The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

reply to post by sonnny1

The OLD derail Topic trick, and the bonus?

Cherry-Pick the post.

I love it !!!!!

I love the question dodging and bury heads in the sand.

Just pretend you don't have a huge hole in your argument...and continue with your propaganda.

reply to post by neo96


Awesome...so you agree that there should be some sort of regulation on which "arms" people can own.

So we have no philosophical disagreement...only a disagreement to where we set our limits.

Yeah there is hypocrisy in this thread because all the anti gun crowd is so concerned with human life and turn around and support abortion.

I don't know about others...but I am pretty anti-abortion...anti-death penalty too.

Sooooooo....sorry...I don't fit your mold.

reply to post by muzzleflash

What is the thread topic called?

"The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates"?
OR
"The Shameless Opportunism of Arms Control Advocates"?

Yes...and a "gun" is part of the category of "arms".

People like to cry and whine about "taking away my 2nd amendment rights"....but they are already fine with regulating "arms".

Sorry gun lovers...the Constitution does not offer special protection for "guns" or "firearms"...just "arms" in general. So if we are to have an honest discussion...we first have to establish if we are already regulating "arms"...and in fact we are.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

You are an extremist if you are advocating that you think citizens should be allowed to own a nuke...because that is not in the mainstream of pro-2nd amendment advocacy...hence...making your opinion extreme.

then please explain why we "own" them already ??
true, the first nuke was before my personal $$ contributions began but that was then and this is now and i'm pretty sure we Americans have bought 'em all.

so, by your logic, our government MUST be one extreme entity to have hoarded so many of them, right ??

If you are claiming you "own" the United States nuclear arsenal...and are fine with that satisfying your 2nd amendment rights...well then you should be fine not owning a personal firearm because the United States military owns plenty of those for all of us.

Actually...the States National Guard fully satisfies the 2nd amendment without any other private ownership...but I'm sure you are going to cry about that.

So...you seem to have some hypocrisy going on. You are ok with collectively owning "nukes" to satisfy your 2nd amendment fantasy...but you aren't ok when it comes to other weapons.

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

Please

Stick to the topic...

We understand that this can be a heated issue, please debate without resorting to personal jabs...

Let's remain civil...

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You were given an answer, by MANY, in this thread. You keep repeating, and derailing the thread. 4 posts in a row, accusing, and calling out everyone, who have answered you. Its Ridiculous, actually. You're not going to get the answer you want, or like, so you continue to try and deflect. Hopefully the MODS see it, for what it is.


Have a good night, O.K.

reply to post by neo96

What the hell?

The military and the police, and criminals are better armed than the average "gun owner"

And crazy gun lovers are better armed than they were 40 years ago.

Here is the problem...the more you arm the crazy gun lovers...the more we are forced to arm the police...if you don't like that the police are armed so heavily...you have no one to blame but you and your gun lover buddies.

So what? Millions of other Americans have more never killed anyone did they?

No.

4 guns a 6000 rounds is nothing it would fit in a hall closet and still have 95 % of the space left, it could fit in trunk and still have space left over. It could be put in the kitchen cabinet next to the kitchen sink and have space left over

So big deal.

Yeah...big deal...go tell that to the parents of the 6 year girl who was killed. Go tell it to any of the victims of gun crimes.

Big deal...crazy person was legally allowed to purchase a small arsenal and injured close to 100 people...big deal.

The fact that you don't think that is a big deal just shows how insane some gun lovers are.

Yeah dialing 9-11 sure has reduced gun crimes, and other crimes the only thing done is cleaning up after the fact..

Who said it did??? I know I didn't.

You know what else didn't save those people in the theater...Aurora being a CCW city.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

And so do people who want to take the right to bear arms away.

That is your opinion.

Notice you didn't try to back yours up with any substance though.

Originally posted by hangedman13

It's insane that you think that people think guns are controlled in this country...James Holmes got an AR-15, a shotgun, 2 hand guns, and 6000 rounds of ammo in under a month...we do not have effective gun control in this country.

