Democrats currently holding Filibuster to take away your gun rights

a reply to: syrinx high priest

So you think all '57' states is going to abolish 11 of their RIGHTS ?

Never going to happen.

Because ALL 11 are in play here.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The only way to stop illegal gun sales is to use the military.

Full force.

Anybody really want that?

Do we not pay and arm them and LE to protect us? Let's just do away with them altogether and do our own fighting and policing. Great concept. (And something I believe a lot of people would just love.)

What is "on the table" in the current filibuster is exactly what has been stated, and is really intended to bring the majority party to the table to actually do something for a change.

The accuracy of any given terror watch list is a different issue. We should be able to agree however that if we think someone may be a terrorist they shouldn't be able to easily purchase weapons.

As far as background checks, aside from fringe concerns, there's Zero justification to oppose that idea.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: neo96

Yeah, because there's war...and then there's shooting up a school/theater/nightclub.

Totally the same thing.

Well, we are at war both here and abroad...the *ahem* War on Terror. So we should be unarmed?

I don't even own a gun -- I hate them and they make me nervous. But I do not trust our government -- especially Congress -- to do right by the American people and I am disgusted by the mess they've gotten us into. The more they attempt to disarm us, the more I am certain nothing good is intended to come from it. They never do anything that helps anyone who actually needs help.

Yeah those dudes who shot up theaters, schools, and clubs were fighting a war on terror. Okay.

I do own guns or hate them. Until the time when our government proves that we can't trust them...definitively...I will trust law enforcement and the military to do their jobs.

a reply to: VivreLibre

I believe there are some stats as to what happened after 2005. Don't have time to find them now. and not that some here would believe them.

Referring back to the meme/graphic we are discussing...do you believe that every self-professed Syrian rebel is good? None can possibly be bad? There is much reasonable doubt as to that idea: some are allied with al Qaeda, many are jihadists. Link

So...your question isn't material to the comparison you are trying to make. If innocent Syrian rebels are armed with assault weapons (and I actually would never want to touch or own one) to fight a war against terrorism -- without regard to the 'bad' faction amongst them -- why shouldn't innocent U.S. citizens be allowed to do the same...regardless of the 'random' mass shooter amongst us?

So what exactly needs to be fixed?

a reply to: neo96

that's an old and tired message board tactic.

If you are that confused by what I posted, just go back and read it again

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What is "on the table" in the current filibuster is exactly what has been stated, and is really intended to bring the majority party to the table to actually do something for a change.

The accuracy of any given terror watch list is a different issue. We should be able to agree however that if we think someone may be a terrorist they shouldn't be able to easily purchase weapons.

As far as background checks, aside from fringe concerns, there's Zero justification to oppose that idea.

I do agree that terrorists and bad guys shouldn't be allowed to buy any weapon, at all. I don't know how we make that happen and I don't think anyone else does, right now, either.

So it's important for me, and everyone else, to know how it will be determined whether or not this legislation will affect innocent people who intend to stay innocent.

As an aside, I think you always come at an argument from the side of good. I see that, even if I disagree on minutia. But we can't even tell who is good and bad, at the moment. In fact, I think most of the people in Congress are awful...diabolical....and they have yet to come under serious, legitimate, formal scrutiny when they appear to be benefiting from these mass-shootings by way of both power and fuel for debate. I see motive in the federal government. If they did not rush to exploit all these mass-shootings for a political agenda, I might be more persuaded that their efforts are for the genuine good of the U.S.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Already answered.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Already answered.

You didn't answer me. Is there a post of yours you'd like me to read?

Congrats Captain Fillibuster:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution

As a US Citizen I call for for your immediate removal for violation of oath of office. And direct violation of Article 6

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm unsure of how we can have a representative democracy without representatives. That's one of the fracture points of our system I will agree.

Term limits. National, state and local recall, referendum and initiative perhaps.

I appreciate your compliment. However I try to approach political issues from three points of view, the Constitution, the facts and rationality.

Another approach that we all need to remember how to do is compromise- lets establish the best practices that keep us safe and free while discriminating as little as possible against how anyone wants to live their own lives while harming none.

Watch the Filibuster Live Here

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Term limits. National, state and local recall, referendum and initiative perhaps.

Could not agree more. We need to fix these things before giving over more power. Putting it off is placing lives at risk as much, if not more, than any other issue facing us.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I try to approach political issues from three points of view, the Constitution, the facts and rationality.

Another approach that we all need to remember how to do is compromise- lets establish the best practices that keep us safe and free while discriminating as little as possible against how anyone wants to live their own lives while harming none.

This approach is 'good' to me.'

a reply to: Gryphon66

As far as background checks, aside from fringe concerns, there's Zero justification to oppose that idea.

Heres 6.

Amendment II 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.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Plus one to grow on.

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: neo96

The Brady legislation was declared unconstitutional because the Federal government cannot coerce state or local law enforcement to perform the administrative dictates of Federal law because of jurisdiction not because there is anything unconstitutional about background checks.

The Constitution and its Amendments do nothing to make the concept of background checks illegal. You've done nothing more than the usual "throw links against the wall."

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

DC v. Heller

a reply to: matafuchs

The government will try and then they will fail, hopefully.

But I'm tired of waiting, to be honest. I'm old, if they don't go for them soon, then they will be prying them from my cold dead hands.

hahahaha

a reply to: matafuchs

not MY gun rights...I'm not on a no fly list! Go listen,fool!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Are you saying we will need to turn into grave robbers in the future to defend ourselves?

originally posted by: DanteGaland

FAIR question... If you want nothing DONE, then are you willing to accept some FAULT or GUILT when it happens again?

What if your SUPPORT could have helped PREVENT it from happening again?

That's the STUPIDEST thing I have read today... Are you going to FEEL GUILT for what CRIMINALS DO?... How in the world can you tell people to feel guilt for what CRIMINALS and crazy people do?... Do you feel GUILT for all the killings/murders done with knives, and blunt objects that occur in the U.S. or all over the world?...

In China the regular people can't have guns, GUESS WHAT HAPPENS?... CRIMINALS kill people with knives, or with fire, and they make up some other way for murdering people...

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29, injure 130 at China train station

Do YOU feel GUILTY for that?... You haven't prevented any of those deaths... So by your own admission you should feel guilty...

Have you even looked at the amount of people that have been murdered with knives and blunt objects?...

www.fbi.gov...

Take away guns and CRIMINALS will continue getting guns or they will continue murdering and committing crimes some other way, with some other objects. Do you know why?.. Because they are CRIMINALS...

Do YOU feel guilty for your U.S. Administration ARMING DRUG CARTELS and then trying to blame the Second Amendment for this?... I am sure you don't, since your argument is to "simply ban guns because you want to"...

a reply to: Krakatoa

My retirement package includes the Zombie Option.

Slap a six-shooter in my decayed hand and turn me lose!