Why firearms will not be banned

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
OK, there's a lot of talk about banning going on. People are arguing about it, worried about it, fighting for it, fighting against it, outright shouting at each other and it's getting a bit insane.

There's one group that's trying to pass petitions and force their congressmen to do something.

There's another group that's running to the NRA and vowing to fight anything that's done to take away their weapons.

Then, there's the rest of us. Those who know that the US Constitution guarantees our right to bear arms and also know what would have to be done to take that away. It's a little more complicated than people think it is.

The President of the US cannot just come out one day and say "OK, no more guns" and it be over with. The Congress cannot just come out one day and say "OK, not more guns" and it be over with. That's not how it works.

You see, it's an Ammendment to the US Constitution. Even if some kind of legislation was passed, the Supreme Court would veto it because it goes against the Constitution.The ONLY way to ban firearms is by repealing the Second Ammendment. It's the ONLY way to do away with all firearms.

So, now are you scared that they're going to go behind closed doors and repeal the Second Ammendment? Well, don't be. You see, there's a process to repealing an ammendment. Whether it's outright repealed or repealed by another ammendment, the same process must be followed.

First, 2/3 of Congress has to approve it. Look at who controls Congress right now. The Democrats have a small Senate majority, the Republicans have a small House majority. Neither has 2/3 of either branch, let alone both branches together. It's not going to happen. But, for a moment, let's pretend it did happen. After that, there has to be a vote. 3/4 of the people voting would have to approve it. That's 75%. Not going to happen.

There are very few things that you can get 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the population to agree on and a ban on firearms definitely won't be one of those things.

With that being said, the assault weapons could be in a bit of danger. Laws can be passed targetting them alone, but not all firearms. It wouldn't be an outright ban, more like limitations put on them as there has been in the past, but still not an outright ban. I'm all for tighter restrictions on assault weapons, I want them to be difficult to get. I want regular firearms to be difficult to get, but not impossible to get. I like the waiting period, I like the background check. They are important and do offer protection. However, if it were an attempt to outright ban firearms, I would be very much against it. I enjoy my guns, I like to hunt, I like to have one for home protection and they are also nice to colllect. I want to keep that right. I don't have a criminal record, I am not considered a risk and I can own whatever guns I wish to own. I have no desire to own assault weapons because I don't need them.

So, those of you wanting to ban them, you have your work cut out for you. Those of you wanting to defend your right to have them, there's a lot of work that would have to be done to take them from you. Chill-ax.

edit on 19-12-2012 by L8RT8RZ because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
On the contrary:

I don't think it is so much that the Pro Gun people are worried about them 'taking our guns'. I think we're more concerned with taking back more of the freedoms they have stripped from us!

Such as:

End "Gun Free Zones"
Enact NATIONWIDE carry.
Repeal the ridiculous NFA laws.(not all of them)
End capacity limits of any sort.
Repeal the ridiculous importation laws
and other things.

Also, we need to make a heck of a lot tougher on CRIMINALS. We can no longer afford to try and 'reform' habitual offenders. We can't give an inch when these sickos are taking miles!

I'm tired of it!
edit on 19-12-2012 by LightCraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightCraft
On the contrary:

I don't think it is so much that the Pro Gun people are worried about them 'taking our guns'. I think we're more concerned with taking back more of the freedoms they have stripped from us!

Such as:

End "Gun Free Zones"
Enact NATIONWIDE carry.
Repeal the ridiculous NFA laws.(not all of them)
End capacity limits of any sort.
Repeal the ridiculous importation laws
and other things.

Also, we need to make a heck of a lot tougher on CRIMINALS. We can no longer afford to try and 'reform' habitual offenders. We can't give an inch when these sickos are taking miles!

I'm tired of it!
edit on 19-12-2012 by LightCraft because: (no reason given)


You're not getting it. They can't do it. 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the popular vote. Not gonna happen.

