Obama Signs Executive Orders on Gun Control

[Slyfox696]

You know, I'm actually gonna prove you wrong, Sly. You ready?

Ok, so what I said was that yes, the founding fathers believed in having a militia for protection, but I'm ALSO saying they believe we have a right for self defense. I'm not saying anything new yet. So, if you read the original link I posted, I don't think you did, but I could be wrong, you would've seen that since 1974 individual state Constitutions have clarified their definition of "right to bear arms" in their respective doctrine.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

I live in North Carolina so here's my states 2nd Amendment:

I see you live in Missouri, so here's yours:

Obviously, neither of our states allow concealed(or supposed to allow) concealed weapons. However, ours and almost all others specify we have a right to bear arms for self defense. As you can also see, every states amendment has been enacted from the years 1774-1994. 1994 was the earliest I saw. So, for the over 200 years, it has been accepted by people who were around when our country was formed til today. Notice how many states' amendments specify that we protect ourselves from the states themselves as well as each other. Once again, I've already said that. Notice, too, how my states specifically says a militia is dangerous to liberty in peace times. Once again, proving everything I've been arguing. So, let me say one more time, I'm pro-2nd amendment, not "pro guns" as you like to propagate.

Here's some further reading as well:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.state2nd.html

...you're going to prove me wrong by posting state writings? That doesn't make sense. We're talking federal level, not state.

I'm just trying to come up with other solutions while also protecting our rights.

Yes, you'll throw everything else out there except the thing which has the bright glowing neon sign pointing at it.

Do you not see how silly it is to say, "Let's try 252352399 different reasons before we focus on the reason which is likely to have one of the biggest effects,"?

Purely coincidental. You using The Daily Show(an obvious partisan propagated show) as evidence makes me feel the same about you, though. I think that's fair to say.

I was making the same point before the Daily Show segment, it was just much easier than having to type it out.

Of course, mine actually makes sense, and many of your speaking points don't.

Right, so you think these black markets are gonna hand over their guns if they're banned?

A) No but,
B) It will make it more difficult for the black market to sell guns.

You're under the assumption that a future killer doesn't have a clue about how to obtain a gun illegally. I'm under the assumption that they can have a clue. There's a difference.

And I'm saying that if you make it harder to obtain a weapon, it may not matter whether they know how to get one illegally or not.

At the end of the day, you can keep sticking your head in the sand, but your logic is completely ridiculous.

I actually meant the opposite here. I meant that the man in China should be punished just as bad as he would've if he succeeded.

I'd tell the parents that I'm sorry for their loss and that we need to focus on protecting our nations children from any attacks. I also throw out there that the kids who saw their classmates get shot were probably just as mentally disturbed as the kids who saw their classmates get stabbed.

And the part where you say it's okay for their children to be murdered because you're being obstinate about the idea guns are responsible for death, with the stabbings in China providing a clear alternative?

I think handguns shouldn't be banned. Assualt rifles, I wouldn't really care either way, though it works the same way a handgun does with one shot per trigger squeeze. I'm not arguing it's ok for people to be killed, I'm just saying I don't think it'll stop killers and guns are proven to help more then they hurt.

That's just a ridiculous arguments. Most of the examples you wish to provide that guns help is when they help against other guns. Thus negating your point.

Handguns protect a lot of people

And murder something like 80% of the people killed by gun violence.

So clearly they don't do a very good job protecting people.

Let me ask you something, now. Many of the US's most notorious serial killers never used a gun to kill. How do you stop them? How does that not prove my point that killers gon' kill?

Here's a list for reference:
Ted Bundy
John Wayne Gacy
Richard Ramierez
Ed Gein
Jeffrey Dahmer
Gary Ridgeway
The Manson Family

I've done tons of research on serial killers, my dads a fan of true crime, so good luck on convincing me gun control can stop people like this. In fact, aside from the Zodiac killer, I don't think any well known serial kill used guns.
I could be wrong, though.

....so?

If we were talking about banning serial killers from having guns, I might concede your point. But since we're not, I'm not really sure why you bring it up.

Gun control is, at best, a bandaid on our society.

EXCELLENT POINT!

You're right, it's a band-aid. And what do you use band-aids for? You use band-aids to stop the damage done from a cut, until your body is capable of taking care of the deeper issue.

So, let's implement quality gun control, make it difficult for those who would do harm while we also look at treating the underlying symptoms which cause those to turn to gun crime.

Awesome example. I take it you're ready to tout gun control now, right?

I thought we agreed every life is sacred? So arguing about how many lives are actually lost is immaterial.

Every life IS sacred, so that's why I want to save as many as possible.

If guns kill 14 and a knife kills 2, then we just saved 12 sacred lives. That's progress. That's not immaterial.

We agree most gun related murders are crime related.

Uhh, the moment you murder someone it's automatically a crime.

I'll ask you for proof now. Show me why people would do more cocaine because it was legal.

A fair point. All I can say is that alcohol and cigarettes are both legal and used far more often than cocaine. Again, since we don't have anything to compare to, all we can do is look at all the evidence, and there's not a single shred evidence that long-term gun control in a developed nation does anything but drop the murder rate and the number of people killed by gun.

