Recent mass shootings seem planned - using controversial guns/components to push control

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: EternalShadow
By that rational, people should not be allowed to stock up on cars, or smoke, or drink, or eat unhealthy bioengineered food...

No, that's a silly parallel. The OP is about guns, not the fact that people drive cars. It's the type of constipated argument that prevents meaningful discussion and action to tackle the ability to commit mass murder easily.

Umm...did you not hear of the VAN that wiped out all those people in Nice, France??

I suppose that's silly, huh?

Where's the "meaningful discussion and action to tackle the ability to commit mass murder easily" with a VAN!??

Treasonous outfits like fast and furious would sell them to criminals anyway besides the fact it is a very small minority that are used to kill people and is by criminals not law abiding citizens. If a rogue police officer shoots someone should we disarm the police also? a reply to: paraphi

It's like the boy who cried wolf.

Keep it up. One day, if "they," actually "come for your guns," less people will believe it.

I've heard it for nearly a decade now. Yet - gun manufacturers continue to make profit.

Hmm.

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The law says the right to bear arms, not the right to bear guns.

Don't be a "tool".....someone might use you to kill someone.

I'm sure you wouldn't want that.

I have ways to defend myself without a gun or similar weapon.

But my country is not a silent war zone like 'murricah seems to be.

a reply to: Jefferton

the gun nuts you describe...are too busy to need relaxing........we're too busy you see.....too busy stomping any inkling of a shadow of a chance of tyranny

effortless....when follow what Jesus said...sell your tunic if have no sword and buy a kick-azz sword.....

not to use.....to have.....thusly stomping tyranny in the Biblical days.....Romans wanted their swords i betcha....even wayback

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The law says the right to bear arms, not the right to bear guns.

So, therefore it is obvious that everyone in 'murricah must carry a WMD.

Only when everyone, which includes the irresponsible and the insane, are armed with nukes will there be safety!

Wait whats a bear gun? I dont recall the second amendment giving us bear guns? Well hunting bear i like touse Marlin Model 1895 Guide Gun! Yes everyone should have one but not sure if its a bear gun though.

I spelled it correctly.



But I did summarize the 2nd amendment, which reads: "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."

On a more serious note, It is obvious that the 2nd amendment right of the people to "keep and bear arms" is directly related to their membership within "A well regulated militia" and that this does not stand as an individual right of ALL people. Context is important.

Otherwise, the second amendment could be taken to mean arming the insane, the irresponsible and the anti-societal. Surely that is stupid and threatens the safety of civilians.

All americans will be disarmed. In a democracy laws can be bent on a very short notice. In a democracy you have no rights. You have granted privileges.

That is what a democracy is all about...... Granted privileges.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The law says the right to bear arms, not the right to bear guns.

So, therefore it is obvious that everyone in 'murricah must carry a WMD.

Only when everyone, which includes the irresponsible and the insane, are armed with nukes will there be safety!

Well, what the hell are we waiting for dammit!

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: EternalShadow
By that rational, people should not be allowed to stock up on cars, or smoke, or drink, or eat unhealthy bioengineered food...

No, that's a silly parallel. The OP is about guns, not the fact that people drive cars. It's the type of constipated argument that prevents meaningful discussion and action to tackle the ability to commit mass murder easily.

The right to bear just guns? The anti-'gun' crowd uses 'guns' generally to mean all firearms.

The right to bear arms means to carry any weapon that can be carried in your arms.

Not exclusive to firearms, it includes broad category of arms: long arms, shoulder arms, side arms. Even edged weapons, bow and arrow, or a damn pitchfork.

Don't fall for the media mind meld when they use the word "guns", to them it means anything that shoots.

Train your self to use the word firearm instead.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I couldn't believe it, but there is actually a muzzle loader on the market maybe?? Maxim 50 it is called. It does have a suppressor and it does sidestep all the gun laws (the company says they made it that way).

The Maxim 50 from SilencerCo, a silencer manufacturer in Utah, is a .50-caliber muzzleloader, a modern version of the single-shot muskets used in the Revolutionary War. But unlike the muskets from hundreds of years ago, the Maxim 50 has a silencer that's permanently attached.

That makes the Maxim 50, which went on sale this week, exempt from federal restrictions on the sale and distribution of firearms. SilencerCo says it deliberately sidestepped federal laws with the design.

SilencerCo put the Maxim 50 on the market Tuesday with a $999 price tag. The muzzleloader is sold by a Connecticut company called Traditions firearms, while the silencer is made and attached by SilencerCo in Utah.

