Exposing American hypocrisy- The Interview Part Deux.

a reply to: neo96

So you are OK with those that have been killed and those that will be?

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neo96

So you are OK with those that have been killed and those that will be?

What I am not ok with is the willfull violation of the constitution.

We already have laws against the harming or murder of people including children.

I don't support creating asinine laws that make everyone pay for actions they will never do.

I don't support paying for the crimes that someone else commits.

I thought EVERYONE was entitled to due process.

Having their day in court, and their crimes PROVEN.

So you are OK with those that have been killed and those that will be?

By guns or abortion?

No in both cases.

originally posted by: neo96
By guns or abortion?

No in both cases.

Your reasoning in this post does not line up with that answer. It's merely political rhetoric. I can only infer that you DON'T care about these dead, and soon to be, people.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Cuervo

Measures are in place with respect to how potentially dangerous the freedom in question is. For example, free speech doesn't need a license but that doesn't mean it's without law. If you were to verbally threaten to harm another person, that's not protected free speech. Even words carry a threat to personal safety.

Miss all the threats coming from North Korea. So by 'law' we are required to do something?

Last I checked, North Korea isn't a part of our United States. Why would their threats have anything to do with our amendments? Are you saying we should send the police over there to make an arrest? Good luck enforcing our laws in a completely different nation.

I'm totally confused as to where you are going with this.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: neo96

People with guns can say anything.

And if they relied more on intelligence they ironically wouldn't need guns.

Unless one is shooting a target for fun or dinner BECAUSE YOU'RE HUNGRY, guns serve no positive purpose other that to perpetuate intimidation, cowardice, annoyance, fear and ignorance imo.

And speaking of "rights"...what about the right for the normal unarmed people to live in peace without open carry madness? Or does your logic only apply one way?

a reply to: neo96

I don't really see a problem with having my criminal history/mental health history/etc brought up if I want to purchase a gun.

As a person with no bad marks on either record, it's just an extra form I have to fill out. No big deal.

U.S. has some of the most lax gun laws on the PLANET. Trying getting a firearm in Spain. or Japan. Or Latvia.

The U.S. makes it ridiculously easy for an average person to own a gun. So I really don't see the problem here.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

But there needs to be some common sense measures in place to at least put SOME roadblock on crazies and criminals getting their hands on weapons.

Just so you know, murderers don't care about any "measures".

Well, gun freedoms aren't the only freedoms violated in the US these days. My obvious content in this whole story is that Obama & Co are using this ridiculous ironic rhetoric about "free speech" after years and years of repression of dissent in the US, and with a press controlled by their corporate establishment.

SO yeah, this is one big joke, and perhaps also a sinister new way of promoting a mediocre movie with mediocre comedian Seth Rogen, that wouldn't fly for long without all the anti-NK hype.

a reply to: neo96

Don't you think the constitution is a bit outdated for the times? They were, at the time, still taking the nation from the native people. It was an inquisition, they meant to conquer the land and all they found. but there is nothing left to conquer.

I faintly remember being taught that the United States was founded to escape religious tyranny or british tyranny, but what of after the dust had settled? what of the future when there will be no more room to build? Population is exponentially increasing and we will get to a point where a billion people will have guns, but it's easy to have the gun.

it's easy to have the gun, isn't it? do you need to read a book? do you need to have graduated? do you need to know.... words? A BILLION STUPID PEOPLE WITH GUNS.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The U.S. makes it ridiculously easy for an average person to own a gun.

"Average" people aren't the problem. Guns aren't the problem.

Murderous intent is. With that in mind, any object can be made lethal, from a rock to a Mac truck.

You can't legislate morality or lock everything up.

a reply to: intrptr

The idea is to make it difficult. If you could just walk into Wal-Mart and say "one gun, please" (oh wait, you totally CAN do that) without any checks in place to make sure the guy with his hand out isn't some violent psychopath, I'd venture to say the amount of murders or at least gun-related deaths would go up.

Yes, TRULY motivated people will find a way to get a firearm. No amount of bureaucracy will stop these people, but making it difficult to obtain them gives these people a time to do a lot of things, like RELAX, or RECONSIDER their actions.

You're absolutely right Neo.
You shouldn't need a license to own a firearm, or drive a car, or fly a plane, or install elevators, or gas heating or operate locomotives or anything where the safety of the general population is involved. What right does the Gov. have to regulate people in such ways! After all everyone alive is a responsible and considerate human being right?

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The idea is to make it difficult. If you could just walk into Wal-Mart and say "one gun, please"

People with criminal intent hardly "walk into Wal-Mart". They know it means the gun could be traced back to them. They either buy it from other criminals or steal it.

Would you use your own car to rob a bank?

a reply to: neo96

I am afraid you have got gun control or more apt the right to own guns mixed up due to semantics.

Words can be construed to mean differing things by the ears of the listener.

To me the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TRANSLATES AS....The right to wear short sleeved shirts.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

second reply:

Yes, TRULY motivated people will find a way to get a firearm. No amount of bureaucracy will stop these people,

The bureaucracy isn't designed to stop criminals. Its designed to "make it difficult" for law abiding citizens from defending themselves against the government.

In the long run it won't matter. By the time the police state is full on, gun rights will heave been eroded to the point of flint lock muskets and bow and arrow.

a reply to: intrptr

Would you use your own car to rob a bank?

People rob banks wearing shirts with their NAME and the company they work for on it.

Like this jackwagon

Oh, and he also drove his own car there too.

The bureaucracy isn't designed to stop criminals. Its designed to "make it difficult" for law abiding citizens from defending themselves against the government.

That's the thing. It's NOT difficult at ALL for a law abiding citizen to legally obtain a firearm. Like in my previous post, all it is, is an extra form, if that. Maybe a waiting period if you are purchasing a handgun.

THAT'S SO HARD. MY TIRED HAND CAN'T POSSIBLY FILL OUT ANOTHER PAGE. YOU WIN THIS TIME, GOVERNMENT!

You'll still get the best trip from cradle to grave in the good ole USA no matter what you find to be hypocrisy, just ask all the newly minted amnesty citizens.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Citing the one lone "jack wagon" is a poor excuse for blanket policy upon the whole nation.

Something the media excels at in an attempt to produce in everyone ones mind the utmost need to erode everyone else's rights as a result.

Thats obviously the issue, not a crazy and his gun.

Examples:

"Gun" - violence" (gun violence) and "Gun" - man (gunman).

Have you really bought the conditioning that easily? Or are you simply promoting it, too?

Last gun issue reply, sorry about the off topic.

a reply to: intrptr

I'm sure there other cases, that was just the result of one casual google search.

I'm not exactly sure what sort of "conditioning" you're referring to. It's easy for Americans to get guns legally if they're not criminals. That's that.

The only "rights" that would erode as result of stricter gun laws would the rights of people who shouldn't be owning gun in the first place. So again, I don't see the issue.

I'm sorry I don't agree with ya'll. I've reading this site for 2 years, It's hard for a gun control advocate to walk away from this site happy! Mainly I'm here for the aliens and doom porn.

But what? Newly minted amnesty citizens? the immigrants? Lets just keep saying Obama and not TPTB because that makes sense..

Does anybody else take great comfort knowing that the immigrants are starting to become citizens?
Taxes! We are going to have a buttload of tax revenue