Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Gun control laws!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1246

Replies

  • gunrunner428gunrunner428 Senior Member Posts: 1,018 Senior Member
    I find it interesting that the two news-feed apps on my iPhone demonstrate a woeful imbalance in the reporting of these issues.

    Fox news does have some references to the proposed bans and measures to be taken, but its reported largely as informative news, with healthy balance into the other issues of mental health and "alternative" policies - armed teachers or dedicated armed security - being proposed or already adopted in states like Texas or Arizona.

    CNN, however, is rabid in their listings of the ban-crowd's propaganda, and I find that I haven't even gone to this app in the days since Sandy Hook.

    And what scares me more than the ongoing sheep-like calls for "no guns in schools" despite the obvious failure in the past of "gun-free school zones" to protect our children is Obama's statement that he will "use whatever powers this office [of President of the United States] to address this problem." The man has already demonstrated that he has no clue of the limitations placed on that office, specifically to ward off the attempts of high-minded elitist would-be royalty types to assume unilateral control of all government functions, so what exactly does he consider to be the "powers of the office?"
  • tigman.uktigman.uk Member Posts: 332 Member
    ive been reading the thread and mental health has come up a few times - like it should as these killers who commit the abhorrant atrocities do have something wrong with them, yes most stole the guns used to carry out the crimes

    what are the mental health law as they currently stand about admitting someone into a hospital

    who would freely admit they have been prescribed anti depressants for whatever reason either on open forum or pm - ie loss of a family member, or seasonal issues - yes mental health issues are very complicated and unpredictable and would be very difficult to legislate as many prescriptions are used for different problems

    on open forum - i have been prescribed fluoxetine twice in 3 years to complete a 3 month course - the reason being i do suffer from SAD which is Season Affective Disorder, which basically means your get up and go has gone until it gets warmer with the seasons, winter time the days are shorter the nights are longer - it runs in my family
    for those who dont know fluoxetine is another name for prozac
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoxetine
  • BenwizardBenwizard New Member Posts: 4 New Member
    I must be crazy. Last year I told my wife that if Obama was reelected there would be a series of mass shootings that would lead to serious gun control followed by confiscation and, ultimately private retaliation against local police (since they are now all under "Federal" control) which results in the second revolutionary/civil war. How many agree I am crazy?
  • BenwizardBenwizard New Member Posts: 4 New Member
    They will cave (act like political cowards) and they will then push and push and push declaring all along they are "reasonable" and simultaneously demonizing gun owners (Do you want more dead babies?) until the European trained dictators realize we are AMERICANS and when pushed to far we will, unlike England and Australia actually fight back.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 17,218 Senior Member
    Used to be, mentally unstable folks who posed a possible threat to the public were confined in state institutions...now those people are "controlled" by medications...which is all fine and dandy, until the person doesn't take his/her meds....whoda thunk it...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,533 Senior Member
    Well, as Tennmike said, getting rid of the state institutions is probably part of the problem.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Well, as Tennmike said, getting rid of the state institutions is probably part of the problem.

    Mrs Chief said about the same on an earlier thread. In FLA the State nuthouse was (still?) in Chattahoochee and if someone said where is so and so, all you had to say was Chattahoochee and it was understood they were carried off in a straightjacket. :silly::silly::silly::silly:
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    The more I think about this the more I realize how complex this is, if there was a way that guns could be kept away from folks like this, add criminals as well and allow responsible citizens to own them I would be all for it, thing is that this in quite unattainable, let's keep in mind that this guy used his mom's guns.

    Another thing I notice, perhaps a bit hypocrital is that many of those that demand an across the board unrestricted right for all to own guns they at some level "accept" the red tape and government intervention when it comes to class 3 firearms and SBR's?
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • obliviaoblivia New Member Posts: 7 New Member
    All this nonsense about "freedom", yet I can't even post on this website without registering. Haha. And there's a whole section about which words I can't use. So much for inalienable rights.

    If you're willing to put limits on free speech, why not on the right to bear arms?
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    You're presenting yourself as an ignorant troll. Have a good day!
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • obliviaoblivia New Member Posts: 7 New Member
    It's a serious point. This forum needs to limit freedom to avoid a chaotic descent into flaming abuse and incessant trolling. Everyone here accepts these limitations without question, because they understand the concept of the greater good.