Silencers are canisters attached to the ends of gun barrels that work like mufflers on a car, and normally they are screwed on instead of being permanently attached. They suppress the noise of a gunshot, rather than silence it completely. ...

I don't know how accurate the article is... Here is a video of how to load one though:



I doubt this will be the first choice for someone to use in a shooting scenario..but maybe I'm wrong??

blend

Adding a link to the 1 minute "product review" video ...

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: chr0naut

Well there has been restrictions put on rights for public safety. Its a fact that rights of one doesnt remove the rights of another its a balance. I think certain people should have their rights suspended if it is deemed they are a threat to others or their rights.

Someones right to bear arms doesnt exceed someones right to live. If restrictions can prevent deaths im all for it. Problem is most politicians are clueless about guns. If you dont understand them how can you legislate them? Ive heard politicians say crazy things like they didnt want people to use silencers because they could hide from police. Silencers just lower the volume but not enough so people blocks away wont know you fired a gun. Or the congresswoman that thought once you use a magazine you throw it away. Youll never get any gun laws fromthese people that would do anything to prevent deaths. And people that could help them dont want to because they know their ultimate goal is ban them all.

I could easily come u with reasonable restrictions that would help.

a reply to: paraphi

Stock up? As if you need more than one to accomplish anything? Ignorance must be bliss.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: chr0naut

Well there has been restrictions put on rights for public safety. Its a fact that rights of one doesnt remove the rights of another its a balance. I think certain people should have their rights suspended if it is deemed they are a threat to others or their rights.

Someones right to bear arms doesnt exceed someones right to live. If restrictions can prevent deaths im all for it. Problem is most politicians are clueless about guns. If you dont understand them how can you legislate them? Ive heard politicians say crazy things like they didnt want people to use silencers because they could hide from police. Silencers just lower the volume but not enough so people blocks away wont know you fired a gun. Or the congresswoman that thought once you use a magazine you throw it away. Youll never get any gun laws fromthese people that would do anything to prevent deaths. And people that could help them dont want to because they know their ultimate goal is ban them all.

I could easily come u with reasonable restrictions that would help.

But the issue is that the gun manufacturers, suppliers and sellers have a vested interest different than other citizens and they claim a "right" that is clearly not what the second amendment is about.

Others previously have amended the constitution. It isn't inflexible.

If there is dissent or confusion about anything in the constitution, it should be reviewed, discussed, debated, voted upon and ratified by the courts, continually.

"Listen you... These are not for you simple one's... Ignore what I am holding."

a reply to: chr0naut

Gun manufacturers dont claim any rights. Your confused how it works people have the right to buy guns. Gun manufacturers make guns and follow all laws. If its illegal in your state or country they wont sell it to you. But the right is always with thebuyer so im confused by what you mean.

Now the second amendment can be changed However the Second Amendment is just as much a protected right as the right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, and all of the other rights protected in the Amendments to the Constitution. Numerous US Supreme Court cases have ruled in this..To change the constitution has been done before 18th amendment comes to mind. The18th amendment was repealed by the 21st this was the ban on alcohol. They could amend the constitution but getting two thirds of both Houses isnt going to happen. So removing it or attempts to are useless.But legislature could make changes easy enough. Problem is they are clueless for example trying to ban assault rifles. About 1 percent of homicides are done with a rifle. That means 99 percent of deaths are caused by handguns. So banning assault rifles has no effect. So discussion has gotten no where and that wont change.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: chr0naut

Gun manufacturers dont claim any rights.

But I didn't say that. Gun manufacturers were mentioned within a sentence which included other statements to clarify the definition. You have to get the hang of punctuation. The statement is incomplete until you hit the full stop.

Perhaps an inability to parse full sentences is the cause for so much confusion in regard to the second amendment?

Your confused how it works people have the right to buy guns. Gun manufacturers make guns and follow all laws. If its illegal in your state or country they wont sell it to you. But the right is always with thebuyer so im confused by what you mean.

I meant that the definition that you applied to the second amendment, that being that all individuals (without exception) have a right to "keep and bear arms", is not what the second amendment says. It is only a partial reading of the sentence of the amendment and is therefore an incomplete definition.

