Obama Signs Executive Orders on Gun Control

[Gelgarin]

The argument that guns help to protect freedom seems like it should be pretty easily dismissed on account of the fact that it doesn't work.

 

[Moon Knight]

I "forgot" many reasons, or to put it more accurately, I just mentioned one of many reasons. I'm pretty sure I said there were many reasons.

But none of the reasons changed the fact it was working to reduce alcohol use. Which is really the point.


Where? Please quote yourself where you clearly state which one is more used. All I see is you dancing around because you know you are 100% wrong on this one.

Here, I'll go ahead and say it, since I know how much you hate to be wrong.

Cocaine use:

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio...ction/what-scope-cocaine-use-in-united-states

Alcohol use in America


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

I suppose I could convert one to percentages or the other to total numbers, but surely you're smart enough to do that without me.

So me talking about gun control in a gun control thread makes me obsessed? Interesting logic...

And did I not say this?



Your lying is becoming embarrassing for you.

You mean like this?



I guess you could say that still has something to do with gun control, so I'll point you to the numerous times I argue for stronger public education. I think we both agree education level plays a factor in economic status, right?

So, contrary to what you just said, I do discuss other things.


Quit lying, give clear responses, and it won't be a problem.

1. It was done to eliminate alcohol use.
2. Telling you straight up is not dancing around.
3. Estimates, and don't accurately factor in illegal use. Also I said inner city more than once. Stop changing things around.
4. Obsessed because you talk about it every chance you get and refuse to let the discussion stray from it.
5. I never lied, you just accuse me to cover up being called out on it. And those comments you made here don't erase you refusing to talk about it earlier. Not that they said much.
6. Stronger public education? What the fuck does that even mean? And you didn't really say much. So don't use it to defend yourself.
7. On gun control, very rarely. And when you do, it is vague at best.
8. Is this really what you are coming to? Accusing me of lying and red rep? I honestly expected more from you.


I said my piece. You can go ahead and reply if you wish, but I really don't care to continue as I don't think it will get anybody anywhere. You know that is true.

BTW, saying I was lying would indicate I thought it wasn't true. Since that is my perception of you in relation to the topic...It wasn't a lie, but a statement of how I saw things. I am sure you know that.

 

[Slyfox696]

Clark, I'll get back to you in a moment.

1. It was done to eliminate alcohol use.
2. Telling you straight up is not dancing around.
3. Estimates, and don't accurately factor in illegal use. Also I said inner city more than once. Stop changing things around.
4. Obsessed because you talk about it every chance you get and refuse to let the discussion stray from it.
5. I never lied, you just accuse me to cover up being called out on it. And those comments you made here don't erase you refusing to talk about it earlier. Not that they said much.
6. Stronger public education? What the fuck does that even mean? And you didn't really say much. So don't use it to defend yourself.
7. On gun control, very rarely. And when you do, it is vague at best.
8. Is this really what you are coming to? Accusing me of lying and red rep? I honestly expected more from you.


I said my piece. You can go ahead and reply if you wish, but I really don't care to continue as I don't think it will get anybody anywhere. You know that is true.

BTW, saying I was lying would indicate I thought it wasn't true. Since that is my perception of you in relation to the topic...It wasn't a lie, but a statement of how I saw things. I am sure you know that.

1. It was making progression. No one thinks eliminating certain guns will remove 100% of gun crime, but it will make progress. That's the point.
2. I'm still waiting for you to show me where you told me straight up. Just more dancing from you.
3. I'm pretty certain all cocaine use is illegal. And I never said inner city, my question was about the United States as a whole. So YOU'RE the one changing things around, because you know the answer to my question proves you very wrong.
4. Imagine that...in a thread about gun control, I wish to talk about gun control. And that makes me obsessed. I must also be obsessed with the NFL because I'm not talking about abortions in the NFL LD.
5. You've lied multiple times. I showed how.
6. What does that mean? It means education level plays a strong role in determining economic status, a status which you say plays a part in those who commit crimes. Didn't I say that already? Yes, I did.
7. Again, when I'm talking about gun control, why should I talk about other things? If we are in a thread about mental health, I'll talk mental health. When it's a discussion on gun control, I'll talk gun control. Quit saying such overtly stupid things.
8. If you quit lying, I'll quit calling you a liar.

 

[Moon Knight]

C
4. Imagine that...in a thread about gun control, I wish to talk about gun control. And that makes me obsessed. I must also be obsessed with the NFL because I'm not talking about abortions in the NFL LD.

I wasn't going to come in here again, but this almost cries out for a reply. The first thread I got you in, where you refused to discuss anything else wasn't solely about gun control, but about how to eliminate gun violence in general..As is the point in this thread, which is backed up by Obama doing things other than just gun control. So...you don't want to discuss things in a thread that clearly opens the door for such? Because both threads were not about gun control alone.

Also, it is not just these threads. You talk about whenever you can in multiple other threads. You can come up with a better comparison than abortions to NFL, as they are not related to each other...What I am stating is. You can do better.

