Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

cool, this stuff has its own thread now?

[Sicarus]

So now we'll just leap over to false equivalencies.

Fallacies: gotta catch 'em all!

So you're just going to keep pretending because I used a hypothetical situation, that I'm wrong, okay brosideon.

[Xanjori]

cool, this stuff has its own thread now?

Yes, and is very difficult to unsubscribe from >.<

[tombstoner139]

There are issue with our current gun control regulations and whats happening is the knee jerk reaction of a bunch of people ceasing upon an issue for there own personal gain.

both sides of the argument bring valid points for discussion. but nothing in this or any other bill will prevent the next mass shooting.

[Sicarus]

Maybe they feel there's no reason for civilians to be owning semi-auto rifles.

Maybe, maybe not, I'm not confirming either so don't get on me about that, BUT, it's a right guaranteed to us by the same document that allows you to say whatever you want, practice whatever religion you want, be able to remain silent (which you should practice, :P), and other equally awesome rights guaranteed to us by the amazing thing called Liberty.

[GreatOak]

Maybe they feel there's no reason for civilians to be owning semi-auto rifles.

Then they should say that instead of making themselves look stupid. Assault Weapons are semi automatic rifles like the rest of them and are not noticeably more lethal.

[Bryntrollian]

Maybe they feel there's no reason for civilians to be owning semi-auto rifles.

Thats the fucking problem. The Assault Weapons ban merely covered those rifles along with any handgun with a detachable magazine .

[Kasierith]

The Supreme Court was not only wrong, but against The Constitution.

I think you should research the most basic, simple concepts of your country's political structure before you continue talking about it.

[Reeve]

And what you don't see, is that the right to bear arms IS in The Constitution, it's a paradox if something written in The Constitution goes against the Constitution, so therefore, they can't determine that something naturally within itself, goes against it.

I think you need to use your brain place more often. :/

While the right to bear arms is considered a legal right in the United States, it's not an unalienable right, or a natural right, or a human right.

And the text of the constitution places that right within the boundaries of a well-regulated militia, so if you want unrestricted access to firearms, join the National Guard (state militia).

[FusedMass]

Lol? So now you're accusing me of being someone else. Okay.

I said you only watch those two networks, because it's quite obvious you do.

Yeah that bolded sentence makes no sense what so ever, you worded that so poorly.

You claim MSNBC and CNN are Liberal Biased networks. Then I pointed out quotes to Ronald Regan a beloved Republican and you dismiss him as a RINO (There is simply no getting through to you) If you claim media networks are biased even republicans are biased. I guess you're the only person who is unbiased and sole decider on who is a REAL Republican.

It boils down not to party but human beings. Common sense gun laws like background checks even that which have overwhelmingly support you deny. I see you prefer live in a stage of denial. These people I call Gun Fanatics because they do not reflect a majority of responsible gun owners.

"If there are gun laws enforced and you commit a murder because of that."

That has absolutely no correlation with the previous paragraph, so, what?

What

The guests on Piers Morgan don't "rant" about them, they raise their voice because Piers Morgan is, as I said before, shouting at them like a rabid shit-eating dog.

No, the fact that you've been proven wrong so many times makes you invalid. So, I'm just doing the thing you're doing, repeating it. But you're not going to get the message because you actually believe guns are the problem.

No he ranted. Even Gun Owners were silently wondering what the heck when that man went on national TV screaming like a rapid animal off the leash not letting Piers speak talking about if you take our guns we will fire back. The type of people with this un-stable emotionally and mentally mindset are as dangerous as the weapons they carry.

It IS a basic law that is in place, it's called the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, that encompasses more than just handguns. There IS a current ATF director, just not a confirmed one, there has always been one, just not confirmed ones. There are background checks, last time I went to the gun store, a background check was performed, while an ATF director wasn't confirmed.

