Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Sicarus]

Reload time = Time to flee / Stop the shooter = less casualties.

It's not about stopping it completely it's about reducing the damage. The american people won't limit the freedom to prevent to shooting at theaters and schools, so the politicians take what they can get.

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 ----------

Further proof that Republicans are their own worst enemy when it comes to gun control:

http://www.businessinsider.com/misso...control-2013-2

Nothing could be more counterproductive than making a law which makes it illegal to make a law.

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 ----------

Thats the bit that worries me, too many people here have no idea how taking a life changes you.

Have you ever had to take a life, Rich?

[FusedMass]

Further proof that Republicans are their own worst enemy when it comes to gun control:

http://www.businessinsider.com/misso...control-2013-2



Nothing could be more counterproductive than making a law which makes it illegal to make a law.

Very interesting. The very reason officials elected into office to make laws. However a law making it a felony to create a law..I think some of the most passion filled protectors of right to bear arms are they're own worst foe. In cases against Federal Laws. You cannot make laws to create law's against those making Gun Control Bill.

Even if you could and in a misguided attempt it passed. Federal law still goes over state. Just like how people in Washington by their state laws is legal to have a certain amount of weed on them. If Federal Gov wanted to they could raid people in the street. Because their is a certain clause says Federal trumps State. In cases of extreme disagreement the Supreme court will hear the matter.

I do not see this ending any other way then supreme court. Even if laws are passed just like with Affordable Health Care act they will take it to the Supreme court. It's their choice to ban assault weapons or not. Whatever they decide it likely will be upheld. The closest they got to this case was striking down the ban on some hand guns because that's classified as self defense.

However they refused to look at assault weapons if they are dangerous and unusual weapon. If so it would fall outside the right to self defend yourself. Therefore falls outside of right to bear arms..Furthermore it would not.. infringe on peoples rights. If people can't agree that's where I see the case going.

[Grizzly Willy]

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".

The Supreme Court fills that role. Making it illegal to make a law that is unconstitutional is overstepping the powers granted to the legislative branch.

[GreatOak]

Very interesting. The very reason officials elected into office to make laws. However a law making it a felony to create a law..I think some of the most passion filled protectors of right to bear arms are they're own worst foe. In cases against Federal Laws. You cannot make laws to create law's against those making Gun Control Bill.

Even if you could and in a misguided attempt it passed. Federal law still goes over state. Just like how people in Washington by their state laws is legal to have a certain amount of weed on them. If Federal Gov wanted to they could raid people in the street. Because their is a certain clause says Federal trumps State. In cases of extreme disagreement the Supreme court will hear the matter.

I do not see this ending any other way then supreme court. Even if laws are passed just like with Affordable Health Care act they will take it to the Supreme court. It's their choice to ban assault weapons or not. Whatever they decide it likely will be upheld. The closest they got to this case was striking down the ban on some hand guns because that's classified as self defense.

However they refused to look at assault weapons if they are dangerous and unusual weapon. If so it would fall outside the right to self defend yourself. Therefore falls outside of right to bear arms..Furthermore it would not.. infringe on peoples rights. If people can't agree that's where I see the case going.

The ban won't pass so we won't even have to entertain the thought.

[Deadvolcanoes]

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 solitaire and voting on every other bill.

What does this have to do with anything that I posted. Answer: absolutely nothing.

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."

And the United States Supreme Court, the body whose job it is to interpret the Constitution, as stated in the Constitution, has decided that the Second Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. I don't know how many times that has to be said in order for you to actually comprehend it.

Background checks are not infringements, age-of-use laws are not infringements, even assault weapon bans are not infringements. In order for something to be an infringement it must break a law, and federal courts have determined that they do not.

[PhaelixWW]

Further proof that Republicans are their own worst enemy when it comes to gun control:

http://www.businessinsider.com/misso...control-2013-2



Nothing could be more counterproductive than making a law which makes it illegal to make a law.

Uh.

I refer you to the Bill of Rights, which... you know... is all about which kind of laws the government can't make.

So is the Constitution counterproductive?

[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.

No i'm not underestimating anything. I'm accepting that Biden+Obama can't change anything to big because the army of rednecks still believing that carrying guns is the only way, if they were to purpose a complete gun ban the republicans would take over the entire government next time around, they don't want that. So they can't outright ban guns (which is what any sensable democrat actually wants), so they take what they can get. They take many small steps instead of just leaping to the finish line. In this case they think they can away with limited magazine sizes to increase time for people to escape. Most people that do these mass shootings ain't expert reloaders, they might not even know how to reload it. Also if they stole the weapon from someone without a magazine their potential deathtoll goes down. 5 deaths isn't as big a deal as 15. The laws they proposed have nothing to do with stopping general crime, almost nobody fires more than 10 bullets before the conflict has ended and someone is on the run.

America doesn't have any effective gun control, the places that have gun control laws are all cursed with it's inefficiency, since illegal guns are everywhere, because the illegal guns simply cross over from legal areas very easily. You need federal laws mandating the same rules for all states, not this bullshit where you can drive across a county/state boarder (that is no more than a sign), buy a gun and return.

