Gun Grabbing Congress Critters Come Out of Woodwork After Giffords Shooting

reply to post by Helig


Wrong, they won't, because were the second amendment to be removed, (not likely without some kind of executive order), the people would know it was a farce.

You do realize that 2/3rds of BOTH houses and 3/4ths of the states have to ratify ANY constitutional amendment?

# even with their super majority before they couldn't have repealed the 2nd amendment.

No, the best they can hope for is to get enough non consitutional scotus justices onboard to manipulate the meaning. They're close but even still. The majority of Americans that are gun owners would NOT buy into any of that nonsense

Jaden

Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for the second amendment, the right to bare arm is in the constitution and has to be respected. Now...That right can be controlled, you have the right to bare arm if you are mentally stable, you do not have a criminal record, you pass a written and range test and you pay to have your license renewed every year.

When you want to purchase a firearm, regardless if it is got protection or hunting, a criminal record name check should be done in NCIC, no exception! A waiting period of 60 days should also be instated.

When we talk about people owning .50 cals and AK's and 9 Glocks with super size clips, it's all good to me, I don't care what you own as long as you are FIT to own it and the "system" checked you out.

Now...We all know that gun registry is a huge way to implement a hidden tax, registered guns will end up in crimes just as much as unregistered guns.....Have you ever seen a crook register his firearm ? Just not logical, only law abiding citizens register their firearm....What good does that do for stopping crime and guns on the market ??? Nothing ~!!!! Gun control should be done when purchasing the firearm and truly I see nothing wrong with advising your local police department of the firearms you own as long as you can own them.

Hop I'm clear enough, I'm no gun control freak, just think that there is middle ground here somewhere.

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.....

Oh even if guns were illegal he could have acquired one somehow.. Besides he could have went in with a knife and started stabbing people, or a machete and started hacking people up.... Evil men will do evil things anyway. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

What about the average gun owner that acquires an assault rifle just to shoot cans and metal targets? Most assault rifle owners use them for just that..

Believe me, you let them take one piece of your gun rights away, they will try to take more, and more, and more until there is no gun rights left.

I do agree though, no one needs a high capacity clip in a handgun unless of course we where to ever be invaded......

reply to post by Fox Molder


The point that gun control advocates seem to miss is it is not the people that aquire them legally that you usually have to worry about. All the laws in the world still would not have stopped this guy, because he still would have legally obtained the gun.

The reason? The sheriff failed to convict him for making terroristic threats in the past two years, which would have left him with a felony on his record, thus unable to purchase a firearm legally.

But you see, this is where the waters get muddied, because had he not been legally capable, he would have gotten one through a private sale or a gun show, or off the streets.

Either way legal or not legal, he would have still done what he did. Again, had the sheriff pursued this through the avenues open to him prior to this act, it would have most likely saved the lives of these people.

No one, not Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Obama, you, me, or anyone else but that sheriff and the shooter are to blame.

The shooter for his actions, and Sheriff for failing to take action.

This whole gun debate thing is seriously a no brainer, I mean I totally understand why somebody would want guns banned, but the simple act of banning something makes more problems than it solves, and the manpower to enforce it is already busy as it is, the argument that banning weapons would stop violence and save lives is a terrible argument to make, I mean in a spiritual evolutionary standpoint its a great idea, but we live in a world where some drug dealer needing money for crack could break into your house and shoot you right now and your life would end, then you would regret not having a gun to defend yourself. We live in a world where renegade groups of people train themselves to kill kill kill, and where laws are only for people that can enforce them, we got to remember that USA is not the only country in the world, their are people with guns out there that WANT/DESIRE to kill you and I, that totally hate us for our way of lives, therefore for our own defense guns will never be banned, and when it does it would not just be 1 country it would need to be the entire world for it to even matter, in these times that would never happen, maybe after we are threatened by a natural global disaster we will put down the guns and work together, for a while anyways.

You must remember, we are not different from animals, we are animals, period. Humanity tries to put themselves above animals because we can harvest them for goods, but when you put all your beliefs aside we are animals just like your pet. Survival of the fittest will never end in our lifetimes or in our childrens. Neither will the demand for guns. So you anti-gun people just need to live with it or be filled with anger the rest of your life, its your choice.

Also forgot to add that banning something does not mean people will not find ways to smuggle them in and make a black market off of it, drugs have been banned and anyone with half a brain can find them easily. So you're either giving the money to the people that deserve it [gun makers] or you can give it to the criminals who will figure out to make money off it.

A gun is just a tool, it takes a crazy person to kill another with it. If the gone does not exist than that same crazy person will just use a melee weapon or make a bomb, and likely kill more because a knife is silent and does not run out of ammo, giving him more time to kill before he is put down. Idk about you but charging a person with 2 knives is just as scary as someone with a pistol.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

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

edit on 1/11/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

What? That argument makes no sense. The army kind of needs those bullets, since you know, they're currently in a war right now, and for any future wars. The people they generally go against are far more dangerous than the guy trying to break into your house. To compare the army to a guy who trying to defend his family from robbers/murders/etc is just downright idiotic and just goes to show that you have no actual argument as to why extended clips should be allowed. Now don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with owning a handgun for self-defense, but just give me a logical reason as to why extended clips should be allowed. By your own flawed logic, should people be allowed to own grenades and rocket launchers for self-defense?