    This is even more true in the real world. Society isn't about some childish notion of freedom. It's actually about people willingly giving up some freedoms for the benefit of a harmonious society. If you don't agree, that's fine, but please don't pretend that it's American to do so.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    oblivia wrote: »
    It's a serious point. This forum needs to limit freedom to avoid a chaotic descent into flaming abuse and incessant trolling. Everyone here accepts these limitations without question, because they understand the concept of the greater good.

    This is even more true in the real world. Society isn't about some childish notion of freedom. It's actually about people willingly giving up some freedoms for the benefit of a harmonious society. If you don't agree, that's fine, but please don't pretend that it's American to do so.

    Granted, that governments are all about limiting freedom and creating 'harmony' between people with differing points of view...at least in theory. Our founders knew this ideal was quickly corrupted, once political opportunists got involved, and went to great lengths to help future citizens control that corruption.

    So, the more visionary 'founding fathers' stood strong for putting checks and balances in place that might have a chance to rein in the corruption. These checks and balances were not strictly limited to sharing power between the three branches of government. They extended to the individual, as well, in many forms: the right to vote, the right and responsibility to serve on juries, the ability to band together and make laws on the state and local level that addressed problems not dealt with in their enumerated rights, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms. The founders left the door wide open for individuals to band together and rid themselves of the tyranny that always comes from an over-reaching centralized government, eventually.

    The 'society' that you say requires giving up freedoms, at the whim of incompetent and dishonest politicians, is not based in American principles. We have given up a lot, in the name of creating a harmonious society, and the one thing any realistic person can learn from this exercise is that it does not work. Giving up one small freedom, in the name of harmony or fairness, only leads to giving up another, larger freedom. It's just like feeding a wild animal - that animal does not become more tame, nor is it grateful. It only becomes more demanding, aggressively so, in time. The end result is never pretty.
  • obliviaoblivia New Member Posts: 7 New Member
    Bah.

    This has become a common interpretation of American history (on Fox News), but is not one that I recognize.

    The founders' main goal was to REMOVE power from the states. Before the constitution, each state had veto power over collective decisions, which caused paralysis. The goal of the constitution was to neuter the states and create a more powerful federal government that could get things done.

    In every respect, the states LOST POWER as a result of the constitution.

    There was very little fear of "centralized government" among the founders, most of whom were committed federalists (obviously). Even among the minority of anti-federalists, the biggest worry was that George Washington would make himself a king.

    And the right to bear arms was certainly NOT a central part of America's founding -- which is obvious when you consider that the constitution was ratified without any such right.

    Yes, it was expected that a bill of rights would come later, but nobody knew what exactly it would say. It simply wasn't as important as the constitution.

    More important, the founders were not perfect. They disagreed vehemently over many points and the resulting documents represented many compromises.

    The discussion today should not be about whether one of those compromises is still applicable. It should be about what makes most sense for America in the 21st century.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Careful, oblivia. Your anti gun, anti personal freedom, all powerful Progressive Big Government slip is not only showing, it's dragging the floor.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    oblivia wrote: »
    All this nonsense about "freedom", yet I can't even post on this website without registering. Haha. And there's a whole section about which words I can't use. So much for inalienable rights.

    If you're willing to put limits on free speech, why not on the right to bear arms?

    The difference is you entered into someone's house.....Guns and Ammo's house. Everyone has rules of their house in order to protect the harmony and avoid flagrant confrontation. In this house, the Dude abides.....this is not the forum of people to say their minds w/o consequences.....say it, but show respect to others point of view.....it's not a free for all type of place. You present yourself as a person knowing the Constitution and Federalist POV.....then you must realize the difference between public and private venues.

    To quote a good line from Jami Foxx in "Jarhead"....."there is no such thing as free speech......you must pay for every word you say".

    You register to speak here, because this site is sponsored by a private company.....it's not a totally free to the public forum, it's someone's house.....so you can be administered your walking papers if you are disruptive or don't abide the rules of the house. "Right to free speech" protects you from the Government.....not my fist on your nose or a house's bodyguard saying you need to leave now. Those are civil laws. I really wish everyone who speaks of "free speech" would educate themselves on the limits of it, and not use the Constitution as a blanket for their ignorance on the rules.

    Now for the "Right to Bear Arms".......We as citizens of the United States have this inalienable right in order to keep firearms for our protection, from beast or man, or even against the tyranny of government.......it's a check/balance against an oppressive government. It's an "Ace in the Hole" if you may. "Ya ain't gonna push that crap down my throat w/o a fight mister!"