There's a difference in "Freedom" and "Convenience".
Free doesn't mean easy.


edit on 19-12-2012 by L8RT8RZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
In 1994 the Senate and House simply passed by majority vote the "assault weapons" ban. Clinton signed it. It was law, there was no constitutional convention to do it. They don't have to ban all guns all at once, which would start a court case, they can piece meal it little by little. Start with certain magazines, then a type of ammo, or tax the ammo so it too expensive to buy. Then ban 1 type of gun, then another.

Creep.....creep.......creep..... they will try it.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
bostinno.com... __275801_274062_0__ss obama speaking now on live this link if any one was interested



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carreau
In 1994 the Senate and House simply passed by majority vote the "assault weapons" ban. Clinton signed it. It was law, there was no constitutional convention to do it. They don't have to ban all guns all at once, which would start a court case, they can piece meal it little by little. Start with certain magazines, then a type of ammo, or tax the ammo so it too expensive to buy. Then ban 1 type of gun, then another.

Creep.....creep.......creep..... they will try it.



Assault weapons don't fit the bill of "bearing arms". Assault weapons are like comparing a car to a tank. Do you see many car lots that sell Sherman Tanks?

How would you life be hampered if you couldn't have assault weapons? You don't hunt with them, you don't keep them close by at home to defend yourself (unless you're a bit nuts), they are used for one thing and one thing only, deadly assault on a large group of people. They are not needed. It's like saying you want to buy a Sherman Tank to drive back and forth to work in case there's a zombie apocolypse and you can't get there.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by L8RT8RZ
 


What is your definition of a "assault weapon"?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ

Originally posted by Carreau
In 1994 the Senate and House simply passed by majority vote the "assault weapons" ban. Clinton signed it. It was law, there was no constitutional convention to do it. They don't have to ban all guns all at once, which would start a court case, they can piece meal it little by little. Start with certain magazines, then a type of ammo, or tax the ammo so it too expensive to buy. Then ban 1 type of gun, then another.

Creep.....creep.......creep..... they will try it.



Assault weapons don't fit the bill of "bearing arms". Assault weapons are like comparing a car to a tank. Do you see many car lots that sell Sherman Tanks?

How would you life be hampered if you couldn't have assault weapons? You don't hunt with them, you don't keep them close by at home to defend yourself (unless you're a bit nuts), they are used for one thing and one thing only, deadly assault on a large group of people. They are not needed. It's like saying you want to buy a Sherman Tank to drive back and forth to work in case there's a zombie apocolypse and you can't get there.



By definition, the weapons in circulation now are not "Assault weapons" meaning they are not "full auto" or "select-fire". The only similarity is in looks only. Just because it looks like an "assault weapon" does not make it so.

And here's how my life would be hampered if I didn't have the guns of my choice:

Quite simply: The criminals would have better guns than me, they would have better guns than the cops. Quite frankly, that disturbs me. We all know criminals do not care if they are breaking guns laws, good decent law abiding citizens do. To limit the responsible citizens ability to defend themselves is CRIMINAL and UNJUST.

It's time we cut the BS! Give the Good Guys like the Law Abiding citizens who are responsible gun owners the upper hand! Give the Police better tools to do their jobs. Make it incredibly hard for criminals to get any sort of advantage! That is the only logical way!



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by L8RT8RZ
 


you can own tanks in the united states and even the uk although in america you can get one with a working gun you just need to cut through the government red tape to get a fully equipped one

cars.natemichals.com... seems also you need special lisences depending on size of said vehicle



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
It's pretty darn sad when the power you exert is in the size of the gun you are holding as opposed to your skill with a lower caliber and non-automatic gun.

It takes ONE shot to stop a predator that's breaking into your home. ONE. Not 50 fired in succession.

Seriously, if you are that lousy with a gun, you probably shouldn't have one at all.

It's like "tiny man syndrome". The more pathetic you are, the bigger the gun you need I guess.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by L8RT8RZ
 


I know! I know!



Because nobody wants all firearms to be banned?