When I was younger, my dad hit me. Not like you see on Lifetime or some bullshit, just a few times in my life. So, when we would yell at me, I'd be really afraid because I didn't know what he'd do. The same applies to an intruder. If someone broke into my house, even if I didn't see a gun, I'd be afraid. It's that fear of the unkown. If you think you'd be all Ryback on the guy and totally fearless because the guy was unarmed, then I believe you're lying.

Again, I'll ask.

If you had to choose between an unarmed intruder and one you knew was carrying an AR-15, which would you choose? I know I like my chances much better if he's unarmed.

So, disarming the Jews had nothing to do with conquering them? Then why did he do it?

No, it didn't. Why did he do it? Because he was a racist. Like your Republican buddies.

He didn't take their guns, he subjugated them in every way possible. He made them second class citizens, maybe even third class. He didn't see them as people, he just saw them as the problem for all Germany (or at least that's how he sold it to the German public).

Let's put it this way. Did we prevent black people from having guns to conquer them in the 1800s, or did we prevent them from having guns because they were the inferior race and didn't deserve treatment equal to that of white men?

No, I'm not saying that. If there were stricter laws then maybe Adam Lanza might not have done what he did, but that doesn't mean every sick minded person wouldn't either.

If we could stop even 1/3 the number of people murdered in this country, wouldn't it be worth it?

Are you honestly saying you don't know the difference between what a verb and what a noun is?? "Drunk driving" is a verb and "guns" is a noun.

Exchange "guns" for "shooting".

The person in each instance remains point A, the behavior is point B (drunk driving or shooting) and manslaughter/murder is point C.

Happy?

I'm starting to doubt your intelligence, especially with all the shit talking you do. That's pretty basic stuff, bro.

To be quite honest, when dipshits doubt my intelligence, it really doesn't bother me all that much.

 

[Clark Kent]

...you're going to prove me wrong by posting state writings? That doesn't make sense. We're talking federal level, not state.

Are you joking? So, even though state amendments, that were made when our founding fathers were around, say we have a right to protect ourselves from the state and each other won't convince you? The federal amendment itself has been widely accepted as meaning individuals have a right to bear arms, based on our history, and not just for the militia, the fact that all these state amendments clarify it is a bonus. Either you're ignoring all this, or you're stupid. Legit, man, because it's pretty much spelled out here. I know you're not the type to ever admit you're wrong and if that's the case, so be it, but we both know the truth. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be inserting a That 70's Show pic somewhere around here. You're basically saying all these states misinterpreted our history and our fathers vision and once again, our fathers were around in some cases. So, really? I'm sorry, but this is so asinine.

Yes, you'll throw everything else out there except the thing which has the bright glowing neon sign pointing at it.

Do you not see how silly it is to say, "Let's try 252352399 different reasons before we focus on the reason which is likely to have one of the biggest effects,"?

I get what you're saying, I do. I'm not taking anything away from your argument. Let's go back to cars. Put aside drunk drivers and just focus on the accidents. I forget the exact figure, but it's in the link I posted. Didn't it say it's over a million each year? Of course, this isn't the best analogy for several reasons, but it does go back to focusing on the people and not the weapons. A neon sign you seem to ignore too.

I was making the same point before the Daily Show segment, it was just much easier than having to type it out.

Of course, mine actually makes sense, and many of your speaking points don't.

That's because you're just as brainwashed as you believe me to be.

A) No but,
B) It will make it more difficult for the black market to sell guns.

How so? I know people who do drugs. Heavy drugs. They can point out a drug dealer in a crowd and I can't, so I do find it hard to believe that gun control will limit the black market.

And I'm saying that if you make it harder to obtain a weapon, it may not matter whether they know how to get one illegally or not.

At the end of the day, you can keep sticking your head in the sand, but your logic is completely ridiculous.

This is why this debate will never go anywhere. You think I'm ignoring guns and I think you're ignoring the people behind them.

And the part where you say it's okay for their children to be murdered because you're being obstinate about the idea guns are responsible for death, with the stabbings in China providing a clear alternative?

Let me just say this, those families are victims, so I don't think you can justify anything to a victim. Standing on those childrens graves isn't a good debate tactic. Hell, I've used it and I'll admit it's low.

That's just a ridiculous arguments. Most of the examples you wish to provide that guns help is when they help against other guns. Thus negating your point.

How do you know? Many attempted muggings and rapes are preempted by guns each year. I doubt all those attackers had guns.

And murder something like 80% of the people killed by gun violence.

So clearly they don't do a very good job protecting people.

Ah, but once again most murders are gang related and the murder rate also includes self defense. I'm not saying every life isn't sacred, I am saying that average citizens shouldn't give up their rights because of criminals behavior. Did you see that gun fact page? An overwhelming number of gun owners are responsible people, so why punish them?

....so?

If we were talking about banning serial killers from having guns, I might concede your point. But since we're not, I'm not really sure why you bring it up.

Because gun control wouldn't have slowed down any of the serial killers I listed, not a one. See, everytime I point something out that's irrefutable against your argument you act like it doesn't fit in the conversation. Just because you ingore some facts, doesn't mean they don't exist.

