Rob's House Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 I can't help but get the feeling that when news breaks of a school shooting liberals celebrate on the inside.
dayman Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) That's the thing thought - they aren't revoking them. You can still own guns in NYS. They have just made modifications to what guns, ammo, attachments are allowed. When this right was given people owned muskets not ak's. This falls into the "local man passionate defender of what he imagines the constitution to be" category...and yes....their rhetoric is way over the top...but don't worry...they can't be convinced to calm down b/c after all...DO YOU KNOW WHAT A RIGHT IS! IT MEANS I !@#$ING KILL YOU!!! Edited January 16, 2013 by SameOldBills
section122 Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Thing is, you just wrote the passage below, demonstrating unequivocally that you do not know or care about what constitutes a right and in the same sentence basically declared that you are willing to give up your rights at the whims of our federal government. To be completely honest I would freely give up my right to own a gun. I just don't care to own a gun. As you stated below At present, the federal government is the most powerful in the history of mankind, growing ever bigger, and increasingly involved in our day to day lives. It can easily be argued that the case for gun ownership as counter measure for tyranny has never been stronger. To me it makes it even more pointless. It is not a fight that will be won, especially by me. To say I would give up my rights at the whims of the government tell me that you think it is easy to change the Bill of Rights (see below for more on this). That said my whole issue with this thread was never gun ownership. I fully support people wishing to own a gun - it is legal and their right. My issue is with the idea that people were ready and willing to MURDER there fellow citizens. Now that you know what a right is, why don't you familiarize yourself with the language in the second amendment. Can limiting this right be considered an infringement? When the second amendment was written, citizens had muskets, our standing army was armed with muskets as well, and our government was small existing only to protect our basic rights. At present, the federal government is the most powerful in the history of mankind, growing ever bigger, and increasingly involved in our day to day lives. It can easily be argued that the case for gun ownership as counter measure for tyranny has never been stronger. I don't own any firearms and I'm all but certain that I won't be taking up arms against my government in my lifetime, but I'm still alarmed when our government wants to flirt with the bill of rights and our populace is ready and willing to give up their rights. Thanks for the homework assignment teach... link In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4] So to answer your question yes, they can. Also your rights can be changed. Not nearly as easily as a law but they can be changed: An entrenched bill of rights cannot be modified or repealed by a country's legislature through normal procedure, instead requiring a supermajority or referendum; often it is part of a country's constitution and therefore subject to special procedures applicable to constitutional amendments. I know it is uncomfortable to hear but our rights are our rights because the government says so. Not because they were god given and irrevocable. The government would never be able to change the bill of rights as it now stands which is why I don't get the whole take up arms against our police/government idea. That is the most extreme circumstance imaginable and one that a few people with "illegal" guns would have a non-existent chance at winning. The thing is though - IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. There are enough good reasons for guns to be legal that any bill outright banning guns would be shot down in a heartbeat it certainly wouldn't get the supermajority vote it would need.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 That's the thing thought - they aren't revoking them. You can still own guns in NYS. They have just made modifications to what guns, ammo, attachments are allowed. When this right was given people owned muskets not ak's. This is faulty arrogant logic. Muskets were the standard issue state of the art weapon, for hunting, defense and military issue. The public civilians were able to own a weapon which they were best able to defend themselves, family and property. Had the founding fathers anticipated assault rifles, semi automatic rifles and pistols, I have no doubt they would have intended to protect them as well.
Nanker Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 This is faulty arrogant logic. Muskets were the standard issue state of the art weapon, for hunting, defense and military issue. The public civilians were able to own a weapon which they were best able to defend themselves, family and property. Had the founding fathers anticipated assault rifles, semi automatic rifles and pistols, I have no doubt they would have intended to protect them as well. The solution to the problem is intuitively obvious. The people who want us to use only muzzleloaders should petition the King to confiscate our automobiles, electricity, computers, telephones, ball point pens, etc., and mandate that we wear powdered wigs, tailcoats and prance about like a French fop.
