zoony Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 You are not a fan of protests and people taking to the streets to make sure the gov't knows how we feel?Really? Are you serious about that? Perhaps we can find a more appropriate screen name for him jus jokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I may now join the NRA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Dissension in the ranks?...or just a little sense of self preservation;) http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-joins-pelosi-in-opposing-weapons-ban-revival-2009-02-26.html Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will join Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 You are not a fan of protests and people taking to the streets to make sure the gov't knows how we feel?Really? Are you serious about that? Not with guns, I am serious about that. This isn't Baghdad, or Karachi, SHF. But this does change the framework of the debate The stats don't back it up as a big public health hazard, but you seem to say it could help an armed insurgency, citing it as the reason the government may want to do it. Unfortunately for all of your arguments, that particular reason has nothing to do with public health risks (at least no directly). So the debate should focus on whether it's the harms due to the risk of a better armed insurgency outweigh the benefits of assault weapons. According to many advocates assault weapons are no different than other weapons except for their "scary appearance." So we have to assume that advocates value them because of their appearances. so the argument thus goes to whats more important: peoples value of a weapons appearance OR the risk of an armed insurgency I see the first as trivial and the second as a very remote possibility So what is a reasonable person to decide? The 2nd amendment is clearly not unlimited, and people clearly still have a right to bear arms even with an assault weapons ban. Arms was never defined in a strict sense anyway, so constitutionality is not a problem. So do the benefits outweigh the cost? Eh ultimately I still don't care too much, but I do find it ironic that your arguments actually take away support from your position. now, my question is why do other people care so much? The benefits are so trivial and the cost is so remote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 This shootout happened durring the assult weapon ban, the bag guys were able to get all the illeagal weapons they wanted, even weapons that were illeagal before the assult weapon ban. Who is going to obay these gun laws? The only place that will are the honest gun shops, like the ones the police relied on to stop these men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Not with guns, I am serious about that. This isn't Baghdad, or Karachi, SHF. Somehow, I don't recall ever hearing Vietnam protests being armed insurgencies Personally, I like our elected officials to be a little scared of the populace. But thats just me I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Not with guns, I am serious about that. This isn't Baghdad, or Karachi, SHF. But this does change the framework of the debate The stats don't back it up as a big public health hazard, but you seem to say it could help an armed insurgency, citing it as the reason the government may want to do it. Unfortunately for all of your arguments, that particular reason has nothing to do with public health risks (at least no directly). So the debate should focus on whether it's the harms due to the risk of a better armed insurgency outweigh the benefits of assault weapons. According to many advocates assault weapons are no different than other weapons except for their "scary appearance." So we have to assume that advocates value them because of their appearances. so the argument thus goes to whats more important: peoples value of a weapons appearance OR the risk of an armed insurgency I see the first as trivial and the second as a very remote possibility Armed insurgancies don't obay the laws anyway, getting illeagal weapons is as easy as getting illeagal drugs. If all you want to do is look at what is a bigger risk to public health, then lets adopt a freedom of speach policy like china has, if you are talking about subjects that could cause uproar, or roiting or unrest, you go to jail. Sometimes the affect on "public health" isn't the most important. (And I am not convinced that this assult weapon ban will do anything to help "public health" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Somehow, I don't recall ever hearing Vietnam protests being armed insurgenciesPersonally, I like our elected officials to be a little scared of the populace. But thats just me I guess yeah no **** that's why your original post was ridiculous we never needed guns to tell how our government how we feel, but if things do get out of hand with particular groups than access to better weapons could help an armed insurgency like I said, this is not Baghdad and this is not Karachi, this is the United States edit: to be more clear -guns are not needed for the populace to change our government's policies (as proven by your Vietnam protest reference) this means that this post: You are not a fan of protests and people taking to the streets to make sure the gov't knows how we feel?Really? Are you serious about that? is nonsense guns are needed for an insurgency an insurgency is not needed to effect our government in a positive way (as proven by your Vietnam protest reference) now obviously we can't ban the use of guns for people overall I think that would violate the 2nd amendment and it would be impractical but if the government feels threatened by certain specific types of guns which are only valued by their advocates because they meet some phallophillic desire (not that there is anything wrong with that ) to have a "scary looking" gun (are there other reasons why they are valued? haven't read any articulated, advocates seem to say that the only thing that makes an AW and AW is "looks"), then I don't see what the big loss is. You on the other hand over dramatize the whole thing to point where you are saying that an assault weapons ban is some ban on protest, which is ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 How about this for a compromise. The NRA and gun owners back off of their stupid objections to urban communities like Washington DC/Chicago/Boston having voter referendums and outlawing carrying guns. And the government agrees to no stupid across the board ban on categories of weapons which don't really accomplish anything anyway. Just FYI... Second Amendment Victory In Washington, D.C.! http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4508 Friday, February 27, 2009 Yesterday, the United States Senate voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Nevada Senator John Ensign ®, that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the "D.C. Voting Rights Act", will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia's (D.C.) city council in defiance of the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36. "Today's vote brings us one step closer to restoring the gun rights of law-abiding D.C. residents," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "It's ludicrous that good people in our nation's capital continue to be harassed as they try to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes. This vote reinforces the historic Heller ruling." Since the Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s ban on handguns and on having guns in operable condition within the home in last year's Heller decision, the District passed a series of temporary "emergency" bills that failed to comply with the Court's ruling, followed by a permanent law (which will take effect in April unless blocked) that imposes even more restrictions on D.C. gun owners. (A temporary "emergency" law that mirrors the restrictive permanent law is currently in