FYI, if you talked about the NFL every chance you got and refused to talk about topics related to it..Then yes, you would be. This is like if you refused to talk about steroid abuse because you wanted to talk about the Pro Bowl instead. Related topic.

 

[Slyfox696]

I agree with you on the intent of the first part of the second amendment.

Then...I don't see why you're struggling to understand this. The point of the second clause is to guarantee the first clause. But since the second clause never once says unabridged rights to guns, you really have no argument. Technically speaking, one could make the argument that if you ban all guns, but allow swords to be legal, you'd still be following the wording in the 2nd Amendment.

Let's look at some other quotes:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin

It's apparent that the founding fathers wanted citizens to have arms to have security from government and each other. Yes, they believed in the militia having them, but back then, the militia and everyday citizens were one in the same. Which is why the second part of the amendment is written like it is.

Nothing you said here changes what I said.

If you want a gun, join the army and/or state militia. Purchase a bolt action hunting rifle. But don't tell me this country shouldn't have the legal right to ban dangerous weapons like handguns and assault rifles because of the 2nd Amendment.

When you ban guns(for those that want to), you're taking away a right we have. Such as everyone should have a right to marry.

We're not banning guns, we're banning certain types of guns. Thus, not taking away anyone's rights.

And get over the marriage example, you were clearly wrong.

If the man in China had been preempted with a gun, your argument would be "if the aggressor didn't HAVE a knife.."

That's silly.

The man in China didn't have a gun. Thus, under your example, there was no need to preempt him with a gun.

Again, you focus solely on the weapon and not the person.

Because one weapon injured people and the other killed them.

Again you seem to be missing the important parts here.

Riiiight, so focusing on taking away AR-15s that killed a whopping 323 people last year is way more important than focusing on curing diseases.

Who said it was? I'm pretty certain millions of dollars a year are donated to finding a cure for cancer.

But I can't give you cancer. I can't give you Alzheimer's. I can shoot you in the fact though.

If you don't understand the difference between medical conditions and guns, then you probably ought not try walking and chewing gum at the same time.

Actually some contries in the UK have higher murder rates than some of our states. When you keep in mind that the UK's population is a lot smaller than ours, it's a fair comparison to make.

No, no it's really not.

A murder "rate" is the same, regardless of population. And I already have said why comparing states is a waste of time, because we're talking about a national effort.

Point being murderers generally go to places where guns are banned. Colorado allows citizens to have a concealed weapon, that specific movie theater didn't, which is why the shooter probably went there.

No, point being your argument is garbage.

If the sale of assault rifles and handguns were illegal, how would he have obtained the weapons to shoot in the theater? And don't tell me "if he really wanted to, he would", I'm asking for specifics. What black market gun dealers did he know? Which gang is he affiliated with?

Like most pro shooters, you continue to miss the point with the propaganda fed to you by the NRA.

The link I posted listed occurances where someone with a gun on hand preempted shootings from happening. Columbine proves more of the exception and less of the rule.

What Columbine proves is we need stricter gun control and simply saying "more security guards" is not a complete answer.

I should've said "gun related murders" because that is what I meant, so my mistake. The percentage matters because more people who own guns, don't harm others with them. Take a look at some gacts from this link:

http://americangunfacts.com/

I know the violent crime rate statistic is off, so take all other facts as you may. They do source everything. In any case, it shows that guns are proven to be more useful than harmful and as I've said, a few bad apples shouldn't spoil the whole bunch.

Again, I ask you.

If you're one of the 10,000 people murdered by a gun, does it really matter which percentage of a gun killed you?

Your arguments are completely ridiculous.

I'm not competely disagreeing with you, but I think that the shootings that take place could have easily happened with revolvers.

You think a single action six shooter revolver could have done the same damage as a 30 round semi-automatic assault rifle?

Really???

Sure, lives would've been spared in that case

I love how you're so cavalier about that. "Oh, sure, we could have saved some people's lives but..."

As far as making it difficult to get handguns. That doesn't seem to be working well with drugs so I don't have much confidence with that.

As I've constantly embarrassed Moon Knight with...

Which is more common, cocaine or alcohol? Both are drugs, so which one is easier to get and more frequently consumed?

When I think about someone breaking in, I don't even think of the weapon they're carrying. I think about the fear I'd feel and not knowing what malicious intent the intruder has. I'm afraid of the person, not the weapon.

Bullshit. If the intruder breaks in with a stuffed teddy bear in his hands, are you really telling me you'd be just as scared if he broke in with an AR-15?

Hitler? I know your prepared for that, so go ahead...

You mean like the fact Hitler actually eased gun control, not strengthened it? Or the fact he never once conquered his own people?

Of course, I'm sure you're going to mention the Jewish people. Before you do, I suggest you watch this video. You can start at the 2:15 mark, if you like.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-17-2013/grand-theft-semi-auto---coming-for-your-guns

Many things can be used as a weapon.