    It's so easy to forget WHY the Constitution and ensuing Bill of Rights was created. RTBA has it's limits too, in order to "present a more peaceful union". The acts of the populace are controlled under civil municipalities.....let me break it down into "stupid"......Yeah you have a right to have a gun on you......but that doesn't mean you have a right to wave it around in public pointing towards people unless there's a damn good reason for it! Sensibilities and common sense must prevail......that is what makes a civil society.
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Anybody want to bet this guy who just slithered out from under the bridge has never lifted a finger to defend the freedom he claims to cherish so much?
    Jerry
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Careful, oblivia. Your anti gun, anti personal freedom, all powerful Progressive Big Government slip is not only showing, it's dragging the floor.

    So only the opinion of pro gun folks is permitted here?
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • bmlbml Senior Member Posts: 1,075 Senior Member
    I smell a turd.
    scottd wrote: »
    The milk of human kindness is often out dated and curdled.

    This is like watching a bunch or **** trying to hump a door knob.....
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    oblivia wrote: »


    The discussion today should not be about whether one of those compromises is still applicable. It should be about what makes most sense for America in the 21st century.


    Kinda makes a lot of sense but it comes from someone already labeled as "the enemy" so it will have no value here.

    It is IMO very unwise to just adopt a position with a closed mind without earning the strength to be able to educate and defend it for which it is indispensable to see the others side motivations and point of views, if we do that we are just doing the same, they demonize a tool, we demonize those that don't agree with us even as we also deem OUR (me, myself and I) right to express out opinions freely as sacred!

    I said SEE not accept, again IMO mainly to the "other side" on the part of the government it is simply put a "pretend due diligence" to satisfy the majority of the people in the easiest manner and for the part of the people that have no problem in what they see, an illusion to me, trading rights for common good and safety, We have to not use simply the easy to pull out of pocket "it is our right" defense, even if it is so, we have to go deeper than that, we have to invest the time and energy to educate and share common sense and that is gonna include accepting some realities we are scared of facing.
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    bruchi wrote: »
    So only the opinion of pro gun folks is permitted here?

    The Constitution is not 'a living, breathing document' that evolves. That is the idea proposed by Progressives who know the Constitution prohibits government expansion beyond the enumerated powers granted it by the states, and uses judicial activism, or as FDR did and threaten to pack the Supreme Court with progressives, to get what they want.

    If you need an example, how about the commerce clause. The Constitution states that "the United States Congress shall have power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." When that was written into the Constitution the meaning of "to regulate" meant "to make regular" and was put there to keep the states from placing tariffs and other restrictions on trade between the states that hampered trade. During the time of The Articles of Confederation, Virginia and Maryland went so far as to not allow ships from other states to use their ports; only ships from Virginia could land in Virginia and only ships from Maryland could land in Maryland. Now the commerce clause has been stretched and 'interpreted' to mean anything the government says it means. Up to and including prohibiting growing wheat in your own back yard, cotton in your flowerbed, or peanuts in your garden.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • FiveSevenFiveSeven Member Posts: 289 Member
    Bruchi, demonizing an idea is not demonizing the individual who hold that idea. Not all ideas have equal merit.
    Only the optimists suggest that the future is uncertain. The pessimists have done the math.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    oblivia wrote: »
    The discussion today should not be about whether one of those compromises is still applicable. It should be about what makes most sense for America in the 21st century.

    Bah, yourself.

    Lacking a government that is capable of any common sense solution, the default is to hold their feet to the fire with parameters set by visionary men who understood something about freedom, and the dangers to it. The founders had many knock-down drag-out negotiations and managed to compromise on a document that did not require much maintenance for two centuries. We cannot even elect Senators that can submit a budget, much less pass it.

    We have a government being run by vicious little children, at present, and I want nothing from them but retirement. Let's wait for some adults to come along before we let them try any heavy lifting.
  • obliviaoblivia New Member Posts: 7 New Member
    bisley wrote: »
    The founders had many knock-down drag-out negotiations and managed to compromise on a document that did not require much maintenance for two centuries. We cannot even elect Senators that can submit a budget, much less pass it.

    The constitution didn't last two centuries without maintenance. The second amendment (as its name suggests) wasn't included in the original document.

    I'm not arguing one way or the other when it comes to gun control. I don't know. But I don't buy the argument that it's a question of freedom or the constitution or anything like that. The world's greatest nation is not contstrained in the choices it makes about what's best for society. The only consideration is what's best today, given all the information that we have available.

