The Ban on Guns is not about saftey...

The ban on guns is about disarming the population.

Neither Obama nor his administration cares about the lives of children. They have killed many.

reply to post by crankySamurai


I think that's pretty obvious and self evident when the weapons used were legal under the stricter assult weapons ban currently in place and enforced in CT. Obviously criminals don't give a damn about laws we pass and spree killers? Well, they are for laws only in finding a place to 'work' where they are MOST likely to work uninterrupted by another gun toting citizen.

Schools seem a 100% safe working environment for mass shootings and spree killers....and these new laws? They will insure it remains a safe place for killers to work for generations to come. One HAS to love the golden bricks which pave the road to hell. Each brick shines so nicely, doesn't it? Each one...crafted with such care and well intentioned thought.

If only people would stop for half a second to look UP and see where the path of pretty golden bricks leads. Each brick is a new law..to add to the 10's of thousands of Gun regulations already on the books and "in force" at the local, state and federal levels nationally.

Exactly, its about taking more of our rights... in this case, one of the most important.

Why people cant see that I dont know. Im sure they have just been over-emotionalized by this latest event, but that's no reason to give up your rights to protect yourself. If laws banning things actually worked for the criminals the ban is meant to be for, then illegal drugs would be eliminated... but are they? No.

You can be sure after they take our right to bear arms they will next take our right to free speech.

reply to post by crankySamurai


No the gun ban is about "Growing up" as humans, Putting aside our petty childish ways and accepting that threatening to pump somebody full of 12-Gauge shot because they disagree with you is no substitute for understanding.

There will always be danger to our family's and others whether people have their guns or not, The point is people are much more open, Kind and honest and in a much more pleasant mind-frame when they stop living with 6-shot handgun under their pillow.

In order for the world to disarm itself the people of that world must first take a bite of Humble pie and lay down the Arms they desperately cling to

When it comes to some Americans and there guns they sound to me just like those taliban extremists screaming sharia law, islamic freedom, and the infedals know nothing, whilst beheading or stoning some poor soul to death. Its like two sides of the same coin.

reply to post by itsallintheegg


I straddle the line when it comes to gun rights. I tend to be fairly libertarian, but see reasonable arguments on both sides here. I assume you're concerned with our ability to have a violent revolution should we disapprove of our government? My question is this: Our government has access to heavy artillery, tanks, drones, nuclear and biological weapons. There is no chance that all of the assault rifles and ammunition in the world would overcome the power that our government could exert upon us if it really came down to it. Do you think that civillians should have access to aforementioned weapons to level the playing field, or do you think that we have to accept the fact that violent revolution won't fly anymore?

Originally posted by itsallintheegg

Why people cant see that I dont know. Im sure they have just been over-emotionalized by this latest event, but that's no reason to give up your rights to protect yourself.

People are doing precisely what the founders warned us very carefully NOT to do over 200 years ago. I'm not sure the term 'slippery slope' quite existed back then, but they obviously knew what one was if not the term for it.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin - Feb 17, 1775.


Our founders were wise men...however much anti-American zeal would have citizens look back on them as fools in the modern context. If we listen to their warnings occasionally, we might do much better....but they are historical footnotes to so many now...and have absolutely nothing of any value to add to anything, according to TOO many people who are FAR FAR too ignorant of history to form educated opinions on much of anything. People now are issued an opinion by the state every time they turn on Network news or gov't news conferences. We're doomed.

I think it's about fulfilling the mandate of Agenda 21 which calls for a disarmed population in the US.

I outlined it here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


But thats the past and the world has moved on since and so has the American miltary. You couldn't take back your country if you tried. I mean come on, American has finacially been on its knees for years now and what have you "the people" done about it, you also fought two wars you didn't want, did you do anything then?

But now innocent children are killed and theres a slight chance the laws will be tightened and you are all screaming outrage! Ever hear of hypocrisy!!

reply to post by Kurokage


the provisions for private weapon ownership in the US constitution are for personal security. It is not for an armed revolt. States can form militias, but primarily the right to bear arms is for personal defense and that of your property and possessions.

It is explained in the 14th amendment.

-------------------------

to quote myself from another post.