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
People want to rethink passing assault weapons out like communion wafers, maybe control the legal guns that are out there so they don't fall into the hands of people who shouldn't have them and take a good hard look at the state of mental illness, medications and treatment, as well as resources for parents of children with anti-social or violent behavior problems. Looks like all this is on the block. I would start looking at metal detectors in schools and vulnerable location. I would suggest people start carrying their own personal metal detector wands, like they use in airports.
edit on 19-12-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by L8RT8RZ
 


Pardon sir, but you've made a disastrously erroneous assumption in your post, specifically that one and only one shot is needed to eliminate the threat of home invasion. Unfortunately, home invasions are rarely carried out by a single individual, although many murders and "crimes of passion" often involve one and only one perpetrator.

My point is that although your glorious assumption regarding one-shot kills has some merit for a single predator it's completely baseless if an "entry team" of predators arrives. Consider how many entrances there are to your own home and that each of those entrances could be breached by multiple predators. Consider the location of your home's entrances and consider crossfire, cover and multiple assailants - then consider reload time. In such situations it would be extremely difficult to achieve multiple one shot kills with multiple assailants - if not impossible.

I must agree with you in that the best form of gun control insures that you hit your target - preferably with small groups!

ganjoa



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ganjoa
reply to post by L8RT8RZ
 


Pardon sir, but you've made a disastrously erroneous assumption in your post, specifically that one and only one shot is needed to eliminate the threat of home invasion. Unfortunately, home invasions are rarely carried out by a single individual, although many murders and "crimes of passion" often involve one and only one perpetrator.

My point is that although your glorious assumption regarding one-shot kills has some merit for a single predator it's completely baseless if an "entry team" of predators arrives. Consider how many entrances there are to your own home and that each of those entrances could be breached by multiple predators. Consider the location of your home's entrances and consider crossfire, cover and multiple assailants - then consider reload time. In such situations it would be extremely difficult to achieve multiple one shot kills with multiple assailants - if not impossible.

I must agree with you in that the best form of gun control insures that you hit your target - preferably with small groups!

ganjoa



Also I hunt with 5.56 and 7.62x39 ARs and have friends that hunt with the AR platform in other calibers. I only hunt pigs but that is my choice in reply to another poster who seems to think they are not used for hunting.

I agree with much of what you said and if actual events mean anything 3 or 4 bad guys in body armor broke into a home owners house in Texas or Arizona last year? I looked for the article but alas I could not find it...so believe me or not but it was a big deal when it happened.

Now for some good news

www.wkrn.com...
Maybe some of the more enlightened states will follow suite.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
The sole reason that firearms will not be banned is because the NRA has paid off enough politicians, that the politicians cannot afford to remove the NRA!

Its as simple as that, the constitution is as worthless as the paper its written on, just ask George W. Bush, it can be changed at will.

Also, when the 2nd amendment was added it was based on guns and defence of THAT DAY!

If they knew the weapons people were keeping and using based solely on that amendment they'd probably have never added it.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
(1)The sole reason that firearms will not be banned is because the NRA has paid off enough politicians, that the politicians cannot afford to remove the NRA!

(2)Its as simple as that, the constitution is as worthless as the paper its written on, just ask George W. Bush, it can be changed at will.

(3)Also, when the 2nd amendment was added it was based on guns and defence of THAT DAY!

(4)If they knew the weapons people were keeping and using based solely on that amendment they'd probably have never added it.


(1) Or any other agency, company, foreign government who can buy a vote and get away with it...Welcome to Washington Mr. Smith

(2) There are many in our Universities who would like you to think so...But there are others who believe that old piece of paper is all that has kept us out of trouble...A land of laws equal justice for all used to be the norm however once the corruption of the powerful starts it becomes.... inconvenient. That old piece of paper as you call it has served us well...those who speak of it's relevance dying should be stopped in their tracts with a non-rewrite of history lesson.