And Mr. Holmes ordered controlled chemicals, using his college as a cover to get them, so by that same logic we need to go and start pursuing stronger controls on that. Nobody supervised what chemicals he ordered? Or noticed him taking stuff out? Considering what a college can order in the lines of dangerous chemicals that should bother more then the gun issue. Especially considering how smart this guy was supposed to be! Looking at the mess the cops had to deal with at his apartment you think guns are the bigger problem?

Sure...I'm fine with that.

Dangerous material that can be used for explosives or chemical attacks should be regulated.

Thanks for agreeing with me

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I never stated a position.

Why are you trying to BAIT people into off topic debates ?

This is about gun control and you are trying to derail it.

It's about the 2nd Amendment...guns are not the only "arms" that exist.

I'm sorry...but you can't just narrow the discussion down to what is convenient to you and your agenda.

NO, it's about the "Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates"
nothing in that title even addresses the 2nd Amendment so WHY are you derailing this thread yet again ??

oh yeah, because you hold the same opinion as those Shameless Opportunists who are Gun Control Advocates ... tis a shame you just cannot/will not admit it.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

You are an extremist if you are advocating that you think citizens should be allowed to own a nuke...because that is not in the mainstream of pro-2nd amendment advocacy...hence...making your opinion extreme.

then please explain why we "own" them already ??
true, the first nuke was before my personal $$ contributions began but that was then and this is now and i'm pretty sure we Americans have bought 'em all.

so, by your logic, our government MUST be one extreme entity to have hoarded so many of them, right ??

If you are claiming you "own" the United States nuclear arsenal...and are fine with that satisfying your 2nd amendment rights...well then you should be fine not owning a personal firearm because the United States military owns plenty of those for all of us.

Actually...the States National Guard fully satisfies the 2nd amendment without any other private ownership...but I'm sure you are going to cry about that.

So...you seem to have some hypocrisy going on. You are ok with collectively owning "nukes" to satisfy your 2nd amendment fantasy...but you aren't ok when it comes to other weapons.

Well, it seems like you just want to ignore basic English grammar in which the second amendment is written and ignore the United States Supreme court and all of the federalist papers and on down the line. Once again I will point out to you that second amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms as decided by the Heller case. Ignore it if you will, just shows how ignorant you are.

I do however agree with you on one thing. The second amendment does apply to arms in general. So yes, it should be able to own what arms I want and have the means to purchase. Any regulation of such is infringing.

In regards to the comma use:

The Yassky brief continues: "The Constitution was drafted with great care, and (unlike much legal writing from the Founding period) its use of punctuation generally conforms to modern conventions, suggesting that the commas in the Second Amendment are not haphazard but rather deserve scrupulous attention."

Evidence suggests otherwise. The Lund brief counters: "This desperate gambit ignores the Constitution's frequent use of commas that would be considered extraneous in modern usage (e.g., in the First and Third Amendments)."

Here is what three authoritative sources say about punctuation and comma usage during the 18th century:

"The punctuation that emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was consistent in just two respects: it was prolific and often chaotic."
--- Alphabet to email: How written english evolved and where it's heading. Naomi S. Baron, Routledge, London and New York 2000. P. 185

"Excessive punctuation was common in the 18th century: at its worst it used commas with every subordinate clause and separable phrase."
--- 15 ed. V.29, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica 1997. P. 1051

"In the 18-19c, people tended to punctuate heavily, especially in their use of commas."
--- The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford New York, Oxford University Press 1992. Tom McCarthur ed. P. 824

In the 19th Century the rule, borrowed from English law, was that "[p]unctuation is no part of the statute" (Hammock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co, 105 U.S. 77 [1881]) (citing references from the late 18th and early 19th century).


Not that it matters, but...

The Second Amendment Foundation maintains, "The Final (ratified) version had only one comma according to the Library of Congress and Government Printing Office."