Jauronimo Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 1. To be completely honest I would freely give up my right to own a gun. I just don't care to own a gun. As you stated below At present, the federal government is the most powerful in the history of mankind, growing ever bigger, and increasingly involved in our day to day lives. It can easily be argued that the case for gun ownership as counter measure for tyranny has never been stronger. 2. To me it makes it even more pointless. It is not a fight that will be won, especially by me. To say I would give up my rights at the whims of the government tell me that you think it is easy to change the Bill of Rights (see below for more on this). 3. That said my whole issue with this thread was never gun ownership. I fully support people wishing to own a gun - it is legal and their right. My issue is with the idea that people were ready and willing to MURDER there fellow citizens. Thanks for the homework assignment teach... link In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4] So to answer your question yes, they can. Also your rights can be changed. Not nearly as easily as a law but they can be changed: An entrenched bill of rights cannot be modified or repealed by a country's legislature through normal procedure, instead requiring a supermajority or referendum; often it is part of a country's constitution and therefore subject to special procedures applicable to constitutional amendments. I know it is uncomfortable to hear but our rights are our rights because the government says so. Not because they were god given and irrevocable. The government would never be able to change the bill of rights as it now stands which is why I don't get the whole take up arms against our police/government idea. That is the most extreme circumstance imaginable and one that a few people with "illegal" guns would have a non-existent chance at winning. The thing is though - IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. There are enough good reasons for guns to be legal that any bill outright banning guns would be shot down in a heartbeat it certainly wouldn't get the supermajority vote it would need. 1. You don't have to give up your right to own a gun. You aren't required to own one, just don't exercise your right. You aren't required to speak, does that mean you should forfeit your right to free speech? 2. Your assumptions regarding my views on the judicial process are incorrect and irrelevant. Recall that I was responding to your comment where you so cavalierly asserted that rights are rights until they're made illegal, "which tell(s) me that you think it is easy to change the Bill of Rights". 3. If the above are indeed your views, why would you post something as stupid, frivolous and contradictory as what you posted in response to TTYT (#102)?
section122 Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 This is faulty arrogant logic. Muskets were the standard issue state of the art weapon, for hunting, defense and military issue. The public civilians were able to own a weapon which they were best able to defend themselves, family and property. Had the founding fathers anticipated assault rifles, semi automatic rifles and pistols, I have no doubt they would have intended to protect them as well. Arrogant? What in the world...... 1. You don't have to give up your right to own a gun. You aren't required to own one, just don't exercise your right. You aren't required to speak, does that mean you should forfeit your right to free speech? My point is only that I don't care to own a gun personally or care about the right to own a gun. If other people do, excellent, fine, I have no issue with it. I'm not asking others too just stating that it wouldn't affect me personally if this right was taken away. 2. Your assumptions regarding my views on the judicial process are incorrect and irrelevant. Recall that I was responding to your comment where you so cavalierly asserted that rights are rights until they're made illegal, "which tell(s) me that you think it is easy to change the Bill of Rights". You used the term "at the whim of the government" a whim is defined as a sudden change of mind, esp. one that is unusual or unexplained. Which to me says that you believe it would be easy to change the Bill of Rights - it isn't. My point in #102 is that they could if they wanted to go through the process change it. Would it happen? No - doesn't mean it couldn't. 3. If the above are indeed your views, why would you post something as stupid, frivolous and contradictory as what you posted in response to TTYT (#102)? I guess I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Please tell me though - do you believe your rights can be changed? Or are they set in stone?
Magox Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 This is strictly about emotion, not reason. That's the main cog of the liberal plank. Gotta hand it to B.O, he's mastered it.
Rob's House Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 I might have a modicum of respect for the opinions of the anti-gun crowd if ever I heard a logical argument that didn't substitute emotion for logic, cherry-pick skewed statistics to paint a false picture consistent with their narrative, and didn't ultimately conclude with a call for action that would in practice do virtually nothing to solve the alleged ill sought to be addressed while inadvertantly causing greater unforeseen (by them) harm. I mean honestly, if your thought process goes no deeper than "guns are dangerous, people get shot with guns, if people didn't have guns people wouldn't get shot, and some tool I know said it worked in England" then you should probably keep your thoughts to yourself because your ignorance is of no value to anyone other than those who wish to exploit it to their own ends.
Nanker Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 If it could save just one life, we should ban cars. If it could save just one life, we should ban trains. If it could save just one life, we should ban knives. If it could save just one life, we should ban rat poison. If it could save just one life, we should ban fertilizer. If it could save just one life, we should ban can openers. If it could save just one life, we should ban electric outlets. If it could save just one life, we should ban subways. If it could save just one life, we should ban pushing. If it could save just one life, we should ban stairs. If it could save just one life, we should ban ropes. If it could save just one life, we should ban sharp objects. If it could save just one life, we should ban marbles. If it could save just one life, we should ban oil spills. If it could save just one life, we should ban slippery roads. If it could save just one life, we should ban piles of leaves. If it could save just one life, we should ban swimming. If it could save just one life, we should ban choking. If it could save just one life, we should ban prescription drugs. If it could save just one life, we should ban glass. If it could save just one life, we should ban pets. If it could save just one life, we should ban hammers. If it could save just one life, we should ban baseball bats. If it could save just one life, we should ban liberals. Think of the children. Pass more laws. Make the world safe from... the world.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Arrogant? What in the world...... Arrogant... eh.. ignorant would be more appropriate
Adam Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 All things being equal, I'd like to see guns completely gone from existence- I honestly think most people would. Things, however are not equal, and guns have been around for a long time. Just like the prohibition, a ban on guns would fail. There are few people who want them banned, despite what the talking heads tell us. I think any loophole (and I don't know if it exists or not) allowing guns to be sold without a background check should be eliminated, vaporized, gone....poof! Background checks should be thorough and done my an independent source that isn't tied to the government, the NRA, pro or anti gun people (note, I separated the NRA from the pro gun crowd). Mental health should factor in and ONLY be determined by specialist physicians- I don't want the government making the laws and determining who fits that criteria. My preference is no assault type weapons, but I think a middel ground can be found on this. Make the background checks even more stringent. I do believe, despite all the rhetoric from our wonderful government (and the ones pulling their strings), we are headed for an eventual all-out ban and they won't consider whether all things are equal or not. Expect the worst, as it will probably happen. There is no hope and little change.