(3) another little slogan that has no truth as per many papers written by our founders. We as a new founded country had just shaken off the British Monarchy. It was a hard fought battle. Many of the founders had a strong distrust of people in government power. Some thought it would not last 200 years and others knew the way of the world where the strong always want it their way. Our rifled bore muskets were better than the Brits; much more accurate and could hit their target farther away. Call it an arms race that we won.

(4) you are mistaken. Even today we have people who own fighter aircraft and some old bombers (ever been to an airshow?), legally registered machine guns and even some cannons, tanks and some really neat boats.. If you got the dollars then you too can play.

Not trying to pick a verbal fight but what you have written, if you truly believe it, then....I would change my reading material or tutor and do a little independent study of what went down when America was born. The founders bet everything to include the farm; they were terrorist and had a bounty on their heads. They would have lost life, liberty, and any chance of happiness if the people would have lost the battle... actually less than 10% took up arms and supported the effort if my memory serves me right.... With America's new fought for independence and their feeble attempt at a new beginning they tried to lay the ground work in the pillars of what became constitutional law so that we would always have that old piece of paper to back us up when things got tight.

Shall not be infringed is kinda archaic but it basically means no law shall be made to disarm or stop the citizens of these United States from having a weapon to defend life, liberty, and this country if called upon to do so from enemies both foreign and domestic.....Listen to a swearing in ceremony sometime...unfortunately for many they are just words you gotta say to get the job....

I am not a constitutional scholar and what I have read and understand (in my own small way) leaves little doubt in the intent and meaning of certain words; don't really need someone to ask me what the meaning of "is" is.... that question was answered long ago for me. Sorry if you do not understand the reference. Google it.....

Also I like the way this is written.patriotpost.us... better than I can do...
edit on 20-12-2012 by 727Sky because: s
edit on 20-12-2012 by 727Sky because: link



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Thanks for clarifying the process needed, OP. For those of us not American (who yet care about the second amendment) this thread was very helpful in understanding the workings.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
It's pretty darn sad when the power you exert is in the size of the gun you are holding as opposed to your skill with a lower caliber and non-automatic gun.

It takes ONE shot to stop a predator that's breaking into your home. ONE. Not 50 fired in succession.

Seriously, if you are that lousy with a gun, you probably shouldn't have one at all.

It's like "tiny man syndrome". The more pathetic you are, the bigger the gun you need I guess.


You're living in a fantasy land! There are hundreds and hundreds of documented cases where assailants are shot multiple times and keep on coming!

The whole "one shot" thing is ridiculous. The reality is: you need to shoot until the threat STOPS. Not shoot once and HOPE the guy doesn't shoot back.

And limiting capacity is a bad idea too. What happens in situations where multiple assailants kick in your door. Are you going to stop and say "uhh can't you please wait for me to reload?" Get with it man.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The sole reason that firearms will not be banned is because the NRA has paid off enough politicians, that the politicians cannot afford to remove the NRA!

Its as simple as that, the constitution is as worthless as the paper its written on, just ask George W. Bush, it can be changed at will.

Also, when the 2nd amendment was added it was based on guns and defence of THAT DAY!

If they knew the weapons people were keeping and using based solely on that amendment they'd probably have never added it.


Not true, the 2nd amendment does not simply mean guns of that day. The founding Fathers wanted men to arm themselves with the best possible equipment available and it didn't stop in the 1700's.

And if they knew there would be such heated debates over it, they would have included more language to protect it! But the fact remains it is a god given right and nobody can take it away. Period.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
You see, it's an Ammendment to the US Constitution. Even if some kind of legislation was passed, the Supreme Court would veto it because it goes against the Constitution.The ONLY way to ban firearms is by repealing the Second Ammendment. It's the ONLY way to do away with all firearms.
edit on 19-12-2012 by L8RT8RZ because: (no reason given)


With the exception of a Martial Law situation where the Executive Branch basically had carte blanche to do as it wished the only other way to institute total gun bans would be thru an amendment to the constitution. ERGO, that is why citizens should resist calls for a new constitutional convention!
edit on 20-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join