Yes, but I'm pretty certain very few of them can harm 30 people in the span of 26 seconds from 100 feet away.

It's because intent doesn't matter.

...what?

How does intent not matter when discussing the point of an object? When you compare guns to cars, it just makes you look stupid. The intent of handguns and assault rifles are to shoot people. The intent of cars is to transport. Comparing the two is simply asinine.

Well, how were they supposed to know about cars too? A drunk driver behind the wheel is no bit as dangerous as an angry crazy man with a gun.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do we not already make drunk driving illegal?

Great example. If drunk driving is dangerous, let's outlaw it. If handguns and assault rifles are dangerous, let's outlaw them. I like your thinking here.

 

[Slyfox696]

I wasn't going to come in here again, but this almost cries out for a reply.

And yet, you STILL cannot clearly tell me which is more common in the United States, alcohol or cocaine.

Amazing.

The first thread I got you in, where you refused to discuss anything else wasn't solely about gun control, but about how to eliminate gun violence in general..As is the point in this thread, which is backed up by Obama doing things other than just gun control. So...you don't want to discuss things in a thread that clearly opens the door for such? Because both threads were not about gun control alone.

Also, it is not just these threads. You talk about whenever you can in multiple other threads. You can come up with a better comparison than abortions to NFL, as they are not related to each other...What I am stating is. You can do better.

I also talk about wrestling in a lot of threads, I must be obsessed with that. I also talk basketball in a lot of threads, clearly I'm obsessed. I'm also obsessed with Republicans, religion and food.

Or, and this is more likely, you're saying stupid things again. Just because I'm talking about gun control doesn't mean I think it's the only solution. The fact you still don't understand this shows just how stupid you really can be. I have said many times there are other steps which need to be taken. Just because I'm not interested in circle jerking on ideas everyone already agrees on, doesn't mean I'm not in favor of them. So are you done yet? Your sheer stupidity is distracting me right now.

By the way, why don't you quit bitching and moaning about what I choose to talk about and actually start a thread on the other things you want to discuss?

 

[Moon Knight]

And yet, you STILL cannot clearly tell me which is more common in the United States, alcohol or cocaine.

Amazing.

I also talk about wrestling in a lot of threads, I must be obsessed with that. I also talk basketball in a lot of threads, clearly I'm obsessed. I'm also obsessed with Republicans, religion and food.

Or, and this is more likely, you're saying stupid things again. Just because I'm talking about gun control doesn't mean I think it's the only solution. The fact you still don't understand this shows just how stupid you really can be. I have said many times there are other steps which need to be taken. Just because I'm not interested in circle jerking on ideas everyone already agrees on, doesn't mean I'm not in favor of them. So are you done yet? Your sheer stupidity is distracting me right now.

By the way, why don't you quit bitching and moaning about what I choose to talk about and actually start a thread on the other things you want to discuss?

You typed all that and missed the point of what I said, you also missed how you said those two threads were about gun control and defended your refusal to discuss anything else by that. I just pointed out that they were not. You keep taking issue with following me and fall back on "your stupid" comment. I was more confused on why you refuse to talk about something, but say you still agree with it.

And ideas everyone agrees on? What ideas are these? Because even when it comes to other things, there is still different view points on them. There is plenty of room for differences in opinion.

Really? So I can't discuss a thread about how to deal with gun violence in threads about it? You're slipping, there is no need for me to create another thread when one on the topic already exists. Thats why I didn't, I saw no reason to create a duplicate thread. Unless you think that it wouldn't be...

 

[Slyfox696]

You typed all that and missed the point of what I said

No, it's just that the point of what you said was incredibly stupid.

Your argument is that because I don't specify all the other things most people agree on, I obviously don't care about them and only want/obsess about gun control. That's a fallacious argument.

I just pointed out that they were not.

Just because you claim it, doesn't make it true. For example, the thread of this title specifically mentions gun control. The entire thread of this discussion has been gun control.

This is common sense.

And ideas everyone agrees on? What ideas are these?

As examples...more help for those mentally impaired, both for treatment and discovery. Improve poverty, improve education.

I'll be very surprised if you can find a significant portion of America who does not want all three of these things.

You're slipping, there is no need for me to create another thread when one on the topic already exists. Thats why I didn't, I saw no reason to create a duplicate thread.

Well, then it's clear to me you're simply obsessed on gun control. After all, if you cared about anything else, you'd make a thread and talk about it when encouraged to. The fact you're making excuses for not talking about the other things just shows how obsessed you are about gun control.

 

[Moon Knight]

No...

I'm not talking gun ban, but gun control. Pay attention.