As for my avatar i'm fully aware of what is happening in the picture.

[Tinykong]

Further proof that Republicans are their own worst enemy when it comes to gun control:

http://www.businessinsider.com/misso...control-2013-2



Nothing could be more counterproductive than making a law which makes it illegal to make a law.

What does this have to do with Congressional Republicans? They are State legislators, and if they want to pass a law that says their representatives can't involve themselves in helping the Federal government restrict Constitutional rights, so what?

States taking a stand against the Federal government is fully within their powers.

Also, the proposed bill would make it a felony to propose the legislation, perhaps they don't want their time wasted with countless frivolous bills about gun control and would rather focus on pertinent local matters. You know, the logical thing to do, since the type of gun violence that would be stopped by the proposed AWB is completely blown out of proportion.

[FusedMass]

The ban won't pass so we won't even have to entertain the thought.

Again you're mixing you're own personal point of view with actual facts. When Obama Care (Affordable Health Care Act) was being decided. Fox News claimed it would never ever in a million years passed. However they were gravely mistaken. The fact you think you can predict the outcome of a supreme court choice. from you're arm chair dismissing it as not an issue.

Just reminds me how disconnected from reality people wish to be. I'll explain it one last time. Obama passes Gun Control Bill to ban assault weapons predictably it causes an unrest against Republicans who say it's unconstitutional (Exact words they used in ObamaCare) the court then gets the case and hears all sides either decides it can be used for self defense.

Or if it's dangerous and unusual therefore not protected by right to bear arms. Therefore does not infringe on your rights. I know you dislike the idea of them banning those weapons. But in truth you could at least speak with sincerity about chances of the court taking the case. You're dismissing logic and reality by removing the idea they would ever take up the case and Continue with the ban.

How hard is that to really understand. Repeat it a million times they will never ban them. The only people who know that for certain are the people sitting in supreme court justice. An example for over six months we never knew fate Of ObamaCare unlike with other Depts. Supreme court do not have leaks.

[PhaelixWW]

The Supreme Court fills that role. Making it illegal to make a law that is unconstitutional is overstepping the powers granted to the legislative branch.

It's not overstepping powers, because the only people they're regulating are themselves. Ultimately, of course, the SC would have to decide if the law was constitutional or not, but in the absence of a precedent, it's within the assembly's power to pass such a law.

[Tinykong]

Again you're mixing you're own personal point of view with actual facts. When Obama Care (Affordable Health Care Act) was being decided. Fox News claimed it would never ever in a million years passed. However they were gravely mistaken.

To be fair, it only passed because it was strong armed through Congress using very questionable tactics. That isn't to say both sides don't do that all the time, but it certainly didn't pass in a land slide, it was a single party vote.

[PhaelixWW]

No i'm not underestimating anything. I'm accepting that Biden+Obama can't change anything to big because the army of rednecks still believing that carrying guns is the only way, if they were to purpose a complete gun ban the republicans would take over the entire government next time around, they don't want that. So they can't outright ban guns (which is what any sensable democrat actually wants), so they take what they can get.

I'm sorry, are you from Denmark and trying to paint all Republicans as rednecks carrying guns and all Democrats as wanting to ban all guns?

[FusedMass]

To be fair, it only passed because it was strong armed through Congress using very questionable tactics. That isn't to say both sides don't do that all the time, but it certainly didn't pass in a land slide, it was a single party vote.

Really. The person who made the deciding vote. Whom everyone thought was going to vote with Republicans. He was pointed by Bush to be a supreme court justice. He was against it at first. Then he changed his vote to for it. He was a republican to the core. He's the one who enabled it to pass. There are not party lines in supreme court.

Unlike Politicians they do not always vote along party lines. It wasn't strong armed. They had a hearing on it. In the hearing someone from CNN called it a train wreck on top of a plane wreck claimed the hearing was so disastrous no way it was passed. He was incorrect as well as many other people are about if the Ban would pass or not. No one know's.

Those claim they do know are lying because unlike Congress. Supreme courts normally not influenced by politics.

[PhaelixWW]

Again you're mixing you're own personal point of view with actual facts. When Obama Care (Affordable Health Care Act) was being decided. Fox News claimed it would never ever in a million years passed. However they were gravely mistaken. The fact you think you can predict the outcome of a supreme court choice. from you're arm chair dismissing it as not an issue.

Just reminds me how disconnected from reality people wish to be.

Look in the mirror. You've been doing the exact. same. thing.

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 08:11 AM ----------

Those claim they do know are lying because unlike Congress. Supreme courts normally not influenced by politics.

His point was that the SCOTUS doesn't even enter into it unless the ban passes in Congress. If the ban doesn't pass (which has everything to do with Congressional politics), then the SCOTUS can't rule on it.

[Deleted]

I'm sorry, are you from Denmark and trying to paint all Republicans as rednecks carrying guns and all Democrats as wanting to ban all guns?

No? But I will say that the majority of rednecks are republicans and the majority of anti-gun people are democrats if that's what you're looking for, but there are democratic rednecks and a few anti-gun republicans to. The problem I was trying to point out is that gun loving crowd are so enthusiastic about their guns that they will set aside other key factors to overthrow the current administration for another administration that will give them back their guns.

[FusedMass]

Look in the mirror. You've been doing the exact. same. thing.

No I'm not. I'm accepted the reality the ban may not pass. While some have rejected the case would either go to the supreme court or it would pass. As I said in my earlier post. No one Knows Look I can bold letters also.

I accepted the reality these weapons CAN be banned. I also accepted it's the court's choice if they decide not to ban it. I'm also not claiming to know the outcome of either situations. The people I respond to have it in their minds the court will never ever accept a ban. That's their own personal view with actual reality.

You do see the difference I hope

[Felya]

Also, the proposed bill would make it a felony to propose the legislation, perhaps they don't want their time wasted with countless frivolous bills about gun control and would rather focus on pertinent local matters. You know, the logical thing to do, since the type of gun violence that would be stopped by the proposed AWB is completely blown out of proportion.

They are wasting time to pass a bill, so they don't have to waste time passing a bill?

[Sicarus]

What does this have to do with anything that I posted. Answer: absolutely nothing.

Maybe this part, but I guess everything must be explained to you.

Nothing could be more counterproductive than making a law which makes it illegal to make a law.

And the United States Supreme Court, the body whose job it is to interpret the Constitution, as stated in the Constitution, has decided that the Second Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. I don't know how many times that has to be said in order for you to actually comprehend it.

Background checks are not infringements, age-of-use laws are not infringements, even assault weapon bans are not infringements. In order for something to be an infringement it must break a law, and federal courts have determined that they do not.

Except "reasonable restrictions" can be interpreted in one way or another, you'd know that, since obviously the way you interpret something is how it should be, instead of the literal meaning.

I've never said background checks or age-resctrictions aren't infringements, but based on the definition of "infringe" they are. Assault weapons bans ARE infringements, as you're taking them away from my possession. Obviously, you don't know the definition of "infringed".

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 10:29 AM ----------

No i'm not underestimating anything. I'm accepting that Biden+Obama can't change anything to big because the army of rednecks still believing that carrying guns is the only way, if they were to purpose a complete gun ban the republicans would take over the entire government next time around, they don't want that. So they can't outright ban guns (which is what any sensable democrat actually wants), so they take what they can get. They take many small steps instead of just leaping to the finish line.

I don't even know how any of this has anything to do with anything I said to you.

In this case they think they can away with limited magazine sizes to increase time for people to escape. Most people that do these mass shootings ain't expert reloaders, they might not even know how to reload it.

That's misinformation, in gun-free zones, like Aurora, the guy got off 70+ rounds.

Also if they stole the weapon from someone without a magazine their potential deathtoll goes down. 5 deaths isn't as big a deal as 15. The laws they proposed have nothing to do with stopping general crime, almost nobody fires more than 10 bullets before the conflict has ended and someone is on the run.

15 deaths isn't even a big deal at all. It's sad, it's tragic, it's life, it's death. I really doubt somebody is going to steal something from someone, and only take half of it.

America doesn't have any effective gun control, the places that have gun control laws are all cursed with it's inefficiency, since illegal guns are everywhere, because the illegal guns simply cross over from legal areas very easily. You need federal laws mandating the same rules for all states, not this bullshit where you can drive across a county/state boarder (that is no more than a sign), buy a gun and return.

Federal laws would be illegal. The power resides within the states.

As for my avatar i'm fully aware of what is happening in the picture.

Are you, though?

[PhaelixWW]

They are wasting time to pass a bill, so they don't have to waste time passing a bill?

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.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Uh.

I refer you to the Bill of Rights, which... you know... is all about which kind of laws the government can't make.

So is the Constitution counterproductive?

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

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. That's bat shit crazy. He might as well just put his fingers in his ears and yell "LALALALA not listening."

What does this have to do with Congressional Republicans?

I never said anything about Congressional Republicans, so pretty much nothing.

They are State legislators, and if they want to pass a law that says their representatives can't involve themselves in helping the Federal government restrict Constitutional rights, so what?

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.

States taking a stand against the Federal government is fully within their powers.

And the Federal Government telling the States to fuck off with their unconstitutional laws is well within their powers.

---------- Post added 2013-02-20 at 11:38 AM ----------

Except "reasonable restrictions" can be interpreted in one way or another, you'd know that, since obviously the way you interpret something is how it should be, instead of the literal meaning.

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.

I've never said background checks or age-resctrictions aren't infringements, but based on the definition of "infringe" they are. Assault weapons bans ARE infringements, as you're taking them away from my possession. Obviously, you don't know the definition of "infringed"

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:

In a legal context, an infringement refers to the violation of a law or a right. -wiki

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.