EXCELLENT POINT!

You're right, it's a band-aid. And what do you use band-aids for? You use band-aids to stop the damage done from a cut, until your body is capable of taking care of the deeper issue.

So, let's implement quality gun control, make it difficult for those who would do harm while we also look at treating the underlying symptoms which cause those to turn to gun crime.

Awesome example. I take it you're ready to tout gun control now, right?

What happens when you get cut again? What "band-aid" will you bring uo next? Banning knives? See what I'm saying? Gun control will not end murder and the rates of rapes, muggings, and home invasion will probably go up.

Every life IS sacred, so that's why I want to save as many as possible.

If guns kill 14 and a knife kills 2, then we just saved 12 sacred lives. That's progress. That's not immaterial.

Again, are you gonna wanna ban knives next? You can ingore the core of the issue til the day you die, but until we as a society let good citizens protect themselves and come up with solutions to stop the bad citizens, then we'll never have progress. We can save lives and keep our rights. There's nothing wrong with having both.

Uhh, the moment you murder someone it's automatically a crime.

Gang* related. My mistake.

A fair point. All I can say is that alcohol and cigarettes are both legal and used far more often than cocaine. Again, since we don't have anything to compare to, all we can do is look at all the evidence, and there's not a single shred evidence that long-term gun control in a developed nation does anything but drop the murder rate and the number of people killed by gun.

A fair point as well. But, once again, we have to think of ways to solve the problem without infringing on our rights and taking away from innocent people who abide by the law.

Again, I'll ask.

If you had to choose between an unarmed intruder and one you knew was carrying an AR-15, which would you choose? I know I like my chances much better if he's unarmed.

Obviously, I'd choose unarmed but in the initial moments you don't know what's going on and the fear puts you in a panic mode. It's hard to talk about this, without having gone through that.

No, it didn't. Why did he do it? Because he was a racist. Like your Republican buddies.

He didn't take their guns, he subjugated them in every way possible. He made them second class citizens, maybe even third class. He didn't see them as people, he just saw them as the problem for all Germany (or at least that's how he sold it to the German public).

Let's put it this way. Did we prevent black people from having guns to conquer them in the 1800s, or did we prevent them from having guns because they were the inferior race and didn't deserve treatment equal to that of white men?

I'll concede to your point, but my original one was the if the founding fathers saw that there have been tyranical governments since 1776, I think they'll still want us to be able to be individually armed for fear of tyranical government, which is why we have that right in the first place.

If we could stop even 1/3 the number of people murdered in this country, wouldn't it be worth it?

Once more, there are other ways to do that. I don't have all those answers and I'll admit that, but that doesn't mean gun control is our only option.

Exchange "guns" for "shooting".

The person in each instance remains point A, the behavior is point B (drunk driving or shooting) and manslaughter/murder is point C.

Happy?

Yes, because now you see that it's the person that does the killing, not the guns. Just as the person driving the car drunk is the killer, so is the shooter. Hence, the comaprison.

To be quite honest, when dipshits doubt my intelligence, it really doesn't bother me all that much.

You got a big ego, man. You're calling centuries of elected officials and even the founding fathers dipshits. I'll admit that countries with strict gun control have lower murder rates, but they're also not as free as ours. Personal liberty is what our counry was built on. I suppose those "dipshits" didn't have a clue what they were talking about, though.

 

[Slyfox696]

Are you joking? So, even though state amendments, that were made when our founding fathers were around, say we have a right to protect ourselves from the state and each other won't convince you?

1) Missouri wasn't admitted into the union until 1821.
2) We're talking about federal level, not state level. So when discussing whether the 2nd Amendment prohibits the country from passing gun control laws, I'm not at all concerned with what state legislatures created.

You're basically saying all these states misinterpreted our history and our fathers vision and once again, our fathers were around in some cases. So, really? I'm sorry, but this is so asinine.

You're from North Carolina, you said. Do you think when our Founding Fathers wrote "all men are created equal" they forgot to include the words "except for homosexuals, who should be banned from the right to marry"? Because it's in your Constitution.

Please direct me to how the homosexual marriage section of your state Constitution ties into how this country was founded.

My point? The federal government and state governments are completely different.

Of course, this isn't the best analogy for several reasons

The largest of which is the fact cars are made for transport and handguns and assault rifles are made to shoot people. Cars are a necessity in every day life in order for our economy to work. Guns are not.

The fact you continue to use the car analogy doesn't surprise me, given how little intelligence you have, but it does make me wonder how a person could be so silly.

That's because you're just as brainwashed as you believe me to be.

So apparently wanting to provide controls on the weapon responsible for 2/3 of the murders in this country is being brainwashed?

How so?

Uhh...where are they going to get the guns? Unlike drugs, you cannot stick an AR-15 up your rectum to get through customs. There's a reason fully automatic weapons are a rarity in this country.

This is why this debate will never go anywhere. You think I'm ignoring guns and I think you're ignoring the people behind them.

If you think I'm ignoring the people behind the gun, you're stupider than I thought, because I've already said many times there are things we need to do to help the people behind them.