"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." - Thomas Jefferson

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security." - Thomas Jefferson

"large and permanent military establishments ... are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark." - James Madison

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." - Alexander Hamilton

The entire point of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the power of the defense in the hands of the state militias, to avoid the all powerful federal army which they had just fought. The right was to protect the ability of the state citizenry to come together in a well-organized and disciplined militia when the need for defense was necessary. You can even see this action during the Civil War, where soldiers who had no stake in the slavery or the more encompassing federal vs. state rights argument still went to war because the dedication to the state was greater than the patriotism to the nation.

Fast forward to today. We have a large standing federal army (which is against the Founders original intents and beliefs, by the way). We have an air force. Our navy is, I believe, the largest in the world. The national guard, which serves as reserve forces, also is partly run by the state, which would be today's equivalent to a militia. The purpose was never for individual citizens to own guns which fired 30 rounds in 25 seconds. The purpose was for the individual citizen to be ready to come to the defense of the state when necessary. This is no longer the case for most people who own guns. And the guns citizens do have, they do not use in military actions.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself this question. If the 2nd Amendment was simply about an individual's right to own a gun, why did the brightest minds in our country at the time even bother including the words "well-regulated militia"?

District of Columbia v. Heller is relevant here, more so than what some dead guys said. And before you never stated this wasn't still upheld.

Decision
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

This gives an good insight to the definition of the 2nd Amendment, while our right to have a gun is NOT connected to being in a militia, our right to own a gun is also limited. So yes Kent, you do have a right to own a gun...But you do NOT have the right to own any gun you want and some bans do not violate the 2nd amendment in any way..Only a full ban would do that.

 

[Slyfox696]

District of Columbia v. Heller is relevant here, more so than what some dead guys said. And before you never stated this wasn't still upheld.



This gives an good insight to the definition of the 2nd Amendment, while our right to have a gun is NOT connected to being in a militia, our right to own a gun is also limited. So yes Kent, you do have a right to own a gun...But you do NOT have the right to own any gun you want and some bans do not violate the 2nd amendment in any way..Only a full ban would do that.

DC vs. Heller was a purely political ruling, one which overturned many many years of interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

I give very little credibility to DC vs. Heller, especially since it can simply be overturned with a different Supreme Court case.

 

[Moon Knight]

Well, then it's clear to me you're simply obsessed on gun control. After all, if you cared about anything else, you'd make a thread and talk about it when encouraged to. The fact you're making excuses for not talking about the other things just shows how obsessed you are about gun control.

Wow...You asked me why I don't create a thread about the other stuff...So I tell you it is because the current thread already covers it....And you reply with this? Wow.......

 

[Slyfox696]

Wow...You asked me why I don't create a thread about the other stuff...So I tell you it is because the current thread already covers it....And you reply with this? Wow.......

Now you understand how ridiculous I think you're being.

By the way, cocaine or alcohol. Which one is more commonly used in this country?

Oh, and still waiting on that thread which talks about other ways to prevent gun crime that doesn't involve gun control.

 

[Moon Knight]

DC vs. Heller was a purely political ruling, one which overturned many many years of interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

I give very little credibility to DC vs. Heller, especially since it can simply be overturned with a different Supreme Court case.

Doesn't matter if you like it, the ruling is still law. And why the fuck do you care? It backs your idea of our right to bear arms being limited anyway. If anything you should love it as it gives legal room to ban most types of guns.

 

[Slyfox696]

Doesn't matter if you like it, the ruling is still law. And why the fuck do you care? It backs your idea of our right to bear arms being limited anyway. If anything you should love it as it gives legal room to ban most types of guns.

Not when you take it in combination with McDonald v. Chicago, and realize you cannot ban most types of guns. What DC vs. Heller says, I believe, is you cannot own a gun for any purpose. But if the purpose is for self-defense, then your right to the gun should not be infringed. So everyone who buys guns say they are for self-defense, and DC v. Heller supports them.

Why would I love that?

 

[Moon Knight]

Now you understand how ridiculous I think you're being.

By the way, cocaine or alcohol. Which one is more commonly used in this country?

Oh, and still waiting on that thread which talks about other ways to prevent gun crime that doesn't involve gun control.

Good lord........If your going to play word games with me, at least get my complaint about you right.

What do you want for the second part? A graph? A novel? I already told you which was more common in accordance to what I meant.

Why make another thread? This one covers it, so did the other one. What would the point be? Why can't I use this one?

 

[Moon Knight]

Not when you take it in combination with McDonald v. Chicago, and realize you cannot ban most types of guns. What DC vs. Heller says, I believe, is you cannot own a gun for any purpose. But if the purpose is for self-defense, then your right to the gun should not be infringed. So everyone who buys guns say they are for self-defense, and DC v. Heller supports them.

Why would I love that?

Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

McDonald vs. Chicago, most of that sounds fine to me. You can easily define it a little better in another ruling. Like what qualifies as self defense.

 

[Slyfox696]

Good lord........If your going to play word games with me, at least get my complaint about you right.

I did. Still waiting for you to make that thread.

What do you want for the second part? A graph? A novel? I already told you which was more common in accordance to what I meant.

I want a one word answer.