For those who you who do not know, those who properly purchase a firearm do have to undergo a NICS background check. There is already a " hold " period implemented. So, the " rule " of the USG has already been imposed.

What would have happened, if this nutjob had instead taken his parent's car, and just rammed the crowd? What if he came down the parking lot at 80mph and went ramming speed into Gifford's table? What then? Would we then ban cars and driver's liscenses?

Fact is, a nutjob is just that, a nutjob. this guy should have been beaten continiously by the crowd until the police came in to take him away. At least that is what I would have done.

Also, every officer i have ever talked to here in Chicago, all say the same thing about Conceil and Carry: Do it. Here in Chicago, we have the strictest gun-laws in the US, and yet we still have a high gun crime rate. And yet, every police officer I know, or met, all agree that Chicago should allow CCW. I wonder why?

It was big news that homicides were record down in Chicago. From what I hear, many officers are underreproting the actual numbers. Why?

reply to post by Kryties


yeah, cause nobody owns a knife.... Right? or a car. or a myriad of anything else that can be used as a weapon. I see most people don't realize that a knife is the single most deadly weapon on the planet. Ive taught martial arts and weapon training, and anyone good with a knife would have killed that many before anyone knew they were being attacked.

Originally posted by Helig

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Side note, I wonder even if these politico's managed to abolish the 2nd Amendment, I wonder?, do they really think those of us who are law abiding citizens are just gonna hand over our guns?

Most likely, it would be all out war, and by rights, there should be!

Actually yes law abiding citizens will hand over their firearms in droves because if the 2nd amendment were to be theoretically removed then its no longer legal to possess firearms, thus the majority of firearms owners would do the right thing and hand them over because the law is the law; even if you don't agree with it you still have to follow it or face the consequences. I wouldn't like to be put in such a situation but if the law states it as such then I have no recourse but to comply with the law, no matter how stupid or moronic it may be.

And this is why we should continue to fight to keep what we have (2 Amendment) and fight to get back what was stolen with The Patriot Act.
Oh, on my way to work I read this article.. There were two representatives quoted as saying they will be cc on appearances from now on. Steve Cohen, D-TN said he's getting his permit after letting it lapse and Jason Chaffetz, R- UT said he will be packing.
So I really don't think all the congressional players are on board w/the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Just say.

To all UK anti-gunners attacking our 2nd Amendment rights on this thread:

If it weren't for our U.S. "gun culture" prevalent since the inception of our nation, you would all be goose-stepping and high-fiving yourselves, and undergoing eugenics extermination programs. Many of our heroes who fought with you in WWII, and made some of the biggest contributions, were raised in this "gun culture".

Example Audie Murphy (a Texan of course):

He became very skilled with a rifle, hunting small game to help feed the family.[1] One of his favorite hunting companions was neighbor Dial Henley. When he commented that Murphy never missed when he shot at squirrels, rabbits, and birds, Murphy replied, "Well, Dial, if I don't hit what I shoot at, my family won't eat today."

There were many more unnamed and similarly courageous soldiers who grew up in this way, and they were invaluable in training and teaching the fine points of marksmanship to those urbanites who were not fortunate enough to grow up around those knowing and teaching the art.

Those who committed the recent crimes of great magnitude are not the norm over the long history of this nation. They are extremely sick, but they should not be utilized by misinformed (or devious) politicians to take away one of our fundamental rights: that of self defense.

Shotgun Preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders: Butte, Montana November 5, 2007 Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from an other home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.

Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news? ........an 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself, against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins and is still alive because of it. Now, THAT is Gun Control !

And what was that you anti-gun people were saying?


source: www.truthorfiction.com...

Originally posted by GenRadekAlso, every officer i have ever talked to here in Chicago, all say the same thing about Conceil and Carry: Do it. Here in Chicago, we have the strictest gun-laws in the US, and yet we still have a high gun crime rate. And yet, every police officer I know, or met, all agree that Chicago should allow CCW. I wonder why?

I'm not an LEO herein MO but I do know the Sherriff as he sells me hay for my dairy cows. I have a CCW as do a good many of the farmers around me. A lot more open carry.

It’s funny going to the livestock auction every other Saturday looks like a law enforcement meeting so many people are packing - but I digress...

Here the LEO's are divided about it, they tend to be suspicious of someone they don't know or deal with regularly who has a CCW and get admittedly nervous. Also, open carry is legal here and that tends to make them really jumpy.

The Sherriff says it takes "conscious restraint" on his part to not question people who are openly carrying (which is not probable cause) and to train the Deputies to do the same.

Only one shooting in our county last year as far as I know...so it’s not a problem.

Crime is really low here because we have the "no-retreat" clause and the right to use deadly force to protect property not just life here in MO, that and the low cost of living is why I retired here from the Army.

