Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

a reply to: intrepid

Because there are SOO many laws already governing this crap, that the Fed can't find it...or are just so inept..

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Did you think 10 years ago that the Govt would take control over our Health Insurance, thus making costs rise????

It isn't too difficult to follow what is happening. Too bad you either refuse to see it, or a blind.

One: The Government didn't "take over" health care. What the government DID do is mandate that you have expensive health insurance and feed the insurance beast or face IRS backlash. Trust me, if the government truly took over health care, your health costs would go down and the expense of higher taxes. As it stands right now, "Obama/RomneyCare" is a stupid boondoggle of trying to make everyone happy (those with the money to influence things, at least) and screwing it up royally.

Two: Health Insurance and 2nd amendment are completely unrelated, but for the record, I would fully support a single payer system for health care, or just free universal healthcare in general. Yes it would mean higher taxes, but at least then healthcare wouldn't be a LUXURY, but instead a right. I digress.

I'm following exactly what's happening. And what I see is once again the NRA crying wolf and yelling about the sky falling. At the end of the day, the regulations proposed will likely never pass congress, and if it does, it will be drastically different from what you read today, with many if not all of the proposals seriously reworked or discarded entirely.

a reply to: intrepid

If you have to use tragedy and despair to make your argument your argument is weak. This is simple honest truth and if this was a different issue I bet many people arguing for this would agree than.




See the problem with Anti-gun people is statistics and facts do not fit what is needed to make their argument so they have to use shocking terrible events like this instead..........I find it repugnant and sad.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Is there a place I can view these proposed regulations? From the article it seems like the regulations are aimed mainly at keeping guns away from the mentally unstable and domestic abusers.

That sound nice, but who gets to define what "mentally unstable" means and who qualifies as such?

There's a long history of powers using that designation very loosely and very conveniently.

originally posted by: SubTruth
..........I find it repugnant and sad.

I feel the same about people that value an inanimate object WAY above human life.

a reply to: thenewguy1987

At what point are you okay with "due process" not being adhered to?

That process can be easy, or very difficult. It can take a couple of weeks or a year or so.

Why are you fine with someone having their Rights removed, with no due process and shrug it off with "once they clear their name"


WE DON"T HAVE TO CLEAR OUR NAMES.. Innocent until proven guilty still applies.

The fact that you are willful in handing over rights for some emotionally driven drivel is mind boggling...and scary.

Just add and hurry your response up.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Do you lose your constitutional rights for having a mental disease? How would you feel if they wanted to limit your freedom of speech because you had issues with depression 20 years ago......Simple logic guys. I wonder how many people fighting for this will change their minds when they are labeled mentally unfit.....LOL.

My freedom of speech doesn't put bullet wounds in children. I can yell at someone until I'm blue in the face but it will never send them to emergency rooms or the morgue.

a reply to: incoserv

That sound nice, but who gets to define what "mentally unstable" means and who qualifies as such?

This what everyone should be concerned about.

Like how if someone has too much money the state 'defines' them as too rich.

Bulls eye on the backs. The state does what it wants for any reason they want.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all those roads lead to despotism, and tyranny.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun
So, your a Progressive and are for more Govt control.


I get it.

Don't expect any facts I state to interrupt your emotional thinking. I know I don't.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: SubTruth
..........I find it repugnant and sad.

I feel the same about people that value an inanimate object WAY above human life.

Great use of logic........Goooogly what? If this is how you have to argue this point ya gotta know you are in trouble. And I do not mean to sound harsh but that is a weird argument.



Why not go after the point I made about using tragedy to further a cause and how that is morally bankrupt in many ways.

a reply to: joemoe

Low hanging fruit is the term you are looking for.

That is because Anti-2nd people can't battle the facts, nor the core issue.

originally posted by: ventian
a reply to: Sublimecraft

The ATF is also looking to prohibit the mentally ill from owning firearms

Well, that should certainly discourage some people from seeking help. What is the definition of mentally ill, anyways?

The definition of "mentally ill" will be whatever they want it to be; I'd guess we've seen a preview from the standards applied by the Southern Poverty Law Center for identifying Domestic Terrorist operatives. So, what list of indicators do you think would be used to identify those who are to be deemed mentally ill. 1) White, 2) Previously served in the Military, 3) Christian, 4) Tea Party member, extending down perhaps even to the broader label of "Republican", 4) unemployed or only marginally employed, 5) lives in the South or Fly-over country.

That's my guess anyway.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: SubTruth
..........I find it repugnant and sad.

I feel the same about people that value an inanimate object WAY above human life.

Isn't government, and laws inaminate objects.

