I don't understand how these politicians think. When are they going to do something about the criminals? If I were a criminal, I would love all kinds of gun laws to pass because it would be safer for me to rob, rape, kill someone because they are unarmed and I will be.
I would love all these "gun free zones", a shooting gallery with no one shooting back.
Limit the magazine capacity? Haha, I laugh at limit magazine capacity. I do what I want because I'm a "criminal".
Background check, I don't need no stinking background check. I get my piece from my homie down the streets, he gotz connections.
Murder, rape illegal? No problem, I (the criminal) would do it anyway. Preferably in a "gun free zone" where it's safer for a criminal.
Now if the new law pass, they will hold the manufacturer of the guns I used gun responsible? Who cares? Now no manufacturer would want to sell here. Better for me because less people would be armed.
Wishful thinking laws that will not do anything except make it easier for criminals to commit crimes.
It's a good time to be a criminal (In some states. Will CO join/move up the chart in the list?)
Political rant thread
I`m Batman wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again...
Ban alcohol! Alcohol has contributed to more violence and deaths than "the scary looking black rifle that shoots tiny .22 caliber bullets and function exactly the same as any other semi-auto rifle but because it looks scary and dumb uneducated politicians want to ban it"
and legalize weed beyond Colorado and Washington. I don't smoke (although I grew up in Seattle, so maybe the universe is sending me a message), but locking people up for pot is dumb. I'd much rather deal with someone who is stoned than drunk.
I`m Batman wrote:I don't understand how these politicians think. When are they going to do something about the criminals? If I were a criminal, I would love all kinds of gun laws to pass because it would be safer for me to rob, rape, kill someone because they are unarmed and I will be.
I would love all these "gun free zones", a shooting gallery with no one shooting back.
Limit the magazine capacity? Haha, I laugh at limit magazine capacity. I do what I want because I'm a "criminal".
Background check, I don't need no stinking background check. I get my piece from my homie down the streets, he gotz connections.
Murder, rape illegal? No problem, I (the criminal) would do it anyway. Preferably in a "gun free zone" where it's safer for a criminal.
Now if the new law pass, they will hold the manufacturer of the guns I used gun responsible? Who cares? Now no manufacturer would want to sell here. Better for me because less people would be armed.
Wishful thinking laws that will not do anything except make it easier for criminals to commit crimes.
It's a good time to be a criminal (In some states. Will CO join/move up the chart in the list?)
This is one of the arguments that drives me nuts in the gun control debate. The vast majority of personal crime isn't random. It's between people who know each other. It's domestic violence, gang violence, drug deals gone bad, date rape, child molestation by friends and family, and general stupidity. Guns being present in these interaction dramatically increases the lethality of them, and often leads people to make more aggressive decisions than they would if they were unarmed. Add to this the reality that there is very little actual knowledge about how often guns are really used in self-defense situations and this argument seems less valid. I'm not making an argument for gun control, just stating well documented fact. Criminals aren't out running around in their ski masks and black turtlenecks looking for people to ravage. As I said earlier in this thread, the stuff that scares people is rare, and unlikely to impact us directly. Often, criminals are people just like you and me that make a series of colossally bad decisions. It isn't nearly as black and white as gun nuts would have us believe. Frankly, if you want to be scared of something that is likely to kill you, worry about drunk drivers. They kill way more people than random violence does, and they ought to be put in stocks in the town center.
FYI, the law to hold manufacturers responsible died last week. Good riddance, that was a stupid suggestion. Democracy at work.
-
I`m Batman
- Senior Member
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:14
- Location: Castle Rock
I'm actually calmer when I am armed... because I do not want things to escalate.
I remember seeing a video a long time ago. They were interviewing criminals in prison what they think about gun control. The answer - They are all for it, the more the better. They also said that they do not follow them (duh). That means that they have the upper hand. They also said that they are more afraid of running into armed random citizens when they are committing crimes than they do cops.
I remember seeing a video a long time ago. They were interviewing criminals in prison what they think about gun control. The answer - They are all for it, the more the better. They also said that they do not follow them (duh). That means that they have the upper hand. They also said that they are more afraid of running into armed random citizens when they are committing crimes than they do cops.
Tsk tsk Justin, lol. People are the issue. You should know that.
Read this tonight... There are now mixed reports coming in, but an investigation should occur. If it's true, then wow. If not, then that Sheriff should be removed.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/red-pill-blue-bill/2013/mar/10/democrats-threaten-sheriffs-over-gun-ban-testimony/
Other than the alleged extortion, this part is equally disturbing....
"Other irregularities in Democrats’ public versus private behavior are coming to light.
