65,376,373 guns sold during Obama's term and still counting!

page: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


So?

Lanza did not get his guns from a gun show,




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by neo96



This America is the most awesome number one country thinking is getting old and just shows that you don't really know much about the world.


This Us Government is the most awesome number one government thinking is getting old and just shows that you don't really know much about the world.


It's not, it's pretty crappy and corrupt...but that is what we work to fix.

I have no problems admitting the faults of the government or the country.

How about you?


So quick to defend them and give them more power as per the advocation of gun control and so quick to say they have unlimited power.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Most who have given up and given over seem to say the very same thing. It seems the fight has been scared right out of them.
edit on 12-2-2013 by thunder57 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


you just can't see your own fallacy can you ?

show me where in the Constitution it gives you the right

hint -- the Constitution does NOT grant rights, ever.

so, since you think such a thing does exist, why don't you prove it ?
show us a principle, anywhere in the Constitution, that grants rights to any individual.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I have to say something about this fantasy notion of a "gun show loophole" as it's come to be called. As the number this thread is directly based on is, in no small part, a product of gun show commerce, it's certainly relevant.

There IS NO Gun Show "loophole"

The "loophole", as anyone might call it that in the first place, is that private citizens who do not sell guns as a business or regular activity can sell a firearm to another citizen they have no reason to believe cannot own one legally. In other words, a Father can sell to a son, siblings to each other or I could sell a gun of mine to a neighbor, so long as I have no good faith reason to believe he can't buy it.

That isn't a loophole, that's called freedom in America and I'm a little annoyed with the determination to see it regulated away from us. If successful, the chilling effect of Federal Regulations down into the gun show market, while improving the commercial aspects of removing cheap competition, would badly impact the overall activity.

Video Evidence of ...what?

A video on the last page and others I've seen show stings of "undercover" people being deceptive in order to get a seller to make a gun transaction when they shouldn't. In too many cases, the dealers who they choose to approach and then who they choose as part of their presentation, DO make the sale. That *IS* a problem.

That isn't a problem with the law though. The law already makes it a federal crime to sell a firearm to someone you have any reason to think cannot legally own one or who is circumventing the retail background check for any reason. It already *IS* a crime. The video shows me we obviously can't enforce our OWN laws as they stand now.

Adding more laws to a situation where the biggest problem is simply enforcing what has already been passed is absurd.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by xedocodex
 


you just can't see your own fallacy can you ?

show me where in the Constitution it gives you the right

hint -- the Constitution does NOT grant rights, ever.

so, since you think such a thing does exist, why don't you prove it ?
show us a principle, anywhere in the Constitution, that grants rights to any individual.


Well gee...you got me there...or wait...no you don't.

Right to free speech, Right to bear arms, Right to a speedy trial, Right for Women to vote, Right of Citizenship...there are many rights GRANTED and PROTECTED in the Constitution...it does both.

But if you are going to be picky about the wording and not be able to comprehend what I meant....show me where in the Constitution where it PROTECTS your right to revolution or to overthrow the goverment.

Nice try, but actually very very weak and old argument used by the Right Wing.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
First amendment:


Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.




We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


Same people who wrote the constitution also wrote the declaration of independence.


Sounds like a hall pass to me.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Same people who wrote the constitution also wrote the declaration of independence.


Sounds like a hall pass to me.


The same people who wrote the Constitution wrote many things...doesn't make them US law.

They were intelligent men, if they wanted it in the Constitution, they would have put it in there....but they didn't.

So sorry, but your logic is flawed.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Oh they did put it in the us constitution


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.


Pretty clear what that means to preserve the right of the people to have arms being necessary to the security of a FREE state.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 

well gee ... those are all recognized and protected rights, not "given or granted" ones


nice try but you are still wrong.
NO, it guarantees and protects rights.
it does grant specific "authority", not rights to government.

until you can understand the basics, you will never grasp the rest.

gladly ... Amendments 1-10 and several more if you need specifics.

as for the declaration of the right to dissolve government ... see the Declaration of Independence.
however that dissolution occurs is again, the right of the People, not government.

government can never be greater than its creator, the People.
and in that, the People exercise rights, the government protects them ... get it ??



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 

do tell, what else would they want with registration ???

Why would they waste time with registration if they wanted confiscation

registration serves no other purpose whatsoever.

and if registration worked, how did Fast & Furious even happen ??
and, since it did, where are those 'registered' weapons again


ETA -- oh, and if you would, could you be specific about this 'gun ban' you keep saying we've already had ... if so, when ??
there isn't a gun made that has been 'banned' to my knowledge.
if i want it, i can get it, legally.

IF you are referring to the FireArm TAX of 1934 or the Brady Bill or the ban on production in 1994 ... we might have something to discuss ... but, you keep saying "gun BAN" and "gun control" ... and i'd like specifics, especially since you clearly don't comprehend the Constitution.
i seriously doubt you even understand what a BAN is.

so, when, where and source, please.
edit on 12-2-2013 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
All of those guns sold and violent crime has actually gone DOWN by over 20%. Shocking? Nope, that's to be expected, an armed society is a polite society indeed.

The second amendment is true and right, just like the rest of them.
edit on 12-2-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



Like the 4th? That's another one you don't have any more.
No longer are you protected from illegal search and seizure.
Pity really. It seemed fair enough.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Yes...a well regulated Militia is necessary for a Free State.

That in no way gives you, or the Militia, the right to overthrow the government. If you think you have that right, go ahead, be my guest and try it.

I love how all of you are ignoring the very explicit definition of Treason in the Constitution, which would cover any attempt at revolution.