But you're just stupid if you think guns aren't a problem. There's no other way to say it. You keep wanting to use the car example, imagine if our country said, "We're not going to pass any laws against drunk driving". Would that not strike you as being ridiculous?

Let me just say this, those families are victims, so I don't think you can justify anything to a victim. Standing on those childrens graves isn't a good debate tactic. Hell, I've used it and I'll admit it's low.

It's not a debate tactic. It's me genuinely wondering how you can tell parents of murdered children that their children were simply collateral damage in your war to keep guns you don't need.

How do you know? Many attempted muggings and rapes are preempted by guns each year. I doubt all those attackers had guns.

And many others are caused because the assailant has a gun.

Again, we can play this game all day.

Ah, but once again most murders are gang related

Of no consequence in this discussion.

and the murder rate also includes self defense.

200 out of 8000. Try again Sparky.

I'm not saying every life isn't sacred, I am saying that average citizens shouldn't give up their rights because of criminals behavior.

But you're not giving up rights, so it's a moot point.

An overwhelming number of gun owners are responsible people, so why punish them?

If you introduce gun control you are not punishing the responsible ones, you are actually helping them. Responsible gun owners don't say stupid things like you. Responsible gun owners favor gun control because the ease in which a person can acquire a gun for the wrong purposes make all gun owners look bad.

A responsible gun owner isn't going to jump behind the 2nd Amendment to justify keeping their toys, a responsible gun owner is going to want to implement measures to make it so only other responsible gun owners will be capable of getting a gun.

Because gun control wouldn't have slowed down any of the serial killers I listed, not a one.

So because gun control wouldn't have stop 7 guys in the last 40 years, it's not worth having? That maybe is the stupidest thing you've said yet.

See, everytime I point something out that's irrefutable against your argument you act like it doesn't fit in the conversation. Just because you ingore some facts, doesn't mean they don't exist.

You mention 7 names in the last 40 years and think it is somehow relevant. Hey, I can do that too.

A liquor store was held up in the 90s. This clearly proves we need to ban all guns because it's possible all other gun owners will now hold up a liquor store.

See why I dismissed your argument?

What happens when you get cut again? What "band-aid" will you bring uo next?

It depends.

Banning knives? See what I'm saying?

No, not at all. If certain knives begin to be produced for the sole purpose of stabbing people, and those knives become responsible for 8,000 homicides a year, then I'll be happy to look into knife control.

Gun control will not end murder and the rates of rapes, muggings, and home invasion will probably go up.

A) You have ZERO proof they will go up. If a person wants to rape, mug and invade, they are going to do so now. You and other pro shooters have made clear that criminals will commit crimes. Of course, prevent them from having a gun, and it's possible it will go down, not up.
B) I'd rather be mugged than murdered.

Again, are you gonna wanna ban knives next?

Again, it depends on the situation. And again, I'm not looking to ban guns, just the ones which are most likely to be used in murder.

You can ingore the core of the issue til the day you die, but until we as a society let good citizens protect themselves and come up with solutions to stop the bad citizens, then we'll never have progress. We can save lives and keep our rights. There's nothing wrong with having both.

God, you're stupid.

That's not the core of the issue. We allow those citizens to protect themselves now, and 8,000 are murdered every year. The core of the issue is the ease in which those who wish to do harm are allowed to do harm. The core of the issue is to make everyone safer.

A fair point as well. But, once again, we have to think of ways to solve the problem without infringing on our rights and taking away from innocent people who abide by the law.

It's not infringing upon your rights. And even if it was (and it's not), we limit the Bill of Rights all the time. Why should the 2nd Amendment be any different, just because you want to keep your toy?

Obviously, I'd choose unarmed

Point made.

I'll concede to your point, but my original one was the if the founding fathers saw that there have been tyranical governments since 1776, I think they'll still want us to be able to be individually armed for fear of tyranical government, which is why we have that right in the first place.

Or....they'd set up a system in which the local militias (not individual citizens, but well-regulated militias) would be ready to fight for the common defense of the citizenry.

Which is what they did. It amazes me how those who say they are pro 2nd Amendment completely ignore the first part of it.

Once more, there are other ways to do that. I don't have all those answers and I'll admit that, but that doesn't mean gun control is our only option.

I never said it was, I said it's an option which should be exercised along with other options.

Yes, because now you see that it's the person that does the killing, not the guns. Just as the person driving the car drunk is the killer, so is the shooter. Hence, the comaprison.

It baffles me how you think this was in your favor.

Since we already make it illegal for the person to become at risk for killing people by outlawing drinking and driving, we should do the same for the person who is going to shoot the gun.

Either way, whether it's drunk driving or guns, it's a problem we need to solve. We have already outlawed the middle man of drunk driving, so now we need to outlaw the middle man of guns (at least those guns most likely to be involved in murder).

You got a big ego, man.

Only when talking to stupid people. By the way, in reference to the Republican thread, I always have a big ego and not just when I'm quoting things from the Internet. I was just more polite in the beginning of that thread because I thought you were reasonable...then you proved you weren't...so I mocked and ridiculed you.

You're calling centuries of elected officials and even the founding fathers dipshits.