Mark Kelly, husband of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, purchased an AR-15 and high-capacity magazines in Arizona exactly one day after he testified against them in Colorado. When confronted a few days later Kelly said he wasn’t really planning on keeping his purchases if someone found out about it."
Read this tonight... There are now mixed reports coming in, but an investigation should occur. If it's true, then wow. If not, then that Sheriff should be removed.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/red-pill-blue-bill/2013/mar/10/democrats-threaten-sheriffs-over-gun-ban-testimony/
Other than the alleged extortion, this part is equally disturbing....
"Other irregularities in Democrats’ public versus private behavior are coming to light.
Mark Kelly, husband of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, purchased an AR-15 and high-capacity magazines in Arizona exactly one day after he testified against them in Colorado. When confronted a few days later Kelly said he wasn’t really planning on keeping his purchases if someone found out about it."
-
KILLER_VIZ
- Senior Member
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:14
- Location: Thornton
The more decent people that are armed and trained the less crime in that area. Do you see mass shootings in Switzerland? No because every citizen is armed and trained by the government. Gun control is a pure political term just as in assault rifles. There are plenty of facts stating that gun control doesnt work. Just as the first ban proved nothing but a waste of time, resources, money , and headaches for honest law abiding citizens. The issues with guns in America is the lack of education, not the vast amounts of guns here. To think that a written statement on a book in a government facility will decrease crime is ridiculous. I served my country for 9 years, been in combat, just so people as your self can question the constitution!!! The problem is the pussyfying of this once great nation. OMG the pop tart looks like a gun lets expel the kid WTF! Stop drinking the kool aid and open your eyes this administration is not looking out for the american people! Benghazi= "what does it matter?..." seriously you want these people in office. The problem is people not guns, knives, hammers, cars, etc.... These are merely tools. Until people as yourself Justin realize this nothing will change. Ban all gun tomorrow and there will be plenty of murders by guns that same day, and plenty of murders years to follow. Educate yourselves before jumping on bandwagons. There is a reason why the constitution has been around for 200+ years, Cause it works! I like hearing the argument that they didn't have assault rifles back then, no but they had the same style of rifles as the people they where fighting, just as we should today. We the people should not be worried about our government taking our rights away slowly. They should be worried that we will use our rights and take the government back. No free people should be afraid of their government, but the government should always fear the people of a free nation. Once you take or severely limit one of our rights in the bill of rights it only opens the door to destroy others! You may not agree with guns, but you should be pissed that the government is trying to take the people's god given rights!
How the word "right" is misconstrued by our government.
The right to bear arms <> the right to bear gov. approved arms.
The right to healthcare <> [free] healthcare. (Healthcare isn't a right, its a privilege)
A women's "right" <> the unborn's right to life.
The right to work <> the right to a government paycheck.
The right to live in a free country <> the right to be mandated by said "free" country.
Just a few examples of what grinds my gears...
(In no particular order- either left to right, up-down, or sideways...say whaa?)
The right to bear arms <> the right to bear gov. approved arms.
The right to healthcare <> [free] healthcare. (Healthcare isn't a right, its a privilege)
A women's "right" <> the unborn's right to life.
The right to work <> the right to a government paycheck.
The right to live in a free country <> the right to be mandated by said "free" country.
Just a few examples of what grinds my gears...
(In no particular order- either left to right, up-down, or sideways...say whaa?)
one and one makes two, together we are free
-
KILLER_VIZ
- Senior Member
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:14
- Location: Thornton
kingtut wrote:How the word "right" is misconstrued by our government.
The right to bear arms <> the right to bear gov. approved arms.
The right to healthcare <> [free] healthcare. (Healthcare isn't a right, its a privilege)
A women's "right" <> the unborn's right to life.
The right to work <> the right to a government paycheck.
The right to live in a free country <> the right to be mandated by said "free" country.
Just a few examples of what grinds my gears...
(In no particular order- either left to right, up-down, or sideways...say whaa?)
Thats the problem they are not suppose to be able to do it but people let it happen. Turn their heads when this happens. But We The People are fed up, and the government has stuck their hands in the honey bee hive one too many times now.
Wow, usually I tend to kill conversions, yet somehow this has been going on for two pages after I last checked in. So, America, fuk yeah! (gotta have humor, even in the most serious scenarios)
Having studied the wording of the second amendment, including its construction within the context of both the English language, and the time in was written, I conclude that it does in fact intend to allow me the right to own any arm I desire including tanks, planes, and nukes. Yes, I know, that tends to put me in the "completely nuts" group of the conversation.