--------------------------

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by elysiumfire

 

The fourteenth amendment clears that up for you. It was made in part to clarify that if blacks were freed from slavery then the state can not infringe on their personal right to bear arms like any citizen.

III. DOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
INCORPORATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?
The only mention by the United States Supreme Court of the right to keep and bear arms before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed found the right to be protected from any infringement, including the state slave codes. In the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney wrote that citizenship "would give to persons of the negro race .. the full liberty of speech ... and (the right) to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417 (1857). In other words, if blacks were citizens, then the Second Amendment would invalidate state laws which prohibited firearms possession by such citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to eradicate the black codes, under which "Negroes were not allowed to bear arms or to appear in all public places..." Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 247-48 &n.3 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring). In his concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 166-67 (1968), Justice Black recalled the following words of Senator Jacob M. Howard in introducing the amendment to the Senate in 1866: "The personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as ... the right to keep and bear arms .... The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

The Supreme Court has never determined whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement. However, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1,5 (1964) states: "The Court has not hesitated to reexamine past decisions according the Fourteenth Amendment a less central role in the preservation of basic liberties than that which was contemplated by its Framers when they added the Amendment to our constitutional scheme.''[14]

The same two-thirds of Congress which proposed the Fourteenth Amendment also passed an enactment declaring that the fundamental rights of "personal liberty" and "personal (p.17)security" include "the constitutional right to bear arms." Freedmen's Bureau Act, §14, 14 Stat. 176 (July 16, 1866). This Act, and the companion Civil Rights Act of 1866, sought to guarantee the same rights that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to protect.

www.guncite.com...

I am sorry if I am repeating myself, but I dont know what else to do. My OCD is raging. I cant let it go.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz

I thought it was to keep us Brits out!! lol

But do you need swat gear, bullet proof vests, high velocity rounds, and assualt weapons.
A lot of the weapons now sold would kill your neighbours if you missed the buglar!!

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


I'm just playing devil's advocate here; it's a good exercise for me to see where I stand on an issue I feel so torn on. If it is solely for personal defense, why do we need assault weapons/extended magazines rather than handguns or shotguns?

Thanks in advance for enlightening me. No sarcasm intended.

Obama hasn't killed any children. provide clear and positive evidence of this, or you are just another one of the hundreds of Obama haters on this site.

reply to post by Kurokage
You're absolutely right. That is the old..musty..dusty and stinky past. We're so enlightened, we have absolutely nothing to learn from old farts 200 years and countless tears ago.

Of course...I'd note that the MAJOR turn from any values, morals and concepts of the past have happened over the last 15 years or so. I've lived to see it...to KNOW that's a fact...so have countless others.

In hindsight? That transition to flushing the "foolishness" of the past is where we are now seeing packs of punk kids beating being victims into the pavement...RANDOMLY...for absolutely no good reason at all. Robbery isn't even the motive often enough.....punks just decided someone had to die or be beaten beyond recognition because their BEING there was enough. .....flushing that past has given us things like the Amish Schoolhouse Massacre. Everyone is so focused on CT..we forget, this has happened before ...if the bodycount wasn't quite as high.

Personally, I think turning our backs on the values of the past with NOTHING to even joke about putting in their place? Leaves us a society lost, drifting and totally without any values at all. Actually, it's what we've HAD now for a good number of years..and it's getting much worse, VERY quickly.

I'll listen to the Founders as wise men, personally. What came to replace it has been a failure on every level.

Originally posted by jimmyx
Obama hasn't killed any children. provide clear and positive evidence of this, or you are just another one of the hundreds of Obama haters on this site.

Hmmm... I guess you missed the thread of the Soldier who quit after murdering a kid with a drone strike.

You DO realize, that whole program is run under authority of the President of the Untied States, right?? It was under Bush and it is under Obama. We can't fly little death machines into whatever nation we feel like killing people in....without SOMEONE authorizing it. At this level, where wars can start from a mistake? Only one man in the American system has authority to approve it's ongoing operation.

Thank Barack Obama for the fleets of killer drones still operating from Bush's tenure. ...and they ABSOLUTELY DO KILL KIDS. Where have you been on this? Locked in MSNBC news where bad things about Obama never happen or something?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You shouldn't turn you back on it or forget it but move on and learn from the past, I think in this age with over population and people loosing more of there humanity, shoving guns into the hands of a population with out much control is just plain wrong.

reply to post by Kurokage


actually you can get in DEEP trouble for having bullet proof vests.