You said banning guns in this country wouldn't work in this country because banning drugs hasn't worked in this country. I asked you a simple question, and I will now repeat the question and am asking for a 1 word answer.

In the United States, which is more common: cocaine or alcohol?

One word is all you need to give me.

Why make another thread? This one covers it, so did the other one. What would the point be? Why can't I use this one?

Fine then.

As the Administrator of this forum, I am now officially declaring the only topics which can be discussed in this thread or the other one (whichever one that is) are things which can be related to gun control.

So now you can't discuss them in this thread, unless you want an Infraction for violating "Pissing Off Staff" rule. Go make your thread.

 

[Slyfox696]

McDonald vs. Chicago, most of that sounds fine to me. You can easily define it a little better in another ruling. Like what qualifies as self defense.

Or simply overturn it when you replace a Republican justice for a Democrat justice.

 

[Tastycles]

 

[Gelgarin]

I'm not watching eight minutes of Michael Howard. Is that 'did you threaten to overrule him?'

 

[Clark Kent]

Then...I don't see why you're struggling to understand this. The point of the second clause is to guarantee the first clause. But since the second clause never once says unabridged rights to guns, you really have no argument. Technically speaking, one could make the argument that if you ban all guns, but allow swords to be legal, you'd still be following the wording in the 2nd Amendment.

Nothing you said here changes what I said.

If you want a gun, join the army and/or state militia. Purchase a bolt action hunting rifle. But don't tell me this country shouldn't have the legal right to ban dangerous weapons like handguns and assault rifles because of the 2nd Amendment.

Can you not see from the words of our fathers that they not only wanted people to have arms for the militia, but also for their own defence? Like I said, that went hand in hand back then, but the wording suggests they did indeed want both. Did you read my link about it??? In a particular case, having a shotgun was deemed unconstitutional because it wasn't a military weapon. So, obviously, the second amendment can be interpreted in many ways, however, I do think, based on what our founding fathers have said and fought for, we absolutely have a right to guns. I don't follow the NRA, though. I'm a constitutionalist, not a Republican.

That's silly.

The man in China didn't have a gun. Thus, under your example, there was no need to preempt him with a gun.

Because one weapon injured people and the other killed them.

So, having a gun to preempt him is silly because those kids survived being STABBED?? Once again, that article talks about preempting more than just attacks with guns.

Who said it was? I'm pretty certain millions of dollars a year are donated to finding a cure for cancer.

But I can't give you cancer. I can't give you Alzheimer's. I can shoot you in the fact though.

If you don't understand the difference between medical conditions and guns, then you probably ought not try walking and chewing gum at the same time.

I'll have to find the article when I have time, but someone wrote about how we as a society focus too much on violence and the killers. In that, yes we need to focus on the crazy people and not the weapon, but also not give all the air time to the killer. The theory is that such a person would probably just kill themselves alone in thier home, but since they could get media attention and be remembered, they go on a shooting spree. I mean, we all know who Adam Lanza is, but can any of us name any of the children?? My point with my argument here is that we don't always focus on the right things. There's just so many factors and my overall point has been, just focusing on gun control is minor compared to other issues.

A murder "rate" is the same, regardless of population. And I already have said why comparing states is a waste of time, because we're talking about a national effort.

I believe in protecting the sovereignty of the states so support them making their own gun laws, so we'll have to just disagree on this completely and leave it at that.

If the sale of assault rifles and handguns were illegal, how would he have obtained the weapons to shoot in the theater? And don't tell me "if he really wanted to, he would", I'm asking for specifics. What black market gun dealers did he know? Which gang is he affiliated with?

Like most pro shooters, you continue to miss the point with the propaganda fed to you by the NRA.

Once again, I don't follow the NRA. If I honestly believe the intent of the second amendment was to preserve our rights to own a gun, then I'm gonna fight for that right. I could a give a shit about the NRA honestly.

I think if you ban gunsm or certain kinds of guns, there would still be a black market for them, yes. Would the recent shooters have used these markets? I can't say, but that doesn't mean another potential killer wouldn't. As I've said too, I also think they would've used any weapon available to at least try and kill people. Intent is almost as bad as the result. It means, that the weapon isn't the problem, the person who would use any weapon to murder, is. Of course, referring back to China.

What Columbine proves is we need stricter gun control and simply saying "more security guards" is not a complete answer.

It's not, but my link does prove it has worked and that's definitely a start. I think we can always do more without infringing on our rights.

Again, I ask you.

If you're one of the 10,000 people murdered by a gun, does it really matter which percentage of a gun killed you?

Your arguments are completely ridiculous.

I'd be dead, so I couldn't tell you. I will say knowing that guns have been used more for good than bad, makes me feel more safe to walk outside than afraid.

You think a single action six shooter revolver could have done the same damage as a 30 round semi-automatic assault rifle?

Really???

No, I'm saying even if you ban certain guns, these killers could've still taken lives with any gun that's available. There's a difference.

