Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@H2O MAN,

926 gun murders since Newtown, h20.
When can the American people expect to see the rate of gun murders drop?
Presently, it's on pace to meet or exceed the current average of just over 11,000.
The guns will stop being used in murders or will others, using guns, will stop the murders or how exactly do you see the 'more guns, less crime' working in this particular category of crime?

Joe(just a few fewer dead ex-girlfriends a month would help, right?)Nation

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Yeah...I think it is ridiculous myself for people to keep arguing about their second amendment rights being attacked...with conjunction to what the people of New York have proposed...When we are talking about military style killing machines....

You aren't talking about military-style killing machines. You are talking about harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip, and you are talking about shotguns designed for duck hunting.

And making up untrue slogans about "military-style killing machines" does not in any way make it OK for you to violate the Constitution.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

No one wants to take away all rights for all people...We just want stricter gun laws...

No, you want to violate America's Constitutional rights.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

I do not understand how anyone can not be in favor of that...Even gun owners...

It stands to reason that anyone who desperately wants to violate the Constitution, would not understand why Americans insist on not having their rights violated.

Rest assured though, we will be defending our rights both at the ballot box and in the courts.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Because then they realize it is a privilege to have a gun...And it only makes us safer....

You have Americans confused with serfs again.

Americans have the right to carry guns when they go about in public.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

oralloy wrote:
You are trying to violate my Constitutional rights.

Which part of Amendment don't you understand?

I understand the entire thing.

McTag wrote:

It's not written in stone for all time. When something needs fixing, time to Amend it.

No one is ever going to change the Second Amendment.

McTag wrote:

And in passing, what is your relationship with the local chapter of your well-regulated militia?

You should know better than this already.

First, you can't legitimately claim that the Second Amendment is limited only to the militia, unless you first have a militia for it to apply to.

And second, even if the Second Amendment were limited only to the militia, non-militiamen would still have the right to carry handguns when they go about in public.

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Why would a civilian need a military style killing machine?

You still don't get that whole Constitution thing. Americans don't have to "need" anything. If you want to ban something YOU need to come up with a plausible reason to ban it.

And concocting a fake slogan about "military killing machines" does not give you any plausible reason to ban pistol grips and duck hunting guns.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

I mean really think about it...If we can't stop that...What the hell is in our future?

Your future is to be forced to accept the reality that you don't get to violate our rights.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
Why would a civilian need a military style killing machine?

That's a good question, which I have asked before. (nobody replied)

Was kind of silly, actually, since it was not referring to any sorts of military weapons.

And the whole "need" thing doesn't apply to Americans. We're not serfs like you. We actually have rights, which you are not allowed to violate.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

And the whole "need" thing doesn't apply to Americans. We're not serfs like you. We actually have rights, which you are not allowed to violate.

I have the right to drive as fast as I want (and can) on motorways ... Gotcha!

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

And I can walk down the road drinking a can of beer. I'm also allowed to bet on presidential elections.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

You want to know why mate? Because there really is no legit answer as to not amending it...

No one is going to allow you to alter the Second Amendment in any way.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

There is no defense why those weapons are legal to posses...Not for civilians...

Yes there is. There is the fact that you have no legitimate reason to ban them.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

They have one purpose...Kill at a very, very high efficient rate....

Stop making things up. Having a pistol grip on a gun does not make it able to kill at a greater rate than a gun that has no pistol grip.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

No one would even need that much gun...to hunt game...Or kill an intruder with that much power....

Stop making things up. Having a pistol grip on a gun does not increase its power in any way.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Unless you want to argue that buying and selling guns are not commerce there is no comparison to voting and free speech rights. (News media is taxed by the way.)

Sure it is as if the government would tax newspapers to the point they could not be in business that would be interfering with free speech for example and the same apply to the right to bear arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commercial_speech

State governments retain the right to tax newspapers, just as they may tax other commercial products. Generally, however, taxes that focus exclusively on newspapers have been found unconstitutional. In Grosjean v. American Press Co.,[152] the Court invalidated a state tax on newspaper advertising revenues. Similarly, some taxes that give preferential treatment to the press have been struck down. In Arkansas Writers' Project v. Ragland,[153] for instance, the Court invalidated an Arkansas law exempting "religious, professional, trade and sports journals" from taxation since the law amounted to the regulation of newspaper content.

In Leathers v. Medlock,[154] the Supreme Court found that states may treat different types of the media differently, such as by taxing cable television, but not newspapers. The Court found that "differential taxation of speakers, even members of the press, does not implicate the First Amendment unless the tax is directed at, or presents the danger of suppressing, particular ideas."[155]

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

We'd like to know, and I think we have a right to know, where the seller got the weapon he is now putting on the open market.