Now, this assumes that I can afford to buy a loaded F14 (trivial example, I always liked how they looked), I can find someone to sell me one (or I make it myself), and I can put it somewhere that doesn't harm other people (ie I don't use it to blow up my neighbors house so that I can fit it in my back yard).
Of course, even when the Constitution was written, it was well known and agreed that you can have your rights taken away if you do not play nice with others. Ie, this would be you losing your right to own arm, or vote, or something else if you are convicted of a felony. Thats the price of freedom, you must live with the consequences of your actions, but that is not to say that if I am a law abiding citizen, my rights are still allowed to be curtailed. You know, innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Your first amendment examples are all flawed, in that they violate that principal. Shouting "fire" in the theater is allowed, however if I cause a riot because of it, I must pay the penalty because I have likely harmed someone else.
So, lets visit the text of the 2nd amendment and preemptively dispel some myths:
Most people get hung up on the first part "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,". If you don't have a degree in English, you might think it somehow places limits on the second part. You would be incorrect.
The amendment in constructed from two clauses, the first "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," and the second "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The way the two clauses are related, or rather their lack of relation, means that they are independent statements. The first statement saying a well regulated (historically meaning armed) militia is necessary for national security. The second statement enumerates the right we are currently debating, and uses quite strong language to indicate that it is important ("shall not be infringed").
Now, you may be wondering, why even include the first clause, if it has no bearing or restriction on the second? Because it is a preamble, which was an extremely common way to write important documents during that time. A preamble is intended to give the reader some reason of why they should care about the rest of the document. The Constitution has one as well, and tends to be quite well known. You may also be asking, why would the Second Amendment have a preamble if its right in the middle of the Bill of Rights? The answer is, each of the Bill of Rights amendments was drafted as a unique piece, to be ratified separately. It was only later, that they were grouped into a unifying document and collectively referred to.
You bring up a "reasonable restrictions" argument, which I find interesting. I would argue that many of these "reasonable restrictions" you allude to are either not reasonable, or blatenly unconstitutional. Specific to guns, however, I wonder, where is the limit of "reasonable"? Don't we have many tens of thousands of laws on the books right now? It seems like we are acting out the very definition of insanity that is credited to Albert Einstein. We keep doing the same act (pass another law) and expect a different result (gun violent to go away). After 40 or 50 thousand tomes of doing that, you think we'd figure it out?
The trivial answer might be because "the 2nd amendment protects the first".
The actual answer is likely more complex than that. I think that the second is most at risk, or at least perceived to be, because the general public seems to not care, and that makes it an easy target. For the other rights (except the 3rd, because that has actually never been needed), you have numerous organizations actively figuring for them such as the ACLU. However the ACLU, which is probably the most powerful rights organization in the US, and many others actively ignore the 2nd or fight against it. For a first amendment issue, you've got the ACLU, the Associated Press, Reporters without Border, and how many others? For a gun rights issue, you've got the NRA, and ....... I really cant think of any others off the top of my head and many gun rights supporters don't strictly agree with the NRA either.
So I think you tend to see a very vocal and grassroots defense of the 2nd, because no one else seems to be doing so.
I like to think that the majority of the defenders for the 2nd amendment also actually defend the other rights, I know I do.
I'd say, pretty much this. Sadly, I think its kind of become Stockholm Syndrome for the country. Little by little we are forgetting what we could do because it becomes normal, and its neigh impossible to get it back.
erod550 wrote:I disagree that the 2nd amendment mean unrestricted access to any kind of firearm you may want. We already have limits on what kind of arms you can own. You can't own a tank. You can't own an RPG, at least your average person on the street can't go buy one. I don't know what the availability is with special permits or what have you. But we already have restrictions on the 2nd amendment.
Other amendments have also been ruled that the government can place reasonable limits on them. Take the first amendment. You have freedom of religion but not if your religion calls for human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech but you can still be charged with inciting riots or be charged with libel or slander.
Having studied the wording of the second amendment, including its construction within the context of both the English language, and the time in was written, I conclude that it does in fact intend to allow me the right to own any arm I desire including tanks, planes, and nukes. Yes, I know, that tends to put me in the "completely nuts" group of the conversation.
Now, this assumes that I can afford to buy a loaded F14 (trivial example, I always liked how they looked), I can find someone to sell me one (or I make it myself), and I can put it somewhere that doesn't harm other people (ie I don't use it to blow up my neighbors house so that I can fit it in my back yard).
Of course, even when the Constitution was written, it was well known and agreed that you can have your rights taken away if you do not play nice with others. Ie, this would be you losing your right to own arm, or vote, or something else if you are convicted of a felony. Thats the price of freedom, you must live with the consequences of your actions, but that is not to say that if I am a law abiding citizen, my rights are still allowed to be curtailed. You know, innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Your first amendment examples are all flawed, in that they violate that principal. Shouting "fire" in the theater is allowed, however if I cause a riot because of it, I must pay the penalty because I have likely harmed someone else.