No, I'm calling you a dipshit because you are misrepresenting the intentions of the founding fathers. Furthermore, you reject the idea that civilization has changed tremendously since the founding fathers. Whereas the founding fathers hung a musket over the hearth, you think an assault rifle capable of firing 30 rounds in under 30 seconds is the same thing as the founders intended.

I'm calling you a dipshit, not the founding fathers.

I'll admit that countries with strict gun control have lower murder rates, but they're also not as free as ours.

Completely irrelevant.

First of all, I imagine many of them feel like they are more free than we are. But second of all, we're not free because we have AR-15s. We are free because we're granted that freedom throughout the entire Constitution and all of the Amendments which came after, not just the 2nd.

 

[Барбоса]

If America goes for stricter gun control, God help you all when the King of England decides it is time for payback

 

[George Steele's Barber]

If America goes for stricter gun control, God help you all when the King of England decides it is time for payback

Hey, if the Northern Irish get involved and you are forced to fight, you should try to get stationed in my house. You can hold my family captive and then we go off and you can teach me how to play modern video games (not violent ones because the NRA says that could make me a bad person).

 

[Loveless]

If America goes for stricter gun control, God help you all when the King of England decides it is time for payback

We've been planning it for 230 years. Infiltrate your celebrity, undermine your constitution, disarm you, invade. No mercy will be shown.

Spoiler

Then we're heading north after Bieber

 

[Барбоса]

Hey, if the Northern Irish get involved and you are forced to fight, you should try to get stationed in my house. You can hold my family captive and then we go off and you can teach me how to play modern video games (not violent ones because the NRA says that could make me a bad person).

I doubt if it would come to blows. Certainly not as far as Illinois anyway.

A combination of dangling the celebrity of the Royal family in front of the American population and having Canada cut off its cheap avenue of medication would have the elderly ready to surrender before a shot was fired.

And even if there were a few able to resist such persuasion, your idiotic lack of an assault rifle capable of cutting down a redwood for every person will be your military downfall.

We've been planning it for 230 years. Infiltrate your celebrity, undermine your constitution, disarm you, invade. No mercy will be shown.

Spoiler

Then we're heading north after Bieber

What are you talking about?

Bieber is a Commonwealth-backed ploy to distract America from real issues.

 

[Loveless]

Bieber is a Commonwealth-backed ploy to distract America from real issues.

He won't be needed after that. I see no reason to let him live beyond his purpose.

 

[Барбоса]

He won't be needed after that. I see no reason to let him live beyond his purpose.

I am sure that there is a code word buried in his subconscious that will lead him to kill himself. He is a highly trained government agent after all.

Something like the Queen saying "Well, America. We are back" on the White House lawn as the Stars and Stripes is replaced by the Union Flag.

 

[Loveless]

And then comes the rain and socialism. Glorious

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

Man, imagine if Wimpys took over McDonalds. I dont think you can get obese off of cardboard, right?

 

[Clark Kent]

1) Missouri wasn't admitted into the union until 1821.
2) We're talking about federal level, not state level. So when discussing whether the 2nd Amendment prohibits the country from passing gun control laws, I'm not at all concerned with what state legislatures created.

You're from North Carolina, you said. Do you think when our Founding Fathers wrote "all men are created equal" they forgot to include the words "except for homosexuals, who should be banned from the right to marry"? Because it's in your Constitution.

Please direct me to how the homosexual marriage section of your state Constitution ties into how this country was founded.

My point? The federal government and state governments are completely different.

The largest of which is the fact cars are made for transport and handguns and assault rifles are made to shoot people. Cars are a necessity in every day life in order for our economy to work. Guns are not.

The fact you continue to use the car analogy doesn't surprise me, given how little intelligence you have, but it does make me wonder how a person could be so silly.

This is all I care about right here.

Ok, so on the issues of cars. Guns have a practical use of self defense and protection. I'm not saying it's purpose is as important as a car, unless, of course, you're getting mugged, than it might be more important. The comparison isn't about purpose, though, it's about the dangers. Justifying a cars purpose over a guns, is justifying a death from a car over a death from a gun. You're still missing the comparison at the end of your post too, which I didn't quote. Basically it sounds like you're not comparing apples to apples. You keep comparing an act(drunk driving) to an object(guns) to make the argument seem in your favor. Shooting someone is illegal, just like drinking and driving is. An irresponsible person drinks and drives then gets behind the wheel and hits someone, like an irresponsible person gets behind the gun and pulls the trigger. I can just as easily get drunk right now and go driving as I could grab a gun and go shooting. What laws are in place right now to physically stop me from getting drunk and going driving?? I'm old enough to buy beer and I have a car, what the hell is stopping me right now??? Exactly. Alcohol is the middle man, so we should outlaw that too. Actually, I'm sure a few hundred murders each year at least occur when the shooter is intoxicated. The same number of deaths occur each year from homicide(and that includes murder without the use of guns) and drunk driving.