This image, from the Library of Congress, also shows the ratified version with one comma.

And this page from the National Archives contains a three comma version.

This Web-page claims:

Every single certified copy of the Second Amendment contained only one comma, after the word "state." The parchment copy (obviously where the three comma version comes from) is not a certified copy, and all twelve of the proposed amendments found therein contain different capitalization and punctuation than those of certified copies.

The certified Second Amendment was used exclusively in every official document I could find until 1876. Also, the Statutes at Large of 1819 and 1845, which are certified as being correct down to the last comma and are the official source of the acts of Congress, show the amendment in this form. (Somewhere along the line, the Statutes must have been changed, and I'm trying to find out exactly when.) (www.freerepublic.com...)

This law journal article states:

The second amendment's capitalization and punctuation is not uniformly reported; another version has four commas, after "militia," "state," and "arms." Since documents were at that time copied by hand, variations in punctuation and capitalization are common, and the copy retained by the first Congress, the copies transmitted by it to the state legislatures, and the ratifications returned by them show wide variations in such details. Letter from Marlene McGuirl, Chief, British-American Law Division, Library of Congress (Oct. 29, 1976).(www.guncite.com...)

And finally:

There are two versions of the Amendment, one with one comma, and one with 2 or 3. No way to determine which is more official, since documents were hand-copied then, the scribes sometimes punctuated as they pleased, and most of the real originals were lost when the Capitol was burned during the War of 1812. (armsandthelaw.com...)

In other words, regardless of which version is "official," it appears the states ratified different versions of the Bill of Rights. However, these slight variations in puncuation and capitalization should not have any bearing on the document's interpretation.

www.guncite.com...

Sorry to break in here folks, but this thread is going to be closed for a cooling off period.

Please take the time to enjoy life and lose the angst...

Looking to reopen in about an hour or so..

Let's all regroup and come back with a more courteous approach to this difficult issue.

Thanks.

Thread is Open

Please continue the topic courteously, thanks for your patience..

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Awesome...so you agree that there should be some sort of regulation on which "arms" people can own.

Which "arms" would that be? Guns or the strawman nukes? Regulation has not been effective in either case or kept them out of "bad peoples" hands".

I don't know about others...but I am pretty anti-abortion...anti-death penalty too. Sooooooo....sorry...I don't fit your mold.

Really? had no problems sterotyping gun owners and question their manhood altho a trip to youtube will show millions of American women who own and shoot guns..

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

And crazy gun lovers are better armed than they were 40 years ago.

That is a load of BS see that photo ballistic shelid up front followed by full auto machines guns followed by tactical lasers, followed that up with flash bangs,and tear gas, air support and the means to call up for imediate tactical support by a few other means
'


The average joe does not have nothing compared to that in fact most everything the police use has been deem illegal by all those gun laws then we can start on the "arms" of the miltary but that should get the point across.

Here is the problem...the more you arm the crazy gun lovers...the more we are forced to arm the police...if you don't like that the police are armed so heavily...you have no one to blame but you and your gun lover buddies.

more stereotyping and straight up BS because the arming up of the police is because those who do not follow the law nice try.'

Yeah...big deal...go tell that to the parents of the 6 year girl who was killed. Go tell it to any of the victims of gun crimes.

Blaming things instead of the person really that was a intellectual honesty at work and to reitterate I have lost a aunt and uncle both to gun violence but it was not the gun to blame.

Big deal...crazy person was legally allowed to purchase a small arsenal and injured close to 100 people...big deal.

And over 100 million people who do the same thing legally buying ammo and guns never have killed anyone.

The fact that you don't think that is a big deal just shows how insane some gun lovers are.

A FEW thousand rounds legally purchased and 4 guns did not murder 12 people the person who did it did.

You know what else didn't save those people in the theater...Aurora being a CCW city.

Funny how the theatre had a no gun policy for a city that is suppose to be CCW.