So, lets visit the text of the 2nd amendment and preemptively dispel some myths:
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.
Most people get hung up on the first part "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,". If you don't have a degree in English, you might think it somehow places limits on the second part. You would be incorrect.
The amendment in constructed from two clauses, the first "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," and the second "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The way the two clauses are related, or rather their lack of relation, means that they are independent statements. The first statement saying a well regulated (historically meaning armed) militia is necessary for national security. The second statement enumerates the right we are currently debating, and uses quite strong language to indicate that it is important ("shall not be infringed").
Now, you may be wondering, why even include the first clause, if it has no bearing or restriction on the second? Because it is a preamble, which was an extremely common way to write important documents during that time. A preamble is intended to give the reader some reason of why they should care about the rest of the document. The Constitution has one as well, and tends to be quite well known. You may also be asking, why would the Second Amendment have a preamble if its right in the middle of the Bill of Rights? The answer is, each of the Bill of Rights amendments was drafted as a unique piece, to be ratified separately. It was only later, that they were grouped into a unifying document and collectively referred to.
You bring up a "reasonable restrictions" argument, which I find interesting. I would argue that many of these "reasonable restrictions" you allude to are either not reasonable, or blatenly unconstitutional. Specific to guns, however, I wonder, where is the limit of "reasonable"? Don't we have many tens of thousands of laws on the books right now? It seems like we are acting out the very definition of insanity that is credited to Albert Einstein. We keep doing the same act (pass another law) and expect a different result (gun violent to go away). After 40 or 50 thousand tomes of doing that, you think we'd figure it out?
Huzer wrote:This, why are people so worked up about the 2nd, and have readily accepted limitations on other amendments/Constitution/civil liberties? What's the difference?
The trivial answer might be because "the 2nd amendment protects the first".
The actual answer is likely more complex than that. I think that the second is most at risk, or at least perceived to be, because the general public seems to not care, and that makes it an easy target. For the other rights (except the 3rd, because that has actually never been needed), you have numerous organizations actively figuring for them such as the ACLU. However the ACLU, which is probably the most powerful rights organization in the US, and many others actively ignore the 2nd or fight against it. For a first amendment issue, you've got the ACLU, the Associated Press, Reporters without Border, and how many others? For a gun rights issue, you've got the NRA, and ....... I really cant think of any others off the top of my head and many gun rights supporters don't strictly agree with the NRA either.
So I think you tend to see a very vocal and grassroots defense of the 2nd, because no one else seems to be doing so.
I like to think that the majority of the defenders for the 2nd amendment also actually defend the other rights, I know I do.
KILLER_VIZ wrote:Thats the problem they are not suppose to be able to do it but people let it happen. Turn their heads when this happens. But We The People are fed up, and the government has stuck their hands in the honey bee hive one too many times now.
I'd say, pretty much this. Sadly, I think its kind of become Stockholm Syndrome for the country. Little by little we are forgetting what we could do because it becomes normal, and its neigh impossible to get it back.
mOOsE wrote:Barf...
Biden...gtfo
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo
Ouch. I hope that the owners of the confiscated firearms are at least getting reimbursed for the "fair market value". I will say, its nice to hear that the officers are respecting the fact that they have to talk their way in, and must peacefully leave if denied entry. I was expecting SWAT style raids when I first started reading.
mOOsE wrote:Barf...
Biden...gtfo
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo
The only mention of Biden in that article was that he was sent a letter from someone in California.
[color="RoyalBlue"]1992 Miata Project[/color]
Brigdh wrote:Ouch. I hope that the owners of the confiscated firearms are at least getting reimbursed for the "fair market value". I will say, its nice to hear that the officers are respecting the fact that they have to talk their way in, and must peacefully leave if denied entry. I was expecting SWAT style raids when I first started reading.
I hope drug dealers that get raided get fair market value for their drugs, too.
[color="RoyalBlue"]1992 Miata Project[/color]
Huzer wrote:I hope drug dealers that get raided get fair market value for their drugs, too.
There is a bit of a difference between having something that once was legal, and something that was never legal to begin with. Typically (although its a bit of a case by case basis) when the government seizes your property for any reason, you usually have some measure of reimbursement. It could be these people had 90 days to sell the firearms, otherwise they would the be seized, in which case there is quite a bit less footing to stand on there. Depends on the level, although by and large things have been moving away from Eminent Domain and towards civil forfeiture.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 guests