As for the Constitution, I'd like to first say I'm not from NC, I'm from Michigan to clear up a stereotype you might have me under. Secondly, the ban on homosexual marriage was passed last year and many gay rights issues were voted on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2nd amendment per state consitutions were not voted on by the citizens. The reason looking at each state constitutions is to get a further idea on what the 2nd amendment means to each individual state. It seems to mean exactly what I say it means. Like I said, at the very least, most everybody at least agrees the 2nd amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves for self defense. The evidence has been overwhelming for years, why else would everybody have played along this whole time? Also, the quotes from our founding fathers weren't just on gun rights, but also their view on individual liberty. My favorite being from Ben Franklin about trading liberty for security. Quotes like that make me think the fathers believed we have a right to protect ourselves. Based on how our country was formed, what principles it was founded on, and how important individual liberty was to the founders, I just don't see how they would be pro gun control. Would they be against semi-automatc weapons? I couldn't say, but I believe our militia would be different and that would directly affect that. Then again, the Constitution also states we can't attack a country without a declaration of war, so we would'nt be invading and bombing countries like we do either.

Until you can provide better proof against what I say about the founders, I'm gonna keep believing the 2nd amendment is what I say it is. Every Constitutionalist and Libertarian believes what I say to be true and they're the two biggest party's in support of the Constitution. Certainly not every one of them is a dipshit.

 

[Wrestling101]

Someone please watch this video and then tell me we don't need much better and tighter gun control.

http://front.moveon.org/when-its-easy-for-anyone-and-everyone-to-get-a-gun-this-happens/?rc=fb.fan

 

[Slyfox696]

This is all I care about right here.

Ok, so on the issues of cars. Guns have a practical use of self defense and protection.

Right...to shoot people. Cars transport, guns shoot people. That's the point of them.

Justifying a cars purpose over a guns, is justifying a death from a car over a death from a gun.

No, it's not, and only someone who is pro shooting could ever make that mistake.

Basically it sounds like you're not comparing apples to apples. You keep comparing an act(drunk driving) to an object(guns) to make the argument seem in your favor.

Driving is an act. The drunk part is the cause of the (potential) accident. Just like the gun is the cause of the (potential) accident.

Shooting someone is illegal

Only in certain circumstances.

An irresponsible person drinks and drives then gets behind the wheel and hits someone, like an irresponsible person gets behind the gun and pulls the trigger.

And we have laws to prevent one and don't have laws to prevent the other.

Quit talking foolishly. I'm done with the car example, much like your gay marriage example, you're totally wrong.

As for the Constitution, I'd like to first say I'm not from NC, I'm from Michigan to clear up a stereotype you might have me under.

No stereotype, simply listing what's in your Constitution. Believe me, you fit many stereotypes, even stereotypes of people from NC, but not because you live there.

Secondly, the ban on homosexual marriage was passed last year and many gay rights issues were voted on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2nd amendment per state consitutions were not voted on by the citizens.

I'm sure it was ratified by a state legislature. I fail to see your point. Either way, just because it's in your state constitution, that has no bearing on the FEDERAL level. Which is my point.

The reason looking at each state constitutions is to get a further idea on what the 2nd amendment means to each individual state.

It doesn't matter what something means to the individual state, what matters is what it means on a federal level.

Like I said, at the very least, most everybody at least agrees the 2nd amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves for self defense.

For the collective self-defense, not the individual self-defense.

The evidence has been overwhelming for years, why else would everybody have played along this whole time?

Good point. For the first 200 years, everyone pretty much seemed to agree it was more about protecting the rights of a state militia. The evidence is overwhelming, why else would everybody have played along the whole time?

As for why it's interpreted as such today? You can thank massive amounts of money spent by the gun lobby. Why do you think so many campaigns are now being put together to try and get gun control passed? Because they see how the NRA has completely changed 200 years of thinking on the 2nd Amendment, turning it from the collective safety from militia into brainwashed people like you thinking it grants the unrestricted access to as many guns as you want.

Here's some more reading on that: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-should-fear-history-of-second-amendment.html

Also, the quotes from our founding fathers weren't just on gun rights, but also their view on individual liberty. My favorite being from Ben Franklin about trading liberty for security.

Yes, that certainly is a popular quote. Allow me to re-post it. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

And now, allow me to turn it around on you. You're telling me you cannot give up your guns, because you might need them for protection. Because of this mentality, the liberty of all Americans is held in your hands, as we are enslaved to fear from machines designed to deal death. You have given up your liberty and have become enslaved to the gun you think is protecting you. And, in turn, America as a whole are losing their lives and liberties because of your desire to purchase a little temporary safety of owning a gun.

You are the far more egregious offender of liberty. In your quest to purchase a gun for a little temporary safety, you have put the life and liberty of all Americans in peril.

Of course, that's not even getting into the fact Franklin's quote doesn't at all mean what you think it means, and actually has nothing to do with individual liberty. Read this link for more information:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/

Basically, your favorite quote defeats you twice.

Quotes like that make me think the fathers believed we have a right to protect ourselves.

Except that Franklin was talking about the right of the legislature (government) to exercise the will of the people. So quotes like that basically mean you've twisted meaning out of words which never existed.

Based on how our country was formed, what principles it was founded on, and how important individual liberty was to the founders, I just don't see how they would be pro gun control.

You're kidding, right?

