Gun Grabbing Congress Critters Come Out of Woodwork After Giffords Shooting

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

You have to admit though, if Laughner hadn't have had access to firearms then this incident would not have occurred.

Just saying.....

You have to also admit then - If the government came to your house, dragged you out, and then locked you up in an 8 x 8 cube for the rest of your life with nothing inside of it. You would be very safe, and you would never be able to cause any incidents either.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I believe the current discussion is on banning high-capacity clips, not guns completely.

I can't think of a logical reason why you would need a 30-round clip for a handgun. In a self-defense situation where you truly need to use a firearm, you wouldn't have time to use 30 rounds. Either party would probably be subdued or killed within the first few seconds of gunfire. A 30 round clip is for an extended fire-fight, which civilians shouldn't be engaged in,

Eliminating guns will not reduce crime. Criminals are criminals because they are ... well, criminals. They will commit a crime regardless of if they have a gun or not. If they are pretty sure YOU do not have a gun they don't need one.

Banning things DOES NOT WORK. Ever hear of prohibition?

Crime is ALREADY banned. Is there still crime?
Murder is banned. People still kill each other. With guns, knives, bats, pipes, rocks, hands, boots, ashtrays, etc ... What should we start banning next?

Rape is banned.
Robbery is banned.
Stabbing someone is banned.
Beating their head in with a baseball bat? Banned.
Heroin.....coc aine.....crack..... all banned.

Banning things does not work.


What if we made it mandatory for EVERYONE to carry a gun ... minus convicted felons and the mentally ill. Would crime be reduced if all the criminals knew that not only was their target armed but everyone within earshot was also? The police are AT LEAST minutes away. The neighbors, guy down the street, guy out his window, etc ... could respond to a call for help. Instead of the criminal knowing he has a few minutes to get away after his actions are known, he now knows as soon as someone yells for help a shot could ring out instantly and end his criminal career. That is a real deterrent, not a call to 911.

And that's not even what the 2nd is about anyway. Anyone claiming the constitution is outdated really has no comprehension of it's meaning, purpose, and history.

I think the time has come to blame Ford, GM, and etc every time there is a drunk driving accident.

Some may say this is about the magazine size not actually about the gun itself.

Well maybe the drunk had too much gas.

I hope this analogy (example) gets people too see how ridiculous this is and if you think for one second they will stop at the capacity of the mags then there is no hope for you.

reply to post by Versa


I think that for most of us, it boils down to one question. Do we want to be a society that allows a minute percentage of people, the lowlife scum of society, to dictate the freedoms that the other 310 million people in the country enjoy?

Forget gun rights for a moment. Its a question that could apply to any number of domestic issues right now. Just remember, at some point, the government will move to restrict a right you do care about.

Reply to post by JayinAR

George Carlin is an idiot.

In the original document, there are 8 rights written. 9 says that these are not the only rights, and more may be enumerated if the government oversteps them. 10 says that power not given to the government belonged to the people.

As far as the right to food, water, and a roof.

You have every right to eat of the earth. Go pick fruis, berries and greens Go hunt animals or fish. You have every right to drink of her water. Go fill your jugs in the springs and rivers around you. Dig a well and drink the water. You have every right to buy a home, or live in a tent or lean-to. No one is stopping you from doing these things.




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by PieKeeper
I can't think of a logical reason why you would need a 30-round clip for a handgun. In a self-defense situation where you truly need to use a firearm, you wouldn't have time to use 30 rounds. Either party would probably be subdued or killed within the first few seconds of gunfire. A 30 round clip is for an extended fire-fight, which civilians shouldn't be engaged in,

That may be, but it presents a dilemma for the 'anti' side of the argument as well. Simply put, if the legal, responsible gun owner wouldn't have time to use all 30 rounds, then that gun owner is already effectively using a smaller magazine size because practical factors limit his ability to use that magazine to its maximum effect. The additional rounds are essentially irrelevant in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, and therefore, magazine size is also irrelevant in the hands of a law-abiding citizen.

Its only in the hands of someone with criminal intent that it poses a problem, which goes back to the question I posed above. Do we really want to be a society where a miniscule fraction of the population can dictate the freedoms enjoyed by 310 million?

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

I believe the current discussion is on banning high-capacity clips, not guns completely.