That don't stop anything, just acts like a weapon of mass destruction, and really doesn't care if there is collateral damage.

They do so mainly for appearance sake not ever actually accomplishing anything.

a reply to: SubTruth

Oh, I get your point. Don't use any argument that would hurt your position. That's not a debate, that's gladhanding. Something we see FAR too much of here. Even if it IS at the core of the issue. Like I said, just admit it and I'll shut up.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun we have seen this before, and know that the NRA is not so easy to fool, thankfully this will not see the light of day, and also thankfully some can see the BS for what it is.....

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: macman

Do you honestly believe that "Teh evil gubments" would deem 99% of the U.S. Population mentally as some flimsy premise to seize their weapons? Look, you served. I know you did. Tell me a few things.

#1: If the government decided to seize the firearms of the U.S. Population, do you think they could even remotely feasibly do via regulation, or do you think they would need to eventually send people OUT to collect "illegal" firearms?

#2: Should the government decide to seize the firearms from the people, and had you been serving at the time, would you have followed that order?

Why do we always have to have this silly debate the minute this issue comes up?

The answer to your entire post is long-term planning. They don't HAVE TO go door to door seizing firearms unless they want the entire population of the US disarmed IMMEDIATELY.

They've waited this long (when it has been completely obvious for some time what many of their primary goals are). It seems obvious to me that these are people who think like engineers. An engineer designs before he builds. He (generally) doesn't jump to the end as quickly as humanly possible if he knows it'll screw up his whole plan.

IF (and I stress IF) these people even intend to disarm the entire population, they would be smart enough to know it's a big deal and it's something you don't do overnight in 2015.

They have been content to chip away for years so why would they stop now? Will they take bigger chunks when and if they can? Probably. But it's obviously working. The chip away method works. They have more people arguing over whether or not guns should be banned than at any time I can remember in my lifetime. And they've done this in just a few years by simply keeping a steady drumbeat in the media.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Do you lose your constitutional rights for having a mental disease? How would you feel if they wanted to limit your freedom of speech because you had issues with depression 20 years ago......Simple logic guys. I wonder how many people fighting for this will change their minds when they are labeled mentally unfit.....LOL.

My freedom of speech doesn't put bullet wounds in children. I can yell at someone until I'm blue in the face but it will never send them to emergency rooms or the morgue.

Words are powerful things and have caused countless deaths over the ages and that is why the founders of this country put it number 1 on the list. My point is sound and correct.


Like I said before I wonder how many people will change their collective tunes when they are labeled mentally ill and unfit. I find it so ironic many of the people arguing this point do not trust the government unless it is about issues they support..........Sad really.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: SubTruth

Oh, I get your point. Don't use any argument that would hurt your position. That's not a debate, that's gladhanding. Something we see FAR too much of here. Even if it IS at the core of the issue. Like I said, just admit it and I'll shut up.

Ok another weird one.....I am not sure how to respond? Do you think it is wrong to use tragedies to further political/social causes? Why not just go after the facts and leave terrible events out of it?

originally posted by: SubTruth
Do you think it is wrong to use tragedies to further political...

No.

social causes?

Yes.

Why not just go after the facts and leave terrible events out of it?

THE TRAGEDIES ARE CAUSED BY THIS!!!! We wouldn't even be talking about this if it wasn't for these tragedies. Is the gun argument so weak that it can't deal with the fallout of this?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ScientificRailgun
So, your a Progressive and are for more Govt control.


I get it.

Don't expect any facts I state to interrupt your emotional thinking. I know I don't.

One: Don't ever, EVER pretend to know what my political leanings are. You're making your absolute ignorance known when you do this.

I'm stating facts. Words don't physically injure people. Guns can physically injure people. They have. They will continue to do so. I have said multiple times, in several threads, on multiple occasions that I support the 2nd amendment, I own guns. I shot guns regularly at a home-made range when I was growing up. I went dove hunting with my grandfather. I put down wild coyotes on our farm because they were threatening our livestock. I shot for fun, and for sport. Until I moved to Japan I kept a gun in my bedside table for home defense. I support the right of every law-abiding citizen to own a gun.

What I don't support is that there's very few checks and balances in place to keep violent or mentally unstable people from walking into wal-mart, buying a gun, and going on a rampage. There should be some COMMON DAMN SENSE measures in place to keep the unstable and violent members of society from owning guns, or at the very least, put some obstacles on their path to obtaining those weapons.

If that makes me a "dirty progressive who wants the government to control everything" then I'll wear that badge with f**king pride, if it keeps even ONE mass shooting from happening.

Oh, and I don't know if I made myself clear, but don't ever think you know me, or how I think.

Cheers, pudding.