Our founders were extremely liberal and progressive in their views. They were never a group of people who would abide by the status quo, for fear of making change. They were willing to go to war with arguably the most powerful country in the world, just so they could make changes which would protect them in the long run. And even after the Revolutionary War, when our Founding Fathers realized the Articles of Confederation were much too weak to properly govern a growing nation, they were willing to say, "Hey, this isn't working, let's try something else", and from that, drafted a Constitution which provided far stronger federal powers.

Based on how our country was formed and the principles of those who founded it, I just don't see how you can claim they would be against gun control, considering everything in history shows they were more than willing to buck the status quo in order to form a more perfect union, and they had no problem granting stronger powers to the federal government to do so.

You are completely wrong on this one.

Until you can provide better proof against what I say about the founders, I'm gonna keep believing the 2nd amendment is what I say it is.

Now that I have, are you ready to admit I'm right?

 

[Clark Kent]

Driving is an act. The drunk part is the cause of the (potential) accident. Just like the gun is the cause of the (potential) accident.

And we have laws to prevent one and don't have laws to prevent the other.

Quit talking foolishly. I'm done with the car example, much like your gay marriage example, you're totally wrong.

No, I'm not, so I won't let it go. Like I said, it's important comparison because:
A. If I had alcohol, a car, and a gun, what's stopping me from getting drunk and driving or shooting right now? What laws are in place??
B. Both drunk driving and gun related homocide have the same death rate each year. Caring about one and not the other is sorta hypocritical, considering your argument is all about saving lives.

I don't drink at all, nor do I own a gun by the way. My best friend is a heavy drinker, though. Actually, the reason I didn't reply last night is because we were hanging out. At the end of the night, he drove home....drunk. Now, I know as a friend I shouldn't let him go like that, but what laws stop him from doing that??? He does that shit all the time. Thank God he's never hit someone, only ended up in a ditch one time. We've left restaurants and he's been piss drunk ready to drive home, I've never seen restaurant patrons or anybody else try to stop him. There's absolutely a point to be made here and saying it's silly is because you either know this comparisons against you, or you don't want alcohol taken away.

No stereotype, simply listing what's in your Constitution. Believe me, you fit many stereotypes, even stereotypes of people from NC, but not because you live there.

You fit the stereotype of a neoliberal, but I'm sure that's not offensive to you. I highly doubt you've even read the Constitution either.

Yes, that certainly is a popular quote. Allow me to re-post it. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

And now, allow me to turn it around on you. You're telling me you cannot give up your guns, because you might need them for protection. Because of this mentality, the liberty of all Americans is held in your hands, as we are enslaved to fear from machines designed to deal death. You have given up your liberty and have become enslaved to the gun you think is protecting you. And, in turn, America as a whole are losing their lives and liberties because of your desire to purchase a little temporary safety of owning a gun.

You are the far more egregious offender of liberty. In your quest to purchase a gun for a little temporary safety, you have put the life and liberty of all Americans in peril.

Of course, that's not even getting into the fact Franklin's quote doesn't at all mean what you think it means, and actually has nothing to do with individual liberty. Read this link for more information:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/

Basically, your favorite quote defeats you twice.

Your logic is completely ego-centric. Here's the way I look at. You believe that people should legally be prohibited from owning a gun because you're "scared." You call this an infringement on your liberty. Unfortunately, the reality is, that any legislation is enforced, ultimately, at gun point. What you are advocating for, in its purest form, is that your right to have a gun held at your head to mandate with violence and that I not own a gun for self-defense supersedes my liberty to own a gun to protect myself, my family, etc. Fear is abstract and subjective, and because it is subjective, it cannot be objectively defined, which a law should be.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes has a great quote on liberty: "My liberty to move my fist ends at the proximity of your chin." Your fear of guns gives you the liberty to do a lot of things 1) choose not to own one 2) choose not to associate with people who own one 3) not shop at stores to sell them, and so on. But the difference in me exercising my liberty to own a gun personally, and your exercise of liberty to force me not to own a gun because it makes you wet your pants out of fear is simply that my liberty requires nothing from anybody, neither money nor force. Your exercise of liberty requires taxing me to pay a government to use violent force - ironically, of course, with a gun - to force me NOT to own a gun. Your logic is twisted and asinine.

You're kidding, right?

Our founders were extremely liberal and progressive in their views. They were never a group of people who would abide by the status quo, for fear of making change. They were willing to go to war with arguably the most powerful country in the world, just so they could make changes which would protect them in the long run. And even after the Revolutionary War, when our Founding Fathers realized the Articles of Confederation were much too weak to properly govern a growing nation, they were willing to say, "Hey, this isn't working, let's try something else", and from that, drafted a Constitution which provided far stronger federal powers.

Based on how our country was formed and the principles of those who founded it, I just don't see how you can claim they would be against gun control, considering everything in history shows they were more than willing to buck the status quo in order to form a more perfect union, and they had no problem granting stronger powers to the federal government to do so.

You are completely wrong on this one.

As far as the move from the Articles to the Confederation, you're about 10% right. There were some founders who wanted a larger government, and fully expected the Articles to fall apart and be replaced with something that created a stronger federal government, which the Constitution did.