I love how you're so cavalier about that. "Oh, sure, we could have saved some people's lives but..."

Every life is important, so I'm not disagreeing, but what I'm saying is gun control won't stop the killers. Which, yet again, is my point.

As I've constantly embarrassed Moon Knight with...

Which is more common, cocaine or alcohol? Both are drugs, so which one is easier to get and more frequently consumed?

The murder rate went up during prohibition, though, so I don't see what your getting at? Also, legalizing drugs would make crime go down, considering many shootings are gang and drug related.

Bullshit. If the intruder breaks in with a stuffed teddy bear in his hands, are you really telling me you'd be just as scared if he broke in with an AR-15?

Well, that's a bad argument because he's never gonna have a teddy bear. For sake of argument, let's say he doesn't have a weapon at all. In a moment like that, I would be more afraid of intent and the unknown then what he's packing. That is the absolute truth.

You mean like the fact Hitler actually eased gun control, not strengthened it? Or the fact he never once conquered his own people?

Of course, I'm sure you're going to mention the Jewish people. Before you do, I suggest you watch this video. You can start at the 2:15 mark, if you like.

Hitlers intent was disarm the Jews to conquer them. Yes, other countries could've helped, but it's what I said earlier. Guns might not protect us from the government, but our rights gauruntee we can try to protect ourselves.

Yes, but I'm pretty certain very few of them can harm 30 people in the span of 26 seconds from 100 feet away.

True but you don't think a killer could make a bomb? Like Timothy McVeigh?

...what?

How does intent not matter when discussing the point of an object? When you compare guns to cars, it just makes you look stupid. The intent of handguns and assault rifles are to shoot people. The intent of cars is to transport. Comparing the two is simply asinine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do we not already make drunk driving illegal?

Great example. If drunk driving is dangerous, let's outlaw it. If handguns and assault rifles are dangerous, let's outlaw them. I like your thinking here.

No, no, no. Your last statement is the same as comparing drunk driving to murder, both are already illegal. The car and the gun are what physically kills people, with the killer behind the wheel or trigger repectively.

For once, I find your comparison ridiculous. It's like, when it's drunk driving, it's the DRIVER's fault, but when it comes to shooting, it's the GUNS fault.

As far as what Moon Knight said about banning certain kinds of weapons is constitutional, I think that depends of what the political agenda of who's in the supreme court is. I'm not against banning AR-15's, but as I've showed, that only accounted for about 300 deaths last year, so it's not a big focus for me when you compare it to other murder stats.

 

[Gelgarin]

Guns might not protect us from the government, but our rights gauruntee we can try to protect ourselves.

Doesn't work.

 

[Slyfox696]

Can you not see from the words of our fathers that they not only wanted people to have arms for the militia, but also for their own defence?

....what exactly do you think the militia was for?

I'll have to find the article when I have time, but someone wrote about how we as a society focus too much on violence and the killers. In that, yes we need to focus on the crazy people and not the weapon, but also not give all the air time to the killer. The theory is that such a person would probably just kill themselves alone in thier home, but since they could get media attention and be remembered, they go on a shooting spree. I mean, we all know who Adam Lanza is, but can any of us name any of the children?? My point with my argument here is that we don't always focus on the right things. There's just so many factors and my overall point has been, just focusing on gun control is minor compared to other issues.

Everything you just said is okay, but still a red herring.

There are many steps which can be taken. Why do you and Moon Knight have such a problem understanding that most gun control people agree to that?

But all the other things we can do doesn't detract from the fact we can also make it more difficult for people to get their hands on killing machines.

I believe in protecting the sovereignty of the states so support them making their own gun laws, so we'll have to just disagree on this completely and leave it at that.

It has to be a national effort to see the benefits of gun control. Having a hodge podge of laws solves nothing, except to confuse citizens.

Once again, I don't follow the NRA.

But you still regurgitate their propaganda.

I think if you ban gunsm or certain kinds of guns, there would still be a black market for them, yes.

There already is.

That's hardly an argument against gun control.

Would the recent shooters have used these markets? I can't say, but that doesn't mean another potential killer wouldn't.

That is the stupidest argument ever.

"We can't try to protect Americans because the people who already plan on killing may have to go to more extreme lengths to do so."

Intent is almost as bad as the result.

...........I'm absolutely dumbfounded by this statement.

So the guy who tried to kill 22 children in China and failed is as bad of a situation as a guy who tried to kill 20 children in Newton and succeeded?

Do you remember the racist/sexist conversation we had, where you challenged me to go tell the families of those killed in the Benghazi attacks that it's okay to tell a white lie in order to get the people responsible? I'm extending that challenge to you.

Tell the parents of the 20 children killed in Newton that what happened to their children is just as bad as what happened to the children who didn't die, and that we should accept the murder of their children because there's a possibility it MIGHT have happened anyways.

It means, that the weapon isn't the problem, the person who would use any weapon to murder, is.