effect.) In particular: The new law enacts sweeping bans, borrowed wholesale from California, on hundreds of models of semi-automatic firearms, and on standard-capacity magazines widely owned for lawful self-defense purposes. The new law also bans the sale of handguns deemed "unsafe" by California, based on California's legal standards. Individuals would only be able to acquire handguns that are on the "California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale." This provision includes a "microstamping" mandate that would require use of unproven technology and would likely prevent sale of most new models of handguns in D.C. after January 1, 2011. Though D.C. has always argued for its own sovereignty, these provisions give the legislature of California and the officials of the California Department of Justice all control over which handguns may be sold in the District. D.C. gun owners would be at the whim of bureaucrats in Sacramento, who regularly change these rules to prohibit sales of more models of firearms. Many of the guns that are prohibited under D.C.'s new law are both "in common use" throughout the United States and "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," which the Supreme Court in Heller suggested was the standard for constitutional protection. The new law makes D.C.'s complicated, intrusive and expensive registration procedure even more complicated, to discourage people from attempting to register a handgun. Among other provisions, it requires gun owners to report annually to the Metropolitan Police that they still own their guns. The new limits include a limit of one handgun registration per 30 days; a provision that rations constitutional rights and that has failed to reduce crime in the few states that have enacted similar laws. The Ensign Amendment is narrowly drawn to enforce the Supreme Court's Heller decision and prevent the District government from further burdening the Second Amendment rights of its residents. The Ensign Amendment will: Conform D.C. gun laws to the requirements set out by the Supreme Court. The D.C. Council had the opportunity to conform its laws to the ruling, but its new laws add major burdens on residents' Second Amendment rights. Reform the District's firearm registration regime, which the District's new law makes even more complicated and intrusive. Firearm registration also has no crime-prevention benefit, as demonstrated by the fact that all, or nearly all, firearms used in violent crimes in D.C. are not registered. The underlying question of whether Congress can grant representation to D.C. will ultimately be resolved in the courts. As a single-issue organization, NRA takes no position on voting rights for D.C., but we are obviously concerned about ensuring the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is functionally returned D.C. residents. Thus, we were supportive of Sen. Ensign's efforts, and pleased the amendment was adopted. Fortunately, the Ensign amendment contains a severability clause, so it would remain standing even if the courts reject Congress's attempt to give congressional representation to D.C. residents. "NRA would like to thank the lead sponsor, Senator John Ensign for his efforts to reform D.C.'s gun laws and enable folks to protect their property and their loved ones," concluded Cox. "It's time for leaders in Washington to wake up to the fact that the Supreme Court decision is now the law of the land." Please contact your Senators and thank them if they voted in favor of the Ensign Amendment. If your Senators voted against this critical measure, please remind them you will remember this vote on Election Day. You can reach your Senators at (202) 224-3121. For more contact information for your U.S. Senators, please click here. To see how your Senator voted, please click here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Perhaps we can find a more appropriate screen name for him jus jokes TK would've done it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Yet there are people who bash the war on drugs and want them legal. so, you're for the gun ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Dissension in the ranks?...or just a little sense of self preservation;)http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-joins-pelosi-in-opposing-weapons-ban-revival-2009-02-26.html Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will join Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration. :rubeyes:Allright, now I'm confused. Maybe it's just a play to try and keep both sides happy. Or does this pair have a history of fighting for the second amendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 :rubeyes:Allright, now I'm confused. Maybe it's just a play to try and keep both sides happy. Or does this pair have a history of fighting for the second amendment? They want to keep their jobs and majority. Not a lot of upside to the ban,and it mobilizes the opposition. Read the piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Read the piece. Busted. It was short one too. Good on both of them in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I think people that oppose the second amendment are weak. I think people that oppose the second amendment are scared. I think people that oppose the second amendment do not understand the core essence of their own country. I think people that oppose the second amendment hate liberty and freedom and everything this country stands for. I think people that oppose the second amendment need to study John and Sam Adams. The citizens of the US should not be scared of it's government. The Government should be scared of it's people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 if people that support the second amendment are strong and courageous then why do they want all those guns? seems to me that people buy weapons for precisely those reasons. Unless it's all about hunting, in which case you are being overly dramatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 if people that support the second amendment are strong and courageous then why do they want all those guns?seems to me that people buy weapons for precisely those reasons. Unless it's all about hunting, in which case you are being overly dramatic. I dunno, how about the Revolution or an instance like Red Dawn or Mad Max? Just saying, it may be overkill to have an AR-15, AK or whatever but a gun is a gun. I can kill you the same with a Saturday Night Special or a bazooka. Someone said up thread that would it really matter if you had to go up against the military? I counter saying I bet the majority of our military would disobey such orders. It's a form of control, people sacrificing liberty in the name of safety. Ask the residents of DC how safe they feel due to the gun ban, ask them how much liberty they feel they have because of it. (yes I know it's been reversed) One should have the ability to protect their family and home from those that wish harm upon them. Guns exist. They are not going anywhere. Putting restrictions on them does not level the playing field for those that wish to abide by laws and those that do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 if people that support the second amendment are strong and courageous then why do they want all those guns?seems to me that people buy weapons for precisely those reasons. Unless it's all about hunting, in which case you are being overly dramatic. It is much easier to be strong and courageous ARMED. It also garners respect for the consequences both for criminals and govt overreaching. Why do we have locks on doors and limits on govt powers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Can anyone point to examples where taking weapons from the law abiding folks reduced crime and/or violence? When a criminal has a choice to rob someone they KNOW is not armed or someone who may be armed care to guess who they target? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.