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

a reply to: ReadLeader

I'm confused with where we disagree. I am simply trying to say that people should defend the fourth amendment with fervor equal to how they defend the second. They are both part of your constitution. They are both equally important. Surely that makes sense?

@Projectvxn

I am trying to defend the entire tiger, not just its claws. If you allow your government to constantly infringe the fourth right, whence then do their eyes turn to another to infringe?

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: HighFive

We already limit the types of weapons we can own.

Really, please explain, short of owning a tank, wait we can have that too..

Automatic weapons, shoulder fired anti helicopter rocket launchers, hand grenades

And yes we limit who can own guns,

Automatic weapons, shoulder fired anti helicopter rocket launchers, hand grenades

a reply to: HighFive



Machine guns are legal, the rest? are there any laws on the books about that..

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Without going back through the thread; (which is going rapidly) I assume you live in Texas, OR have a strong grasp of Quinn v. State of Texas... ?

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: projectvxn

Right, but please throw as much support behind the 4th amendment as you can. I can understand the 2nd, I can understand why you love it so much, I just wish we lived in a world where it wasn't necessary.

I can promise you no place on Earth exists.

Even the relative calm of some countries is just an illusion.

War tends to change your perspective on "human relations" once you've been a part of it.

warlords will come from a variety of backgrounds.
Many will come from large criminal gangs, some from the police, some from the remnants of the military, and some from private militias.
Warlords are a fact of life in every nation without a strong central government.

To believe that the United States will be any different than any other third world country after a massive collapse is naïve at best.

In a world where survival means having adequate resources, large groups of armed men will unite in order to take with force from those who have prepared

a reply to: openyourmind1262

Maybe some of you can take it a bit easy on the member beanshide,

Have you all noticed that he/she is actually trying to understand what the issues of GUN control in our country actually means.

I'm just saying...it's not that often that people want to learn as opposed to argue their own point of view around here these days.

Give credit when its due...Help a member out when they want to actually learn something...

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
a reply to: [post=20085368]projectvxn......hey. is it alright if I use your " careful, you'll hurt your shoulder reaching that far " and tell everyone I thought of it?....

Or you can use the one my mothers BF used on me; "It must be nice having arms long enough to pat yourself on the back." And I replied that "yes it is, and thank God too, because if I didn't have the confidence to pat my own back I would have had no confidence at all."

--------------------

Gun Control is an oxymoron.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Likely because the 2nd has real, concrete and tangible results that most everyone can see and feel. The 4th Amendment is a little more abstract to most people.

a reply to: wildb

Yes. Automatic weapons, Grenades are illegal almost everywhere.
I'm not positive but weren't some states trying to ban guns made on 3d printers?

Either way, my point was only to illustrate to the poster I was responding to, that "shall not be infringed" has been defined by the courts long ago.

I was arguing for 100% background checks instead of 90% because that's how people that aren't permitted to own guns get them. It seemed a strange time to argue the constitutionality of BC's in general. But that's a different topic that has been covered in depth on ATS

a reply to: HighFive

Yes. Automatic weapons

No I am sorry, they are legal...you are incorrect..

a reply to: HighFive

So basically, when you are arguing for 100% background checks, you say you have found a way to institute background checks on the "Saturday Night Special" your local gang banger buys out of the truck of someone's car? I'm intrigued. Tell me more.

Because that's how a large proportion of "people who should not have guns" (criminals in most people's language) get them.

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
a reply to: openyourmind1262

Maybe some of you can take it a bit easy on the member beanshide,

Have you all noticed that he/she is actually trying to understand what the issues of GUN control in our country actually means.

I'm just saying...it's not that often that people want to learn as opposed to argue their own point of view around here these days.

Give credit when its due...Help a member out when they want to actually learn something...

Because it needs to be repeated!

Please do NOT star or flag.

Just Read the Quoted Text.

Learning is the entire essence of ATS...How about we start promoting it again.

The reason why the Japanese feared to invade the American homeland was because they knew they would be facing an armed civilian population.
That is changing.Those of us who have lived through war understand that when everything is taken away and words mean nothing only those who are willing to fight have a voice at all.

In a nation with over 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns, and 4 million “assault rifles” in private circulation and with 1 in 4 Americans owning more than 4 firearms, tell me honestly, who do you think has the power?

a reply to: madenusa

4 million AR's, got to be more that that..

a reply to: Sublimecraft

and so after the guns are taken away whats next knives? pens and pencils? in my thought the problem isn't the weapon the issue is the one using it. if their going to use it illegally who is to say they can can't gain a gun the same way

a reply to: ketsuko

There is no 100%

I could break into your house and take your gun without a background check.

But right now someone with a restraining order against them can go online or to their neighbor and buy a gun without a BC. I don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Over 2 million people have been denied gun purchases by background checks since the Brady Bill passed. The system works it's not perfect.

originally posted by: malevolent
a reply to: Sublimecraft

and so after the guns are taken away whats next knives? pens and pencils? in my thought the problem isn't the weapon the issue is the one using it. if their going to use it illegally who is to say they can can't gain a gun the same way

I had a knife pulled on me once. I think we need more knife control. /sarc

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: ketsuko

The purpose of the constitution was for the populace have a well regulated... Militia. The Oathkeepers are the closest thing I can think of. I can actually support that.

Random nuts being able to buy weapons from gun shows because of all the loopholes?
Nah. That's not second amendment rights. That's just stupid.

The issue is when people get that stereotypical "YEEE-HAAAW" attitude. I think America's gun laws could work, but not in a partisan country prone to radicalism. You also need better education about the things, preferably in primary school.

Enlighten me again... Which loopholes are you referring to? The majority of people promoting the myth of gun show loopholes are people who haven't been to a gun show let alone purchased anything at a gun show. If a licensed FFL dealer has a booth at a gun show, guess what? They do a background check because if they don't it's their federal license and livelihood. There are a small number of private sellers at gun shows that can avoid the BC proviso but by and large, the booth fee keeps them out.

a reply to: HighFive

But right now someone with a restraining order against them can go online and buy a gun without a BC

False, where do you get this info, again incorrect..