It means the problem is the ease in which the person wielding the weapon has in killing people. That's the problem.

It's not, but my link does prove it has worked and that's definitely a start. I think we can always do more without infringing on our rights.

Removing weapons which are responsible for over 80% of murders in this country is not infringing upon our rights. Arguing it's okay for people to be killed IS infringing upon our rights to life.

By the way, do we not regulate strongly or prohibit "arms" like nuclear missiles, RPGs, C4, fully automatic assault rifles, etc.? Explain to me how handguns and semi-automatic civilian assault rifles are different.

I'd be dead, so I couldn't tell you.

Point made.

I will say knowing that guns have been used more for good than bad, makes me feel more safe to walk outside than afraid.

Yes, good from the bad guns can cause. Which is not in favor of your argument at all.

But again, and I've said this multiple times, there's a difference between gun control and gun bans.

No, I'm saying even if you ban certain guns, these killers could've still taken lives with any gun that's available. There's a difference.

Killing 2 people versus killing 14 people is a BIG difference.

The point is to make the act of killing as difficult as possible.

Every life is important, so I'm not disagreeing, but what I'm saying is gun control won't stop the killers.

Uhh, what proof do you have of that? Because when you look at countries around the world who have strict gun control, you see a MUCH lower rater of gun homicide. Take Australia, whose gun homicide and overall murder rate have dropped tremendously in the last 15 years since they implemented strict gun control.

You have ZERO proof that gun control won't stop killers, but we do have a LOT of proof gun control will.

The murder rate went up during prohibition, though, so I don't see what your getting at?

Uhh...what? That has nothing to do with anything. Why would banning alcohol suggest a decrease or increase in murder? That's just stupid.

The point is that banning things DO work. We ban cocaine and don't ban alcohol. Both are drugs, but alcohol is clearly more used in this country. Thus showing the fact that banning things do work to minimize their use.

Well, that's a bad argument because he's never gonna have a teddy bear. For sake of argument, let's say he doesn't have a weapon at all. In a moment like that, I would be more afraid of intent and the unknown then what he's packing. That is the absolute truth.

Then you're a moron.

If I had to pick between an unarmed man breaking in or a man armed with a gun breaking in, I know I'd be hell of a lot more afraid of someone breaking in with a gun. Your "intent" argument is bullshit.

Hitlers intent was disarm the Jews to conquer them.

Bullshit. Hitler's intent was to rid Germany of Jews. He actively practiced discrimination. If the Jewish people had left the country, then the Holocaust would never have happened. And please understand that's not me blaming the Jewish people.

The fact is Hitler relaxed gun control. So your argument is completely false.

True but you don't think a killer could make a bomb? Like Timothy McVeigh?

You think Adam Lanza could have made enough bombs to kill all of those people without his mom noticing?

But you know what? Even if he had, making a bomb is STILL much more difficult then buying/stealing a gun and shooting people. There's a reason so very few people kill with bombs.

No, no, no. Your last statement is the same as comparing drunk driving to murder, both are already illegal. The car and the gun are what physically kills people, with the killer behind the wheel or trigger repectively.

No no no.

The car doesn't kill people, drunk driving does. The person in each instance remains point A, the behavior is point B (drunk driving or gun) and manslaughter/murder is point C.

So using your example, we need to make the middle man (as it were) illegal. In this case, drunk driving and guns.

For once, I find your comparison ridiculous. It's like, when it's drunk driving, it's the DRIVER's fault, but when it comes to shooting, it's the GUNS fault.

Not surprisingly, you missed the point.

As far as what Moon Knight said about banning certain kinds of weapons is constitutional, I think that depends of what the political agenda of who's in the supreme court is. I'm not against banning AR-15's, but as I've showed, that only accounted for about 300 deaths last year, so it's not a big focus for me when you compare it to other murder stats.

And as I've said, I fully favor banning handguns and assault rifles.

But since that's not likely in today's climate, I want strict gun control, which I believe I've outlined in this thread.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Clark Kent - how can one be a Constituionalist that believes in the sovereignty of the states to make their own gun laws?

It sounds very convenient for someone going through an elongated idealist puberty.

 

[Clark Kent]

....what exactly do you think the militia was for?

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:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

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

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons

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

Everything you just said is okay, but still a red herring.

There are many steps which can be taken. Why do you and Moon Knight have such a problem understanding that most gun control people agree to that?

But all the other things we can do doesn't detract from the fact we can also make it more difficult for people to get their hands on killing machines.

I'm just trying to come up with other solutions while also protecting our rights. Honestly, Obama's basically asking to nationalize gun ownership. I don't think it'll do much at all for either side of the debate.

It has to be a national effort to see the benefits of gun control. Having a hodge podge of laws solves nothing, except to confuse citizens.

The only thing I'm gonna disagree with here is that every state should be able to do what they want with their laws and that's one of the ideals our country was built on, but I do understand you point here.

But you still regurgitate their propaganda.