Now the second amendment can be changed However the Second Amendment is just as much a protected right as the right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, and all of the other rights protected in the Amendments to the Constitution. Numerous US Supreme Court cases have ruled in this..To change the constitution has been done before 18th amendment comes to mind. The18th amendment was repealed by the 21st this was the ban on alcohol. They could amend the constitution but getting two thirds of both Houses isnt going to happen. So removing it or attempts to are useless.But legislature could make changes easy enough. Problem is they are clueless for example trying to ban assault rifles. About 1 percent of homicides are done with a rifle. That means 99 percent of deaths are caused by handguns. So banning assault rifles has no effect. So discussion has gotten no where and that wont change.

So, allow everyone to keep and carry guns without exclusion or limitation and continue to watch the death rate climb.

Most other modern political systems can repeal bad and invalid laws.

America was founded upon the rights of the people over government. Sad to say, it is now somehow the rights of corporations over governments and the people that applies.

a reply to: chr0naut


Has nothing to do with corporations their you go again. 2nd amendment in no way protects arms manufactures only their customers. The rightsof people over the goverment is the exact reason for the constitution. Some how you bring this up but try to apply it to corporations when they have no rights. I think your trying to change the victim. People wouldnt lose the right be some evil corporations. So once again this is the right of the people

Now since it is a right and the supreme court has verified that right why under any circumstance would you be willing to give up one of your rights? And what would stop someone from coming after your other ones since you showed your willing to part with them?

Heres what needs to be done congress can put together a committee to study gun laws.Get ideas for laws that would work suggested by people that understand firearms. As i said the biggest problem isnt assault rifles they are a small number of actual murders and the murder rate would continue to increase. The trick is to set up who losses their right and when then enforce it by holding the seller responsible for any crimes committed with the gun thy sold unless they did a background check and registered it to the new owner.

Obama was fine with sending those guns in Fast and Furious to drug cartels knowing that they could likely lead to American deaths because of them, just to help his anti gun agenda, and he classified the operation illegally since what he was doing was already illegal and he wanted to hide it. And then Americans DID die because of them and his actions.

So yes, by his example and others, the left is perfectly willing to cause the death of others by their anti gun actions and schemes just to help them succeed with their agenda.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: chr0naut


Has nothing to do with corporations their you go again.

Is not "a well regulated militia" a corporation?

2nd amendment in no way protects arms manufactures only their customers.

So a company with an assured populous customer base, mandated by law, does not have its trade protected by that law? Of course it does.

The rightsof people over the goverment is the exact reason for the constitution. Some how you bring this up but try to apply it to corporations when they have no rights. I think your trying to change the victim. People wouldnt lose the right be some evil corporations. So once again this is the right of the people

Now since it is a right and the supreme court has verified that right why under any circumstance would you be willing to give up one of your rights? And what would stop someone from coming after your other ones since you showed your willing to part with them?

Heres what needs to be done congress can put together a committee to study gun laws.Get ideas for laws that would work suggested by people that understand firearms. As i said the biggest problem isnt assault rifles they are a small number of actual murders and the murder rate would continue to increase. The trick is to set up who losses their right and when then enforce it by holding the seller responsible for any crimes committed with the gun thy sold unless they did a background check and registered it to the new owner.

In a situation of defending yourself against those who have intent to use weapons against you, they will have assault rifles and sawn-off shotguns and, in the case of real terrorists, will use explosives and other WMD's.

A gun (especially a pistol) has almost no defensive capability in any of those scenarios. You'd have a better chance of surviving by running away, obviously unarmed and therefore not a threat.

Also, if your assailants 'shoot/act first', which is likely, a gun is not a defensive tool because you need to be alive to operate it.

If defense was a priority, people could go for Kevlar and helmets, but the 'defense stuff' is only rhetoric in the debate, it fails actual, rational, evaluation.

Of course, the 2nd Amendment takes no account for escalation of threat either - they get bigger weapons, so we have to get bigger weapons. The collateral of those bigger weapons grows, too, and 'friendly fire' kills you just as dead.

If we took it that the 2nd Amendment meant everyone should be allowed to keep and bear arms without limitation, then the Unabomber was doing his patriotic duty. He wasn't and the 2nd Amendment cannot be interpreted that way.

No-one should have framed something as a 'right', that in its invocation has lead to so many murders.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't about guns, it was about defense against bad government. It is no longer valid as weapons and tactics have changed.

To oppose current governments with arms is simply suicide, especially in America, which is the only country covered by the 2nd Amendment. Toss it out, it is outdated, it leads to more murders and is ineffective.

The facts show that proliferation of guns within the American culture has lead to higher incidences of gun violence resulting in hundreds of deaths each year. Pulling out all the superfluous 'bovine excrement' about the 2nd amendment and self defense, the facts are clear and undeniable. The law should be framed to protect the people.