That would be fun for a lot of people with firearms that came into your hands back 40 years or more in the past for example ............LOL

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

High cost of the NRA's extremism

Quote:
Wayne LaPierre can’t say we didn’t warn him.

Someone else posted something about that, although it wasn't quite clear what the freak was supposed to have warned us about.

Quote:

Several weeks ago, I spoke on "Morning Joe" about how the tragedy at Newtown changed everything. On the set that morning and on many occasions since Dec. 14, we have warned that the extreme faction of the NRA will either face political reality or face political disaster.

As a longtime supporter of the Second Amendment, I had hoped their executives and lobbyists would not take an absolutist position on the issue since that would ultimately set back the cause of gun rights. Unfortunately, Mr. LaPierre chose to respond as if it were 1994.

As we predicted, his extreme position has now cost NRA leaders political support.

Apparently the freak was warning us that we should surrender and stop defending civil rights.

Quote:

A new ABC News/Washington Post shows that for the first time in years, a majority of Americans now support a ban on certain types of assault weapons.

Too bad for them. It's still unconstitutional.

Quote:

An overwhelming majority back ... a national database to track gun sales,

Too bad for them. The government has no business with this information, and they will not be allowed to get it.

Quote:

More to the point of our earlier warning, the NRA’s own approval rating has plummeted since LaPierre’s tone-deaf news conference. It is hard to imagine how the NRA's worst enemy could have done more damage to the organization than the out-of-touch leader is doing himself.

The NRA needs to self-correct before they do more damage to their cause.

The NRA is fine, and we're all set to defend the Constitution from the Freedom Haters.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Americans that voted for Obama are either brainwashed or stupid.

Back to hurting my feelings it would seems........

Look. The Democratic President, most of the Democratic Party, and most of the Democratic posters on this board, all hate the Constitution with a passion. And they are all launching a major assault against the Constitution.

Try to take any general references to "Democrats" in context.

Yes, there are pro-gun Democrats. Nancy Pelosi is probably the single person most responsible for defeating Obama's assault weapons ban. I would not be surprised to hear that she is also behind derailing Obama's gun registration plot.

But right now, the Democrats in general have made themselves America's enemies.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
So it is a back door attempt to get around the second amendment so only the wealthy and their hire help can be armed.

I don't see anything in the Constitution that says guns have to be free or cheap.

Try the Second Amendment. Strict Scrutiny says you have to have a very good reason to pass a law that impacts a right.

No such good reason for any measures that would make it so expensive to own guns.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Obama called as well for legislation to bar the possession and importation of armor-piercing bullets and to require criminal background checks for nearly all gun sales.

Interesting. Which bullets are he trying to redefine as "armor piercing" and thus ban?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Interesting. Which bullets are he trying to redefine as "armor piercing" and thus ban?

That enter my mind also........

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Stop making things up. Having a pistol grip on a gun does not make it able to kill at a greater rate than a gun that has no pistol grip.

No one is talking about modifying a simple pistol grip on a simple hand gun...Are you know they are not...because that is classified as an "assault weapon"...We are talking about military style guns...that are legal to own...that could take out a small town...and you know they are...

You lose...Laws will be passed...

3 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

For our peace of mind, we, the people of the USA, would like to know who is selling and who is buying guns in our neighborhood.

Too bad. The government has no business knowing who has what guns.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

926 gun murders since Newtown, h20.
When can the American people expect to see the rate of gun murders drop?

Are these people "more dead" than the people who were killed without the use of a gun?

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

We are talking about military style guns...that are legal to own...that could take out a small town...and you know they are...

Light calibers assault rifles could take out a small town or are you talking about some other types of weapons such as class two weapons or what?????

Somehow I do not think you know what end the bullet come out of but please prove me wrong by naming the weapons that could level a small town that you are concern about.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Stop making things up. Having a pistol grip on a gun does not make it able to kill at a greater rate than a gun that has no pistol grip.

No one is talking about modifying a simple pistol grip on a simple hand gun...

You are talking about banning pistol grips on long guns. And since you have no reason to ban such grips, your proposal is unconstitutional.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Are you know they are not...because that is classified as an "assault weapon"...

Calling a gun an assault weapon does not give you any good reason to ban harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

We are talking about military style guns...

No you aren't. Stop making things up.

You are talking about ordinary guns that have a pistol grip attacked to them.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

that could take out a small town...

Stop making things up. Harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip do not make a gun able to take out a small town.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

You lose...Laws will be passed...

You might want to take notice of the NRA. They have more than enough power to block any federal ban on assault weapons.

And any such state or local laws that are passed, are going to be struck down by the courts. Just because you don't like the Constitution, that doesn't mean the courts will stop enforcing it.

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know