Buftex Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 I can't help but get the feeling that when news breaks of a school shooting liberals celebrate on the inside. Yeah, I am sure...
Adam Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 The Real Gun-Control Consensus. The next time you hear a fellow American bemoaning the lack of Washington bipartisanship, tell him to cheer up. There is one issue on which Congress still resoundingly agrees: gun rights. Bear that in mind, too, the next time you read a story about the "new" political debate over gun control. . The lack of bipartisanship is with the lemmings. With the politicians, it is an act.
Rob's House Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 I do believe, despite all the rhetoric from our wonderful government (and the ones pulling their strings), we are headed for an eventual all-out ban and they won't consider whether all things are equal or not. Expect the worst, as it will probably happen. There is no hope and little change. Don't even start thinking that way, much less talking that way. They can't do it until people acquiesce. If the society as a whole strongly resists the notion of gun bans they can never make it happen. Also, at the risk of sounding Dr. Strangelove, every genocide of the 20th century was preceeded by a disarming of the population. I know, I know, it could never happen here. Not even in 50 or 100 years because it's not like that now and look how little things have changed over the last 100 years.
NoSaint Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) As for the bolded section: OP:Perhaps it is time to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of those who deny us our 2nd amendment rights? You: I promise to make a few of your children fatherless as a reward for your reckless tyranny. Sodbuster: it gives the public the teeth to ensure that their leaders keep their end of the bargain. when they fail to keep their end of the bargain... Fingon: If they come door to door taking guns then people will do it. Have you ever heard the exp<b></b>ression "from my cold dead hands"? Tim: (who likened this to the wars on Afghanistan) you don't have to win an all out head to head rebellion, you just need to make a point, scramble a few eggs and you'll be eating your omlet in no time. You again: All of these rights we hold dear, every last solitary one of them, are defended by guns and the men and women willing to use them in that defense, who value the concept of freedom for their children more than they value their own lives. You again: when you come knocking on it to take away their guns, they'll give you all of their bullets first. It sure sounds like you are mentioning a war on police officers. Owning a gun is your right, when it becomes illegal it is no longer your right. At times in this country cocaine and lsd were legal. They aren't anymore. The sad part of this whole exchange is I support gun ownership. I don't support gun ownership to the point that I am willing to MURDER other people. If the government comes for your weapons and you respond by getting into a shootout with them you are a lunatic. Plain and simple. Good for you that you were able to take a few with you, now your children and their children are fatherless, that is an okay outcome for you? The thing is - they aren't coming for your weapons. Yes now certain things are illegal, that doesn't mean they are going to go door to door doing ammunition checks. While I generally agree with you, I think you're a bit too reckless in your delineating between rights and laws (or lack there of). Don't even start thinking that way, much less talking that way. They can't do it until people acquiesce. If the society as a whole strongly resists the notion of gun bans they can never make it happen. Also, at the risk of sounding Dr. Strangelove, every genocide of the 20th century was preceeded by a disarming of the population. I know, I know, it could never happen here. Not even in 50 or 100 years because it's not like that now and look how little things have changed over the last 100 years. And I'll also agree here. Which I know is a bit on the fence. I guess I'm hopeful that before creating fatherless children there are a lot of more reasonable things to attempt. There's a strong burden to exhaust all other remedies, instead of sitting on your couch and waiting to get your chance to shoot. Edited January 16, 2013 by NoSaint
sodbuster Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Also, at the risk of sounding Dr. Strangelove, every genocide of the 20th century was preceeded by a disarming of the population. I know, I know, it could never happen here. Not even in 50 or 100 years because it's not like that now and look how little things have changed over the last 100 years. this. the minute you ask an anti gunner why this won't happen here, they stumble.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 LOL Adam...all out ban? Never happen... How can you be so sure? It's already happening in piece meal to change our perceptions of gun owners to gradually depict and frame them as "gun nuts" "fringe" "crime" "unreasonable" etc... its a slippery slope and at what point will the pendulum have swung too far to be stopped?
Rob's House Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Yeah, I am sure... I would exempt you personally from that analysis, but too many of your co-libs are too anxious to exploit these things, giddily as it were, that I have a hard time believing otherwise.
Recommended Posts