HOWEVER, the Bill of Rights(the first ten amendments) were NOT part of the original constitution. Those amendments were forced into the constitution by the small government Anti-Federalists with the purpose of explicitly defining what power the Federal Government DID NOT have, such as infringing on the rights to own guns. If you would actually read the constitution, which I doubt you ever have, you would see that the first 3 articles of the Constitution grant respective power to the three branches of the Federal Government, and the Bill of Rights are Amendments that specifically limit areas of power.

I can't think of any Federalist that was against the individual right to bear arms specifically either. So do I think you're right? Hell no.

 

[Slyfox696]

No, I'm not, so I won't let it go. Like I said, it's important comparison because:
A. If I had alcohol, a car, and a gun, what's stopping me from getting drunk and driving or shooting right now? What laws are in place??
B. Both drunk driving and gun related homocide have the same death rate each year. Caring about one and not the other is sorta hypocritical, considering your argument is all about saving lives.

I don't drink at all, nor do I own a gun by the way. My best friend is a heavy drinker, though. Actually, the reason I didn't reply last night is because we were hanging out. At the end of the night, he drove home....drunk. Now, I know as a friend I shouldn't let him go like that, but what laws stop him from doing that??? He does that shit all the time. Thank God he's never hit someone, only ended up in a ditch one time. We've left restaurants and he's been piss drunk ready to drive home, I've never seen restaurant patrons or anybody else try to stop him. There's absolutely a point to be made here and saying it's silly is because you either know this comparisons against you, or you don't want alcohol taken away.

As I've proven many times, your car comparison is utterly ridiculous. You can keep waxing idiotic, but considering the number of times I've proven the car analogy to be stupid, I'm done doing it further.

You fit the stereotype of a neoliberal, but I'm sure that's not offensive to you.

If looking out for the safety and equality of all Americans is considered to be "neoliberal" to you, then sure. The sane world just calls me someone who makes sense.

I highly doubt you've even read the Constitution either.

Says the person who wants to conveniently ignore the first half of the Amendment he wants to use to defend keeping his toys.

Your logic is completely ego-centric. Here's the way I look at. You believe that people should legally be prohibited from owning a gun because you're "scared."

No, I don't. I want to prohibit certain types of guns from being easily accessible because they are the most likely to cause the loss of human life.

Just like a typical pro shooting nut, you constantly set up straw man arguments to knock down, because you know you can't actually argue the merits.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes has a great quote on liberty: "My liberty to move my fist ends at the proximity of your chin." Your fear of guns gives you the liberty to do a lot of things 1) choose not to own one 2) choose not to associate with people who own one 3) not shop at stores to sell them, and so on.

You forgot one.

4) Not to be killed by one. Amazing how that one seemed to slip your mind.

But the difference in me exercising my liberty to own a gun personally...my liberty requires nothing from anybody, neither money nor force.

Except for the money which goes to background checks, individual state gun databases, the federally run ATF, the police force which is forced to investigate the 30,000 gun related deaths a year (in addition to the thousands of other non-fatal shootings), the legislators who revise laws to keep up with modern technology, etc.

Yes, aside from all of that, it doesn't require anything from anybody.

Your stupidity becomes more evident with every post you make.

Your exercise of liberty requires taxing me to pay a government to use violent force - ironically, of course, with a gun - to force me NOT to own a gun. Your logic is twisted and asinine.

Is that why you own fully automatic assault rifles, RPGs, C4, nuclear missiles, etc.?

Let me guess, we should allow grenades to be purchased without a background check, shouldn't we? All in the name of "freedom".

As far as the move from the Articles to the Confederation, you're about 10% right.

No, I'm about 100% right. Just because it's inconvenient to you in this discussion, you cannot change history.

HOWEVER, the Bill of Rights(the first ten amendments) were NOT part of the original constitution. Those amendments were forced into the constitution by the small government Anti-Federalists with the purpose of explicitly defining what power the Federal Government DID NOT have, such as infringing on the rights to own guns. If you would actually read the constitution, which I doubt you ever have, you would see that the first 3 articles of the Constitution grant respective power to the three branches of the Federal Government, and the Bill of Rights are Amendments that specifically limit areas of power.

What are you babbling about?

You were talking about how our Founders would never want the 2nd Amendment mean anything but absolute gun rights for all citizens. I'm telling you the Founders were extremely progressive in their thinking, and would be willing to do what was necessary to ensure the safety of this country's citizens.

You are so incredibly delusional it's not even funny at this point.

Here's what we know. The worlds "well-regulated militia" are included in the 2nd Amendment. You cannot remove those words, simply because it's inconvenient. It was agreed, for hundreds of years, the well-regulated militia part was the part protected by the 2nd Amendment, with the bearing arms clause ensuring the ability to protect the right.

You're now trying to rewrite the Amendment, essentially removing the first clause because you so badly wish for the second to take precedence. The problem with this is you can't just go rewriting the Constitution because you want. The words "well-regulated militia" are always going to be there. So unless you're actively engaged in ongoing military training, your right to own an "arm" is not unabridged.

You are completely in the wrong here. You want to rewrite the 2nd Amendment because you think you're entitled to have your toys. You're not. It was not intended as such, as we can see that through 200+ years of American thinking. The "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is there and you cannot ignore it simply because you don't like it.