There hasn't been ATF director in over four years. Stop blowing smoke and telling people it's raining. If an ATF director is not confirmed then there is not an acting one. How can you expect an agency to do it's job without someone at the top to function

I don't disagree with laws that are "just on gunz", I disagree with them because they're controlling and absolutely stupid. Feinstein's bill focused on the AESTHETICS of a gun, that's totally stupid!

Do you think a car goes faster because it has flames painted on it? Same principle.

No, it reflects the opinions of people who actually rub a couple of brain cells together to perform the regular human function of thinking.

They are stupid in your mind. I will ring you up when the United States decides for you to speak on behalf of MILLIONS of people. I was unaware you knew better both then Liberal and Republican Presidents and a majority of the people in the poll. You cannot decide on your own what is dumb without reasonable feedback and debate and it's quite clear based on your attitude your more interested in snide comments.

In the future when you respond to me unless it's an actual debate. I will not be sucked into it. I am interested in rational and logical arguments. Not claiming some gun laws are dumb like background checks which sole purpose to keep the guns out of hands of people that should not have them. I was unaware that was dumb.

[Bryntrollian]

While the right to bear arms is considered a legal right in the United States, it's not an unalienable right, or a natural right, or a human right.

Unalienable rights aren't even unalienable anymore thanks to the NDAA..

[Sicarus]

You claim MSNBC and CNN are Liberal Biased networks. Then I pointed out quotes to Ronald Regan a beloved Republican and you dismiss him as a RINO (There is simply no getting through to you) If you claim media networks are biased even republicans are biased. I guess you're the only person who is unbiased and sole decider on who is a REAL Republican.

It boils down not to party but human beings. Common sense gun laws like background checks even that which have overwhelmingly support you deny. I see you prefer live in a stage of denial. These people I call Gun Fanatics because they do not reflect a majority of responsible gun owners.


What




No he ranted. Even Gun Owners were silently wondering what the heck when that man went on national TV screaming like a rapid animal off the leash not letting Piers speak talking about if you take our guns we will fire back. The type of people with this un-stable emotionally and mentally mindset are as dangerous as the weapons they carry.




There hasn't been ATF director in over four years. Stop blowing smoke and telling people it's raining. If an ATF director is not confirmed then there is not an acting one. How can you expect an agency to do it's job without someone at the top to function


They are stupid in your mind. I will ring you up when the United States decides for you to speak on behalf of MILLIONS of people. I was unaware you knew better both then Liberal and Republican Presidents and a majority of the people in the poll. You cannot decide on your own what is dumb without reasonable feedback and debate and it's quite clear based on your attitude your more interested in snide comments.

In the future when you respond to me unless it's an actual debate. I will not be sucked into it. I am interested in rational and logical arguments. Not claiming some gun laws are dumb like background checks which sole purpose to keep the guns out of hands of people that should not have them. I was unaware that was dumb.

SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGH.

You're just, taking everything I say and just, perverting it to the exact opposite pretty much.

I'm done even arguing with you, it was fun at first but now it's just like, wow, this person actually believes it.

Your "points" make my brain place hurt.

[GreatOak]

While the right to bear arms is considered a legal right in the United States, it's not an unalienable right, or a natural right, or a human right.

And the text of the constitution places that right within the boundaries of a well-regulated militia, so if you want unrestricted access to firearms, join the National Guard (state militia).

Are you contending the fact that the second amendment grants an individual right to bear arms?

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 07:20 PM ----------

SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGH.

You're just, taking everything I say and just, perverting it to the exact opposite pretty much.

I'm done even arguing with you, it was fun at first but now it's just like, wow, this person actually believes it.

Your "points" make my brain place hurt.

Isn't a brain supposed to be in that place? Why not just say brain? Oh

[Reeve]

Are you contending the fact that the second amendment grants an individual right to bear arms?

Not really, because the Supreme Court has decided it does grant individuals that right. But the text without the Supreme Court filter (which I admit is the only valid filter) doesn't seem to do such a thing to me.

Though I should also note that the decision of the court was split on this, with 4/9 judges dissenting and saying that the clause specifically refers to the right to keep and bear arms within an organized militia.

The court was clear, however, that the right to keep and bear arms did not apply to military grade weaponry:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

[Bryntrollian]

While the right to bear arms is considered a legal right in the United States, it's not an unalienable right, or a natural right, or a human right.

And the text of the constitution places that right within the boundaries of a well-regulated militia, so if you want unrestricted access to firearms, join the National Guard (state militia).

The National Guard doesn't function as that particular militia

[GreatOak]

Not really, because the Supreme Court has decided it does grant individuals that right. But the text without the Supreme Court filter (which I admit is the only valid filter) doesn't seem to do such a thing to me.

Well it does for most people, including most of the framers. Your position certainly isn't mainstream.


Besides, various militia acts have defined the militia as the people themselves. All males of adult age actually

[Reeve]

The National Guard doesn't function as that particular militia

Yes, it does. It's the state militia, directly descended from state militias and has its basis in the constitution as such.

The United States National Guard is authorized by the Constitution of the United States. As originally drafted, the Constitution recognized the existing state Militias, and gave them vital roles to fill: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). The Constitution distinguished "Militia(s)", which were state entities, from "Troops", which were unlawful for states to maintain under normal circumstances. (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3).

I should also note that the decision of the court was split on this, with 4/9 judges dissenting and saying that the clause specifically refers to the right to keep and bear arms within an organized militia.

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".

The court was clear, however, that the right to keep and bear arms did not apply to military grade weaponry:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 07:31 PM ----------

Well it does for most people, including most of the framers. Your position certainly isn't mainstream.


Besides, various militia acts have defined the militia as the people themselves. All males of adult age actually

4 of the 9 supreme court justices hold my opinion. That's not enough to make it legal, but it's very very close.

[Itisamuh]

In the future when you respond to me unless it's an actual debate. I will not be sucked into it. I am interested in rational and logical arguments. Not claiming some gun laws are dumb like background checks which sole purpose to keep the guns out of hands of people that should not have them. I was unaware that was dumb.

I think any reasonable person is fine with background checks. Anything involving making them illegal though will hurt more than help. Criminals are quite notorious for not following laws, and will get their hands on guns regardless, just like illegal drugs. Heavy gun control would literally do nothing except strip home defense away from people who do no harm with them, and banning assault weapons alone is a useless gesture. Violent people have been killing forever, so guns are clearly not the issue at all.

[GreatOak]

Yes, it does. It's the state militia, directly descended from state militias and has its basis in the constitution as such.



I should also note that the decision of the court was split on this, with 4/9 judges dissenting and saying that the clause specifically refers to the right to keep and bear arms within an organized militia.



The court was clear, however, that the right to keep and bear arms did not apply to military grade weaponry:



---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 07:31 PM ----------



4 of the 9 supreme court justices hold my opinion. That's not enough to make it legal, but it's very very close.

I know, but you were just referring to the actual text and not the court opinion. Most Americans agree with an individual right. It has been held that way traditionally in court as well. The Miller case also clarified things

[FusedMass]

I think any reasonable person is fine with background checks. Anything involving making them illegal though will hurt more than help. Criminals are quite notorious for not following laws, and will get their hands on guns regardless, just like illegal drugs. Heavy gun control would literally do nothing except strip home defense away from people who do no harm with them, and banning assault weapons alone is a useless gesture. Violent people have been killing forever, so guns are clearly not the issue at all.

There should be nothing illegal about them. If you ask people to sign a paper and mark X if they are allowed allow firearms. Human nature tells us they will lie. A background check all it's sole purpose is checking the criminal background. Some websites offer searches for like twenty bucks a month. It's makes the transaction more safe.

If the purpose is to keep the guns in the hands of responsible gun owners. That what I mean by it's it's intention not to collect data or keep your gun registered just checking on the background of a person. I knew despite other posters ranting Responsible gun owners agreed ed with this in fact article on front page shows nearly a hundred percent people agree with this.