People here shoot first and ask questions later – a lot of people around here have very little and stealing from them may indeed be literally taking food from their children’s mouths.

I would not willingly live somewhere with restrictive laws on use of force and gun ownership and where people go to jail for shooting intruders.

I was assigned in the DC area and lived in Maryland for a while (Which at work was commonly referred to as the People’s Democratic Republic of Maryland.)

I was deemed “not qualified” for a CCW despite being a Special Forces Officer of 15+ years’ service at the time.

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

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

edit on 1/11/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

What? That argument makes no sense. The army kind of needs those bullets, since you know, they're currently in a war right now, and for any future wars. The people they generally go against are far more dangerous than the guy trying to break into your house. To compare the army to a guy who trying to defend his family from robbers/murders/etc is just downright idiotic and just goes to show that you have no actual argument as to why extended clips should be allowed. Now don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with owning a handgun for self-defense, but just give me a logical reason as to why extended clips should be allowed. By your own flawed logic, should people be allowed to own grenades and rocket launchers for self-defense?

edit on 12-1-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)

It does make sense because the PEOPLE ARE AN ARMY ... called the militia. The 2nd Amendment is NOT ABOUT SELF DEFENSE. It is about a FREE PEOPLE being able to meet an oppressors force with equal force. Any other argument is secondary. You *should* be allowed to legally own any weapon that "they" can use against you. That is the point. If your oppressor decides that they can use 30 round magazines, machine guns, and rocket launchers against you but limits you to 5 round semi auto guns, that is an act of exerting power and control over you. The 2nd Amendment makes it YOUR DUTY to protect the constitution from tyranny.

A well regulated militia ..... (You. Armed, prepared, and able)
Being necessary to the security of a free state ... (A free state cannot remain free without the ability to protect that freedom)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms ... (Obvious. A right to own, possess, and carry firearms)
Shall not be infringed.... (SHALL NOT be. As in the gov't should have NO POWER to deny you firearms)

I will grant you this though. Even though I am a defender of the right to bear arms I do agree that those convicted of a violent crime and the mentally ill should not be allowed to possess them.

BTW, you CAN own a grenade launcher legally, as well as a bunch of other stuff. You will pay, go through a background check, and be fingerprinted but you can do it.

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Now don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with owning a handgun for self-defense, but just give me a logical reason as to why extended clips should be allowed. By your own flawed logic, should people be allowed to own grenades and rocket launchers for self-defense?

edit on 12-1-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)

You can legally own grenades and rocket launchers. Hell, if you can find one, you can own a Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher.

However, I don't see people strutting around with them on the street, blowing up cars that cut them off or people that piss them off. Maybe you know of some incidents where legally owned Class III weapons were used in any sort of crime in the past... I don't know... half century?

reply to post by Primordial


Took the words straight from my brain.




On a different note,

Anyone interested in the Second Amendment, or the banning or regulating of weaponry should See what our founding fathers and framers have to say about it, before you doom us all to tyranny

Primordial says:

I will grant you this though. Even though I am a defender of the right to bear arms I do agree that those convicted of a violent crime and the mentally ill should not be allowed to possess them.
---------------------------------
I have seen this line of thinking posted elsewhere and it worries me greatly. To begin with, please note that I believe in the 2nd Amendment.
While I understand the reasoning for those who think guns should be banned from the "mentally ill", one should also consider this: Who gets to define "mentally ill"? Nowadays, some political leanings are classified as "mental illness"!! Tread carefully...

Originally posted by Habit4ming
Primordial says:

I will grant you this though. Even though I am a defender of the right to bear arms I do agree that those convicted of a violent crime and the mentally ill should not be allowed to possess them.
---------------------------------
I have seen this line of thinking posted elsewhere and it worries me greatly. To begin with, please note that I believe in the 2nd Amendment.
While I understand the reasoning for those who think guns should be banned from the "mentally ill", one should also consider this: Who gets to define "mentally ill"? Nowadays, some political leanings are classified as "mental illness"!! Tread carefully...

And I agree with that too.

It is a fine line. A slippery sloe, to use the over used phrase.

reply to post by Fox Molder


Do you know the meaning of shall not be infringed?

Gun control laws are unconstitutional.

Case closed.

Originally posted by DaMod

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.....

Oh even if guns were illegal he could have acquired one somehow.. Besides he could have went in with a knife and started stabbing people, or a machete and started hacking people up.... Evil men will do evil things anyway. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

What about the average gun owner that acquires an assault rifle just to shoot cans and metal targets? Most assault rifle owners use them for just that..

Believe me, you let them take one piece of your gun rights away, they will try to take more, and more, and more until there is no gun rights left.

I do agree though, no one needs a high capacity clip in a handgun unless of course we where to ever be invaded.....

of course no one needs a hi-cap mag when I ( most folks ) can change a lesser capacity magazine in less than one second the point is "moot".

bang...bang eleven+ times.
bang..bang x7 times; hit the mag release grab a fresh mag from the pouch; insert the fresh mag; hit slide release bang...bang..x7 again.( less than 1second for the reload.)
this whole (hi-cap magazine point is dunderheaded nonsense.