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.

There already is.

That's hardly an argument against gun control.

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

That is the stupidest argument ever.

"We can't try to protect Americans because the people who already plan on killing may have to go to more extreme lengths to do so."

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.

...........I'm absolutely dumbfounded by this statement.

So the guy who tried to kill 22 children in China and failed is as bad of a situation as a guy who tried to kill 20 children in Newton and succeeded?

Do you remember the racist/sexist conversation we had, where you challenged me to go tell the families of those killed in the Benghazi attacks that it's okay to tell a white lie in order to get the people responsible? I'm extending that challenge to you.

Tell the parents of the 20 children killed in Newton that what happened to their children is just as bad as what happened to the children who didn't die, and that we should accept the murder of their children because there's a possibility it MIGHT have happened anyways.

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.

Removing weapons which are responsible for over 80% of murders in this country is not infringing upon our rights. Arguing it's okay for people to be killed IS infringing upon our rights to life.

By the way, do we not regulate strongly or prohibit "arms" like nuclear missiles, RPGs, C4, fully automatic assault rifles, etc.? Explain to me how handguns and semi-automatic civilian assault rifles are different.

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. I think as far as what type of arms people should be able to carry, well, I think that's where we point out the difference in both time periods' militias. We do have a right to bear arms to protect ourselves from the state, but I think this is also where compromise comes in and we say "you know what? we don't need weapon x, y, and z for our citizens." Handguns protect a lot of people and they'd be easier to use in a crisis, such as home invasion. AR-15's are just like any ol' rifle that looks scary. I think that other rifles do just fine, though, so like I said, I don't care either way on banning that weapon.

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.

Point made.

My girlfriend lived with this guy in New York and he got mugged. She said he was so badly beaten, she couldn't recognize him and she threw up because of how graphic it was. I asked why was he mugged and she said, "because it's New York and that's normal." Like I'm ignorant of the real word and crime. Point being, we face all kinds of dangers everyday. Yes, her friend is lucky to be alive, but that once again, we should focus on the people, and not the weapons. Gun control is, at best, a bandaid on our society.

Killing 2 people versus killing 14 people is a BIG difference.

The point is to make the act of killing as difficult as possible.

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

Uhh, what proof do you have of that? Because when you look at countries around the world who have strict gun control, you see a MUCH lower rater of gun homicide. Take Australia, whose gun homicide and overall murder rate have dropped tremendously in the last 15 years since they implemented strict gun control.

You have ZERO proof that gun control won't stop killers, but we do have a LOT of proof gun control will.

We agree most gun related murders are crime related. We also agree that black markets will stay be able to sell guns illegally. I don't know if Europes gang problems were as bad as ours, so even though I can't prove it, I can deduce it.

Uhh...what? That has nothing to do with anything. Why would banning alcohol suggest a decrease or increase in murder? That's just stupid.

The point is that banning things DO work. We ban cocaine and don't ban alcohol. Both are drugs, but alcohol is clearly more used in this country. Thus showing the fact that banning things do work to minimize their use.

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

Then you're a moron.

If I had to pick between an unarmed man breaking in or a man armed with a gun breaking in, I know I'd be hell of a lot more afraid of someone breaking in with a gun. Your "intent" argument is bullshit.

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.

Bullshit. Hitler's intent was to rid Germany of Jews. He actively practiced discrimination. If the Jewish people had left the country, then the Holocaust would never have happened. And please understand that's not me blaming the Jewish people.

The fact is Hitler relaxed gun control. So your argument is completely false.

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

You think Adam Lanza could have made enough bombs to kill all of those people without his mom noticing?

But you know what? Even if he had, making a bomb is STILL much more difficult then buying/stealing a gun and shooting people. There's a reason so very few people kill with bombs.

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.

No no no.

The car doesn't kill people, drunk driving does. The person in each instance remains point A, the behavior is point B (drunk driving or gun) and manslaughter/murder is point C.

So using your example, we need to make the middle man (as it were) illegal. In this case, drunk driving and guns.

Not surprisingly, you missed the point.

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. What you're example should be is that the person in each instance remains point A, the behavior is point B(drunk driving or shooting) and muder is point C. You'd be missing what point C really is and that's the means to kill(car or gun) and then murder should be point D. I'm starting to doubt your intelligence, especially with all the shit talking you do. That's pretty basic stuff, bro.

And as I've said, I fully favor banning handguns and assault rifles.

But since that's not likely in today's climate, I want strict gun control, which I believe I've outlined in this thread.

Fair enough.

Clark Kent - how can one be a Constituionalist that believes in the sovereignty of the states to make their own gun laws?

It sounds very convenient for someone going through an elongated idealist puberty.

Either you don't know our countries history or you're choosing to ignore it. Our founding fathers wanted every state to be different and able to make their own laws, but also to adhere to federal Constitution. Hence, why the country is called the "United States" of America. Protecting sovereingty is also why we have an electoral college. Fun fact.