Pretty clear what that means to preserve the right of the people to have arms being necessary to the security of a FREE state.


And no, it's not clear at all...hence interpretation and the SCOTUS.

Show me where the SCOTUS has said that Americans have the right to revolt against the government.


Something to keep in mind...if anyone were to revolt and overthrow the government...then the Constitution is null and void and we are back to 50 seperate States with no National Constitution.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



well gee ... those are all recognized and protected rights, not "given or granted" ones

nice try but you are still wrong.
NO, it guarantees and protects rights.
it does grant specific "authority", not rights to government.


Oh look who is twisting words now. You know admit that they "recognize" rights...same damn thing as granting rights.

I never said it grants rights to government, but it makes it clear what rights citizens have...everything else is up in the air. Either way, those rights can indeed be taken away by removing any of those amendments...the Constitution allows it.

So you can say all you want that it doesn't "grant" rights if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy...but without it "granting" you those rights, you sure as hell wouldn't have them.


gladly ... Amendments 1-10 and several more if you need specifics.




No, those don't give you the right to revolt...go ahead and try it and claim your "Constitutional right" to do so.


as for the declaration of the right to dissolve government ... see the Declaration of Independence.
however that dissolution occurs is again, the right of the People, not government.


The Declaration is not US Law.

It means little more than any piece of literature written at that time. It's a historical document, it holds no weight as US Law...and it does not give you the right to revolt.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





Now here is a story to grab some attention to the feelings of the American Public on their firearms rights.



Ahh yeah, it could be that....or it could be a bunch of people thinking Obama being President was going to launch the race wars. There was a rumor started by gun manufacturers that Obama was going to toughen up on the gun laws and getting a gun was going to be very hard. Remember that some people are so stupid they will believe anything. There are not 65 million people that stupid though. These folks bought a few guns each.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



do tell, what else would they want with registration ???


Why do we register our cars...are they going to confiscate our cars?

Registration helps in many ways. Helps track stolen guns, guns used in crime, identify guns registered to an identified criminal, make it harder to traffic guns....I could go on and on...to say that registration can only be used for confiscation is just simply insane.


oh, and if you would, could you be specific about this 'gun ban' you keep saying we've already had ... if so, when


en.wikipedia.org...

Oh yeah....for all you Conservatives out there....Ronald Reagan signed this gun ban.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I got 3 out of the 64 million...just doing my part...

2nd



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 

no, it's not "the same damn thing" and if that's what you're pushing, i'll passss.

the Constitution does NOT GRANT RIGHTS to ANYONE or ANYTHING, period.
you simply cannot change the fact of the matter to suit your argument.

the USSC does not interpret the Constitution either.
that was never their charge.
what they 'interpret' is the law or legislation in question.
NOT the Constitution.

No, you said it grants rights to the people ... which is incorrect.


but it makes it clear what rights citizens have
no, it doesn't.
that isn't its design, application or intent.

yes, the Constitution allows for repealing ammendments ... especially unlawfully passed ones like the 14th.

bet me.
i need no law, no man and no paper to determine my rights, do you ??
and i shall exercise them accordingly


i never mentioned or suggested revolt ... are you stuck on replay ??
i stated it is the right of people to dissolve government.
that is my claim, if you dispute it, prove it.

yeah so ... neither is the Constitution.
what's your point ??

what you recognize as law is a construct.
what the Constitution recognizes is Natural upon birth.

the Constitution restricts law, it does not create or encompass it.
that is your misunderstanding, not mine.

it doesn't give me any 'rights' and until you can accept that, a revolt is irrelevant.

besides, the way you talk, you seem to be confusing a 'revolt' with an 'armed insurrection' or an 'armed rebellion' or a selection of other descriptives cause 'revolt' is waaaay to general to even be included in the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 

don't deflect, answer the question.

or tell us why are cars registered? ... and why would it be the same?
we already know it's a 'tax scheme' ... what else do you think it is?

and, since we know it's a tax scheme, why not state the truth about gun registration ??
why present it as something that will 'save' us from the violence ??

how does car registration reduce auto injuries anyway ??

but, isn't the point of this gun registry "to reduce the violence" and "increase safety"
????

aside from the fact that 'keeping and bearing' a car isn't a protected right of the people
... what right is it of any other person to KNOW who has a firearm ???

hmmm, soooo where are the F&F weapons again ??
please, don't tell me tracking works, show me


to say it WORKS in any other manner is disingenuous at best.
here's an idea, prove it.

ummm, you'd better read it a bit closer.
(either your wiki or a better source) ... it was not a BAN.
care to show me how or where you think it was ?

it was restricted manufacturing, not a ban.
psssst, i lived through it, did you ?

oh yeah, from your link ... i bet you skipped this on purpose


The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry

Nevertheless, the ATF Firearms Tracing System (FTS) contains hundreds of millions of firearm tracing and registration records, and consists of several databases:

so, let me get this straight ... it's OK for the government to act in direct opposition to the 'law' they created, but we're expected to follow it ???
surely you jest


ETA -- regarding 'tracking' those weapons in the hands of criminals ... Brian Terry was shot nearly 26 months ago ... how long does it take to track said weapons and how many times do you think they could change hands in 26 months ???

given that the 'trackers' know
where they are, why haven't they been retrieved ?
dude, 'tracking' is a swiss cheese foundation for 'registry' ... you should probably find a better angle.
edit on 13-2-2013 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

i can account for 1

it was before his 2nd election tho, so i'm not sure it really counts.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join