I can't think of a logical reason why you would need a 30-round clip for a handgun. In a self-defense situation where you truly need to use a firearm, you wouldn't have time to use 30 rounds. Either party would probably be subdued or killed within the first few seconds of gunfire. A 30 round clip is for an extended fire-fight, which civilians shouldn't be engaged in,

The purpose of the Second Amendment is that if civilians need to become engaged in battle against a tyrannical government they will be capable of doing so. It isn't about duck hunting, it is about preserving the liberty of the republic against enemies foreign AND domestic.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded


In short, according to Helmke, the Second Amendment is responsible for Loughner’s rampage. Not the gunman, but the founders.

Apparently to these liberal half wits, the actions of one crazy loony, should permit the infringement of other law abiding citizens rights?

Even the liberals over at the Huffington Post admit many Americans support the Second Amendment and any attempt to diminish the amendment will be an uphill battle.

www.infowars.com(visit the link for the full news article)

Helmke never said that. This is what he said: “if Congress had not allowed the ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ to expire in 2004, the shooter [Loughner] would only have been able to get off 10 rounds without reloading. Instead, he was able to fire at least 20 rounds from his 30-round clip.”

Seriously, that was in the same article you just posted. Sounds reasonable enough. Why would anyone need a 20/30 round clip?

Guns can not be taken away from citizens. The only people who will have guns if a gun ban is put into place will be the military, police, and criminals. The criminals will find ways to manufacture, steal, or smuggle guns. As far as the military and the police being the only ones allowed to have guns a question comes to mind. Can these institutions be trusted? If martial law were instituted and the citizens didn't have guns the military and police would have a SUPER easy time taking over. Would anyone be free anymore? Is this not the country founded on Independence? People need the right to bear arms to protect themselves from criminals and the possibility of a corrupt government takeover. If someone in that crowd had a gun on them and shot Jarad Loughner, how many lives would have been saved? Maybe there should be tighter laws on access to guns but definitely NOT A BAN!!

reply to post by Whereweheaded

“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market,”

Well, he has a point. I also have to wonder, if guns are "only a tool" (hint: they're not - they're WEAPONS), then is a nuke "only a tool" too? So what's the big deal about Iran having them, huh? ... Some of you guys are hiding behind a finger. I don't like it.

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by Whereweheaded


In short, according to Helmke, the Second Amendment is responsible for Loughner’s rampage. Not the gunman, but the founders.

Apparently to these liberal half wits, the actions of one crazy loony, should permit the infringement of other law abiding citizens rights?

Even the liberals over at the Huffington Post admit many Americans support the Second Amendment and any attempt to diminish the amendment will be an uphill battle.

www.infowars.com(visit the link for the full news article)

Helmke never said that. This is what he said: “if Congress had not allowed the ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ to expire in 2004, the shooter [Loughner] would only have been able to get off 10 rounds without reloading. Instead, he was able to fire at least 20 rounds from his 30-round clip.”

Seriously, that was in the same article you just posted. Sounds reasonable enough. Why would anyone need a 20/30 round clip?

Unless he loaded 3 10 round magazines. It takes a second to change them out.

Banning things does not work. There is ALWAYS a way around it.

Originally posted by pikappa
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market,”

Well, he has a point. I also have to wonder, if guns are "only a tool" (hint: they're not - they're WEAPONS), then is a nuke "only a tool" too? So what's the big deal about Iran having them, huh? ... Some of you guys are hiding behind a finger. I don't like it.

Yes. A tool is a tool.

A hammer can be used to drive a nail or crack a skull. I've been in fights where people brought hammers. I still don't call for banning them.

A gun can be used to kill an innocent person, or a guy trying to rape you or your wife, sister, child, etc.

And why shouldn't Iran have a nuke. Do you really think any nation would really use one unprovoked? It would mean instant annihilation and they know it. You can make a nuke in your house if you are determined enough. I believe all this political back and forth is just for show anyway.

reply to post by Kryties


I think the point he was making was that cars kill far more people than firearms.

So does legal drugs.

So does Alcohol.

Some of the deaths are accidental too.

Some people are going to kill because they are brain sick.Not because they have a Gun.

I am sure murder existed before guns existed too and sometime mass murders happens as well.

It is not guns that kill people,It is people who kill people.

With all this aside, I am just wondering how far people will go to keep their guns? I do not think that people will oppose their gun rights to much in person. I would imagine that there are indeed many who do wish to keep their firearms but not want to make to much of a fuss over it if a restriction does comes into effect. Generally people are passive although it is easier to state a stance over the net. In reality I think that although the restrictions are an impact to freedom they will not be to widely fought to any extent. IMO

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Here's how it should work out, a system that I propose for the removal of firearms from the hands of citizens:

- First, remove us from all armed conflicts and wars. If guns are to be considered instruments of death, then we shouldn't encourage people to use them by inciting wars.