    Only a fool would argue that the founders had perfect foresight -- or that they framed the law with the view that mass school shootings were an acceptable price to pay for "freedom". And even if they did, it's our obligation to disregard that and consider the situation in light of what we know today. Strictly speaking, the founders only conferred the right to bear arms on white men between the ages of 18 and 45, yet most people here (especially the retirees) are happy to accept that they were wrong about that bit...
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    oblivia wrote: »
    The constitution didn't last two centuries without maintenance. The second amendment (as its name suggests) wasn't included in the original document.

    I'm not arguing one way or the other when it comes to gun control. I don't know. But I don't buy the argument that it's a question of freedom or the constitution or anything like that. The world's greatest nation is not contstrained in the choices it makes about what's best for society. The only consideration is what's best today, given all the information that we have available.

    Only a fool would argue that the founders had perfect foresight -- or that they framed the law with the view that mass school shootings were an acceptable price to pay for "freedom". And even if they did, it's our obligation to disregard that and consider the situation in light of what we know today. Strictly speaking, the founders only conferred the right to bear arms on white men between the ages of 18 and 45, yet most people here (especially the retirees) are happy to accept that they were wrong about that bit...

    But the Framers did have excellent foresight, hence the Amendment process. Don't like the 2A? start an amendment drive. I don't think you will though because you know that would never work on the 2A.
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    oblivia wrote: »
    The constitution didn't last two centuries without maintenance. The second amendment (as its name suggests) wasn't included in the original document.

    I'm not arguing one way or the other when it comes to gun control. I don't know. But I don't buy the argument that it's a question of freedom or the constitution or anything like that. The world's greatest nation is not contstrained in the choices it makes about what's best for society. The only consideration is what's best today, given all the information that we have available.

    Only a fool would argue that the founders had perfect foresight -- or that they framed the law with the view that mass school shootings were an acceptable price to pay for "freedom". And even if they did, it's our obligation to disregard that and consider the situation in light of what we know today. Strictly speaking, the founders only conferred the right to bear arms on white men between the ages of 18 and 45, yet most people here (especially the retirees) are happy to accept that they were wrong about that bit...

    Here's where I have a beef....the sentences in your first paragraph you stated..."I don't know". Well I do. As a person of military servitude.....MY oath was to protect the Constitution and this Nation, against all enemies foreign or domestic. I take that servitude to my grave, not as a zealot....but someone who believes so much in my country and it's persons, that I was willing to put my life before it in defense of it. Until you do the same, you will not be my brother......all others that have, they are my brothers and sisters, as most of this forum is.....and think's the same way.

    Look at what happens to the document when you consider it a living document for the times......prohibition....enacted and repealed.....that was emotion. The rights for women voting......didn't need it, it was already included, except the word stated MAN and wasn't inclusive of WOMAN.....so it wasn't politically correct.....but the passion of the day wanted clarity for the morons of the day. We are no longer morons, we can understand what the founders were saying in context.

    When you commit your life in defense of an idea.....you better damn well learn what you're dying for.
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    Bravo Steve, but let's not let ourselves get all het up over this person's posts. As I started this post he/she is not on line. And based on posting times this person is bouncing around the web, either trolling up trouble or working for Soros. If that''s the case then any screen shots he/she may have taken to post on Huffpo or whatever won't work, you guys are too good.
    But Oblivia if you read this let me ask you a question. If it were up to you what would you do to prevent another school shooting? Careful, it's a trick question.
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    oblivia wrote: »
    I'm not arguing one way or the other when it comes to gun control. I don't know. But I don't buy the argument that it's a question of freedom or the constitution or anything like that.

    Gun Control is the topic of this post. Now if you support Gun Control please provide any scientific study that shows that it prevents crime with a firearm or would have prevented the School shooting in Newtown, CT? I challenge anyone that supports any new gun laws to prove the 20,000+ we already have on the books have had any effect on preventing any crime period.

    Criminal Laws are written to punish someone that commits a crime after they are caught, and have not been proven to have prevented any crimes.

    Now if all of the Politicians and the Gun Control crowd want to stop or prevent crime I suggest they obtain the Machine used on "Person of Interest" show and it will tell them who to protect. Until they can find such a machine or develop one that can foretell the future and who is going to commit a crime and kill themselves after the fact. There is a better chance of getting struck by lightening.
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    Sorry bro, gotten worked up last few days over the Constitutional arguements....
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    I hear ya dude, I'm sure my face has been red a time or 3 also
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    It seems that we're going to get treated to a lot of attention from trolls, muck-rakers, and idiots of all descriptions for a while. Just keep a cool head and don't give 'em any ammunition to use against us!
    Jerry
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement