Obama urges gun control after Colorado Springs shooting: 'Enough is enough'

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Nice post Byakuya Kuchiki.

It really does boil down to prohibition. Either way, the ship for gun control in the US has long sailed away. It isn't possible to effectively institute gun control, and even if they repealed the 2nd Amendment tomorrow they would have to go door to door confiscating firearms.

It would not be a pretty scenario and it would be a massive logistical nightmare to boot.

youtu.be... control will shut down our country.....
I know for a fact that the vast majority of the trigger pullers (infantry, cavalry, etc.) in the military align themselves with the far right rather than the left.

a reply to: projectvxn

You know why I chose that avatar?

Listen to what the character says in 29:34 until he disappears.

Criminals must be brought to justice
Once their punishment is decided, it must be carried out.
That is the rule of the law
Duty is bound to serve as an example to all ___ .
How can we enforce our laws, if we (the example) are not willing to obey them?

The above spells out a truth which is why I love this character and what he represents. Honor and law abiding.
Though I do disagree with some things from this character, but he spells out a truth which all leaders should follow.

But we have criminals in power, and people afraid to speak up. That' the bottom line.

Anyone with common sense can tell who is criminal and who is not by their actions. Its not really rocket science. All it takes is to identify the troll and ignore it.


But you are right it would not be a pretty scenario, but that is what fema camps and coffins are for. They are ready. are we?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: ketsuko

I seemed to specify that I wasn't making that assumption with the "not necessarily for murder" clause.

The difference between owning a gun and being religious is that religion is not intrinsically dangerous like a gun is. Do you understand the distinction I'm trying to make?

@Project: That's why I'm anti gun control for the US specifically. It is simply no longer feasible. (Like exterminating Rabbits in Australia, for instance.) You are past the event horizon.

A gun isn't intrinsically dangerous either. You can put one on your table and it won't do anything at all to you ... ever. It takes the action of a human being in order for a gun to become dangerous, either through negligence or intent.

Again, you are operating through flawed assumption.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

You know why I chose that avatar?

Listen to what the character says in 29:34 until he disappears.

I remember it well.

If only those who make and enforce the laws were as honorable as Byakuya.

Well I'm done here.

originally posted by: HighFive
....
84% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members support universal background checks. I assume if your a paying member of NRA then you are an informed gun owner. Yet not one person in this thread agrees?

politifact

Let me get this straight...

You are saying that out of the 169 NRA members, not all voted for it, from the JSOline poll, and the 1,110 people from the CBS News/New York Times Poll (we don't even know how many NRA members voted in that poll)= over 45 million people who are members of the NRA, and is the same as the over 322 million Americans in total?...

Do they teach math in schools and Universities anymore?...

Why the hell do we need millions of people to vote in elections when apparently what a few thousands say is enough to know for whom the millions of Americans who vote would vote for?...

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Patriot Act.

Katrina.

Wassamattah, dude, couldn't find a way to blame the "leftists" for those? Odd as it appears you spew vile at them every other chance you get.

The handling of Katrina (other than the storm itself) was mostly a lefty debacle. The local looney farm responded ineptly. i remind you that the federal shortcomings were mostly down to law and statute preventing them from taking the initiative and the gov and mayor failed to ask for FEMA intervention in a timely manner. FEMA mostly had to park outside the jurisdiction until the locals brought them in which they didn't do until it was in full debacle mode. Also the locals failed to use assets they had like the fleet of school buses that got flooded unused in thier parking lots. the gun confiscation was purely a state and local stroke of "brilliance."

as far as the patriot act some of it was necessary but it got greatly expanded as all govt programs and policies do. good intentions pave the road to hell. and yes the right does crap it's own nest from time to time.

a reply to: projectvxn

To understand the 2nd amendmend you need to see it in it's context. If the 'well regulated militia' had nothing to do with it, it would not be mentioned. This is the 2nd amendmend:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What's that with the "well armed militia" then? Let's go the horses mouth to see if it sheds any light on it. Is George Washington good enough as a source? I think so. This is what he wrote about the amendments:

“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; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
George Washington

Note that this was said in the context of a rising Nation. It was a statement against the Brits, whom of course weren't particularly keen on having their subjects toting guns (let alone shoot them at British soldiers). By ensuring that any American was allowed to have a weapon at home and by ensuring that ALL of the People were part of an organised militia, Washington and his peers ensured that the Nation as a whole would be The Army if need be. By making the ENTIRE PEOPLE part of a slumbering army - an army that would suddenly awake in times of danger - the founding "fathers" ensured that any foreign ARMY that tried to invade the new American States would have to slay the entire population (well, all men at least) before they could declare victory.

So, as I see it: the context for having people bearing arms is war: an enemy invades America, Americans have to defend themselves. So: collective (organised militia) and not personal self-defense. So, that gun would be safely in a closet or chest, and the bullets in another one. And the people would only use it if they were part of "an organised militia" - so, in times of war. Not to shoot at people in schools, at burglars of even at mice, for that. More or less what the Swiss do nowadays: you have a gun, you are taught to use it properly, but you aren't supposed to use it in a non-military context.

BTW, as I see it the far greater problem for America nowadays is the way your government invades your privacy and demolished your right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures of your persons, papers or possessions (which includes data on your networks, files, etc). - if only you were just as fierce to defend THAT right as you are to defend the right to carry a weapon..

originally posted by: Shamrock6
And it took Hillary even less time to tweet her support of planned parenthood, who I understand has pledged to give her campaign a good chunk of change. Less time than it took Obama to talk about guns.

Egads, man! Politicians doing what they do during and after literally every crisis ever? Will wonders never cease?!?

I'm shocked at people's outrage.

Yep

Ban Gun because a few hundred are kill every year by bad people, but Federal fund an organization that kills hundreds of thousands every year.

go figure

Think of it like this.

I'm sure there is a basic right written into Scottish law.
(IE lets say the right to wear a Kilt.) Don't know Scottish law

Now lets say the PM just wants to band Kilts because he thinks it is causing a problem.

Would you be OK with that?

We have many rights written into the Constitution. The 2nd is just one of them. Fine if people want to ban guns have a new amendment made repelling or changing the 2nd. But until that is done it is our Constitutional right to own a gun.

Now imagine if we all just bent over and allowed the government to take this right? How about the other rights in the Bill of Rights? Would they be worth the paper they where written on? What happens if next they decide that that freedom of speech thing is causing too much problems? The issue is that we have these Constitutional rights and if we let ANY of them be worn down and taken away we risk losing ALL of them.

Written right in the document is two processes to change it if people wanted to do it. We have changed it 17 times (not counting the first 10.) The 18th and the 21st show what happens when you do a knee jerk change. (IE Prohibition and it's repeal.) Also another example of what good banning something does.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

You quote Washington and then blow right past his own words that echo what others are saying here:

...or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;

That semicolon is important, it means the words prefacing it are a related but wholly complete thought from those that follow.

'...or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;', is pretty damn clear to me.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

You forget the context yourself while you chide us on it.

Washington has just taken part with that slumbering army in throwing off the yoke of their own government. So, no foreign armies in sight.

originally posted by: skoalman88
It's funny that when a Muslim carries out a terrorist attack, its not all Muslims that are bad, just the one that did the deed. When an illegal commits a crime, its not all illegals that are bad, just the one that did the deed. When someone's car plows into a crowd of people on halloween, its not all drivers that are bad, its just the one that did the deed. But when some loon shoots up a business, all gun owners are vilified.

The hypocrisy is stunning, isn't it? But the gun control advocates can't figure out why the other side just won't listen when someone like Obama does exactly this. Its truly one of the great mysteries of our time, apparently.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ForteanOrg

You quote Washington and then blow right past his own words that echo what others are saying here

Let's see, I quoted the 2nd too, didn't I? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By putting this in the very same line, it is clear to me that the authors meant that bearing a gun should only be done in that context: as part of a well regulated Militia.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Let's see, I quoted the 2nd too, didn't I? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By putting this in the very same line, it is clear to me that the authors meant that bearing a gun should only be done in that context: as part of a well regulated Militia.

I could supply quote after quote from Madison and others who wrote the Constitution and spoke at its ratification that make it clear that they were also referring to the individual right to bear arms.

a reply to: vor78

#NotAllDrunkDrivers.

After all, it's only the ones that actually run someone over.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ForteanOrg

You quote Washington and then blow right past his own words that echo what others are saying here

Let's see, I quoted the 2nd too, didn't I? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By putting this in the very same line, it is clear to me that the authors meant that bearing a gun should only be done in that context: as part of a well regulated Militia.

The two things are related, but not in the sense of limiting the right only to militia service. The purpose was to allow armed militias to form in defense of the country should the need arise. The manner in which they achieved that purpose was the 2nd part of the amendment: a guarantee of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Given that the 'right of the people' is universally accepted as referring to both individuals and the collective where it appears elsewhere in the Constitution and its amendments, it must also apply to both here. We can also see this in the first Militia Act, passed only months after the ratification of 2A, where the citizens were expected to provide their own weapons and ammunition.

And then there's the whole issue of the definition of 'militia', which, in US law, covers any able-bodied male of draft age...BUT if construed to determine militia eligibility under 2A, must include both males and females regardless of age due to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Therefore, the militia argument actually doesn't even work. For the purposes of this argument, most US adults are already members of the militia whether they know it or not.

Regardless, none of it actually matters much as it stands right now. Even if we accept a definition of 2A that does not protect an individual right, there's still no law on the books stating that an individual can't own a firearm in this country.

a reply to: ketsuko

As you well know, the declaration of Independence was issued in 1786. The Bill of Rights was issued in 1789, a mere 3 years later. The Brits actually had fought their former subjects for years and had not recognised the US. So, in that context, the Bill of Rights was drawn, and in that context the right of the people to bear arms - in a well organised Militia - was defined.

My view is upheld by - the US itself. Well, at least up to 2008. So, for 219 years, the Americans themselves upheld that the 2nd amendment should be read like I still read it.

a reply to: vor78

Kudos for politeness and your willingness to educate me, thank you. I still do not agree with the 2008 interpretation of the 2nd, and still feel that the interpretation that was upheld for over 200 years is the most valid and correct one. But formally spoken I have been overruled by the 2008 court rulings.