- Secondly, police brutality in all of its forms needs to be stopped. If police officers (not all of them, btw) can carry firearms and are committing illegal acts of brutality, then a person's ability to film these law enforcers should be legal across the board, and the enforcer's illegal acts of unnecessary brutality should be stopped completely.

- Third, there should be a no-tolerance gun control law for criminals. Even if guns in the US were illegal to own, criminals can always find a way to get a hold of one. So any known criminal who is caught with a firearm should be dealt with severely.

- And lastly, universal health care should be implemented. That way, people who are sick in the head can receive the health care and treatment that they need. Not just medical treatment, but holistic treatment should be covered under this type of system, and somewhat well researched and known methods of alternative health treatment (IE marijuana) should be legal and covered by this plan as well.

Once each of these items are ticked off of the list of things to do, then making firearms illegal across the board can be legislated.

Anybody can feel free to add things to this list that should come before a plan to make firearms illegal.

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by Whereweheaded


In short, according to Helmke, the Second Amendment is responsible for Loughner’s rampage. Not the gunman, but the founders.

Apparently to these liberal half wits, the actions of one crazy loony, should permit the infringement of other law abiding citizens rights?

Even the liberals over at the Huffington Post admit many Americans support the Second Amendment and any attempt to diminish the amendment will be an uphill battle.

www.infowars.com(visit the link for the full news article)

Helmke never said that. This is what he said: “if Congress had not allowed the ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ to expire in 2004, the shooter [Loughner] would only have been able to get off 10 rounds without reloading. Instead, he was able to fire at least 20 rounds from his 30-round clip.”

Seriously, that was in the same article you just posted. Sounds reasonable enough. Why would anyone need a 20/30 round clip?

I dunno. Why does the army use them? More bullets = more protection.

You might say more bullets = more death, but if those deaths are in the process of protecting your rights, then wouldn't the bullets be used in protection?

The second amendment was written to preserve and guarantee our freedoms.

In reference to the 2nd Amendment, Justice Story wrote in 1833:

"The militia [citizens*] is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers."

Would you have the army over seas carry only 6 rounds, or 10 rounds, or even one round? Would you have them carry no grenades? Would you have them use no pistol grips? Barrel Shrouds? Suppressors?

We the citizens are the militia for the homeland. Why would you subject your strongest and most important arm of defense to such harsh restrictions?



Edit: *denotes a clarification inserted by me. if you need justification on said clarification, it can be found here

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by budski

 

I thought I would take the time to post the 2nd Amendment, since clearly your not going to take the time to research it yourself.

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 part of the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed ", don't you understand?

What part of "Militia" do you not understand?

It's an outmoded document clung to by faux freedom advocates and has no place in the modern world.

Translation:

I despise parts or all of the Amendments,because it is out of date.Therefore we do not need to go through the process of repealing any of them.

Does that mean we can turn our backs on established law because they are considered "out of date"?

This may sound dumb, but aren't the very people that write laws and pass them citizens too?

Aren't congressman and congresswomen and secretaries and legislators and chiefs and presidents citizens?

Don't some of these people own guns themselves?

Why would they want to ban something they own?

Why would they want to take their own freedom away, or their children's freedom away....unless these people are somehow above the law...

I really hope the 2nd amendment stands as is....I will take it a step further...everyone should have the right to carry a gun, unless of course you are a felon because of guns or mentally ill...

reply to post by budski


Budski... as I grow tired of your useless rhetoric. I am going to propose a hypothetical situation. I am a law abiding citizen who carries a gun at all times. You don't know it... neither does anyone else.

Now lets see you are having a nice walk with your wife or significant other. Someone assaults you... points a gun to your head or holds a knife to your throat and you are defenseless.

Would you like me to come help a fellow citizen with my LAWFUL possession of a handgun and make sure that piece of scum that is mugging you doesn't rape your wife and murder you? Ok I will do that.

Now I can't see what you DO NOT GET about The peoples rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

If you can't accept what this country is founded on and the NATURAL rights of the people... I will take that same scenario and I will walk away from you and your wife and let that "CRIMINAL" rape your wife and murder you both.

Because I'm such a bad person that I carry a gun and prefer not to use it only if I must.

Chew on that for a while and run that situation over in your head.