think that it's impossible for an American revolution. Revolution happens all the time, in a lot of ways - some non-violent, or with very little violence. I don't think that America is somehow special, or different than a thousand other civilizations that have existed in the history of the world. I think it's a little crazy to think that. Again, there's some mention of this in that video you disliked due to 'language.'