My friend spent the night in jail for having one in his trunk that he forgot about.

The cops were pissed, since they accused him of being a drug dealer. Why the need for it son? was their main concern. They were right. HE really didnt need. it

There is nothing wrong with army surplus though. It was all I wore in HS. I would still wear it if my wife didnt throw it out all the time. Says I look dumb in it....lol

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I've seen many American posters sarcasticallly claim cars, knives, drugs blah blah blah....kill people, should they be banned too???

Well, I own a car here in the UK, to do so, first I must pass a driving test, then as a new driver, insurance companies make it difficult for you to own an expensive car to start with by charging a premium for new drivers, I then need the car to pass an MOT MOT? which is every year and road tax either every six months or yearly.

Shouldn't a tool soley designed to kill (self defense or not) have even stricter rules and laws than owning and buying a car, a person before even being able to own or fire a gun should be able to prove safe gun control and have some kind of physc test?
Shouldn't a person who then owns guns have police vist there homes to make sure the owner keeps their guns safe and out of reach of others? If a person in the household is suffering a mental illness, shouldn't someone in some kind of medical or police authority be told, even moving the weapons to somewhere more secure till the person can prove they are safe to be around weapons and shouldn't this be done routinely?

I posted this earlier in another thread, I see nothing wrong with this and a way to try and keep all parties happy?? any opinions??

reply to post by v0ice0freas0n


well the same way that you need extra large sizes of anything.

I am not crazy about drum barrel ammo clips. BUT, I don't go to a range where reloading every minute is a pain in the ass.

I think for competition, and sportsmen it might be ok.

If for defense, I don't see it as being a necessity.

I think it depends on the use

EDIT:
They are also bad for the weapon since they tend to make people fire longer then they are supposed to, causing the weapon to over heat or catch on fire.

EDIT:
as far as assault weapons, are you talking about conversion kits that make them LOOK tactical?

If they are not automatic, then they are fine IMO. It is already illegal to have fully automatic weapons. That is enough. The conversion kits to make them fully auto are illegal. SO, semi auto is ok.

You can take any normal looking rifle and buy a conversion kit to make it LOOK like a machine gun.

You cant make a mechanically unchanged weapon illegal just because you change the stock and grip....

reply to post by Kurokage

Well, first... I'm going to outright scream the next time a Non-American (in particular..we have Americans too and they are FAR WORSE for the ignorance) claims guns are strictly for killing things.

GUNS ARE NOT ..NEVER HAVE BEEN..NEVER WILL BE..AND ARE NOT GENERALLY OWNED WITH THE EXPRESS, EXCLUSIVE AND SOLE PURPOSE OF KILLING OTHER LIVING THINGS. PERIOD. PERIOD PERIOD.

Thanks...I HAD to get that out. I've seen this outright lie and B.S. repeated so many times now I swear I would punch someone in the nose if I heard it said in person right now.



Now.... Having said that? If firearms weren't a right under the Untied States Constitution? You could permit, license, restrict ownership and require any number of hurdles to have to cross before simply OWNING one. However, as much as this seems a point of silly detail to Non-Americans...

THIS POINT IS WHAT AMERICANS HAVE...AND WILL...GO TO CIVIL WAR OVER. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT.

Constitutional *RIGHTS* are not now, nor have they EVER BEEN negotiable. Only one body of men and women on Earth can interpret that document with final say. That is the Supreme Court.

As it happens..THEY DID interpret that document..and not 200 years ago either. They looked over this WHOLE THING just THREE years ago in 2009. In that review? They sided with me and flat out against everything you are suggesting in concept., let alone real world practice. It's not a possibility because IT'S NOT LEGAL. ..and under our system? IT NEVER CAN BE.

It gets frustrating to no end because we've having the same debate ENDLESSLY because people don't seem to understand the meaning, weight and FORCE of the Constitution. Ot over-rides everything else...EVERYTHING ELSE...and it IS the law as the Supers say. Well, in 2009 they said....and they said this is a moot point.