Gun Control

Jäger wrote:
And here we are again, Democrats once again attempting to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment. Why would we be surprised at this? Nothing new here.

You have painted an accurate picture +1 ... The history lesson continues.

To what extent and how long will people sit idly by waiting and watching as their freedoms are wrenched away before they realize that it is too late and there is no means to secure a future for the next generation?

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

John

Jäger wrote:

Quote :

- Only Anglo service members can be patriots or heroes

..dhally happens to be the very first to make any mention whatsoever of race.

Quote :

- Only Anglo presidents can shoot skeet - others are to be hated

you can claim you "shoot skeets" all you want - but ... you're a liar.

Quote :

- Background checks are BAD for Anglos, but OK for others

we have a .. drug user of a president, the most famous illegal drug user in the world. ..Yet that .. druggie president tells us all that background checks are necessary ... see the hypocrisy and stupidity in that statement and position.

Would you care to be the first of your group of little friends brave enough to take on the task of explaining what the words "shall not be infringed" means to you, dhally?

I started thinking you sounded racist when you mentioned Colin Powell as a non-hero. Your posts are laced with hatred of our president. It is obvious that such an impassioned hatred is inspired by some deep psychological issue, e.g. racism.

You ridicule the president for the dorky looking skeet picture and story. Yet you haven't challenged his basketball skills. Skeet shooting is an anglo sport. Obviously racist.

You are arguing that the president should not have been allowed to own a gun, and by extension, any black druggie shouldn't either (leaving aside the issue that you also argued that the president DIDN'T actually shoot the gun). But you argue passionately that the background checks we have now, are OK for you and your buddies. Therefore one set of rules for black druggies, a different rule for you: racism.



It doesn't take a lot of bravery to post in this forum, but I will do what I can: "shall not be infringed" means exactly what you think it does. The part you haven't figured out yet, is that the Constitution is not holy words handed down on stone tablets from on high, to be forever enshrined and worshipped. It is a working document subject to interpretation and yes, even to revision. The ultimate question we should be asking, is whether or not to revise the 2nd Amendment. Clinging to the existing text like a lucky charm isn't helpful, doesn't change anybody's mind, and just makes you sound like an NRA parrothead.

dhally wrote:

I started thinking you sounded racist when you mentioned Colin Powell as a non-hero.

No, you never started thinking... you started Saul Alinsky spinning instead. I'm not sure whether you're just stupid, or instead a malicious liar ("in China they shoot environmentalists on sight" comes to mind). But while you have a right to an opinion, you don't have a right to your own personal version of the facts. And certainly not any right to claim I said something which I did not.

So let's have a quick review of my mention of Colin Powell, shall we. It was in relation to a claim that if you wear the uniform, then that makes you a patriot. To which I responded:
And that's why we have examples like Colin Powell and Mark Kelly - apparently two patriots true to the Constitution and Bill of Rights because they both spent careers putting a uniform on - publicly speaking in favour of bans on most semiautomatic rifles, magazine bans, etc. Ummmm... just for civilians, of course.

And that's why I reject your argument that if you wear a uniform you are, ipso facto a patriot - there's two very glaring, very public examples right there that you can spend an entire lifetime wearing a uniform, take the oath, and then treat part of the Constitution like garbage.

I don't see any mention of heroism or lack thereof in there, but apparently in your frantic searching for evidence of racism, you do.

There is a mention of TWO men who wear uniforms (the same uniform that the guy who leaked national secret material to WikiLeaks wears, incidentally), who swore an oath to defend the Constitution, and who are now actively working to aid those seeking to violate part of that Constitution. Perhaps in your warped world that makes them "patriots", but they aren't in my world.

Second, one of the two soldiers mentioned is black. But the other is white. And earlier I similarly criticized Biden, Cuomo, Boehner - all white. Jeez... I guess you just didn't notice I mentioned them white guys also violating the Constitution. But if one of them happens to be black... that's it! Clear evidence of Racism!

When your thinking is that retarded that's the best argument you can come up with, you really don't have much to put forward in the form of intelligent comment, do you?

Quote :

Your posts are laced with hatred of our president. It is obvious that such an impassioned hatred is inspired by some deep psychological issue, e.g. racism.

Is this where I respond by saying your bizarre posts are inspired by some deep psychological need to have sex with very young children? After all, if you can practice amateur online psychology with no rational basis, why can't I?

But you're right, I have outright contempt for him. I'm that way about people who lie all the time, whether it's about shovel ready jobs, that the US will be in default if the debt ceiling isn't raised - or just lying about China shooting environmentalists on sight.

And that contempt only gets deeper when we finally found out last week that the President, commander in chief, did absolutely nothing during the seven hour attack in Benghazi that ended with the deaths of three Americans who were sending out FLASH messages for help. No scramble of the alert teams just a few hours away, not even a single phone call to the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state, nothing. Oh wait, I'm wrong - he went to bed for a nice night's sleep while the men working under him lost their fight and were slaughtered by animals, one of them raped.

So we have a serial liar as a president. A man who has violated his oath of office from day one. A man who regularly takes unconstitutional powers for himself, and continues to act in that manner even after a federal court rules his actions to be unconstitutional. A commander in chief who went to bed for the night while men serving under him were under attack and ultimately died waiting for help that he couldn't bother to send. All that and more.

Yet, if you hold a man like that in contempt, well, it MUST be his skin color to you. It's unthinkable in your world that he's contemptible to many people simply because of what he does and
does not do.

Yep, feel free to admire him all you like. I'll happily agree I hold him in absolute contempt. And if he were white my opinion of him would not change one iota.

Quote :

You ridicule the president for the dorky looking skeet picture and story. Yet you haven't challenged his basketball skills. Skeet shooting is an anglo sport. Obviously racist.

Your fumbling search for racism descends into dumb and dumber.

The photo was offered up by The Serial Liar as "proof" that he too is a gun owner and shooter. And that he "shoots skeets". Hey, he's one of us!

As already pointed out, skeet shooters don't refer to it as "shooting skeets" (kind of like him saying he enjoys "steering his motorcycle"), there isn't a single bird in the course of fire you'd hit firing at that low an angle - and as he doesn't have a shooting vest on or any other shells in evidence on him, it's pretty obvious he wasn't shooting skeet.

So yeah, when The Serial Liar does that poor a job of claiming he's a shooter who "shoots skeets", yeah it's pretty ridiculous. Oh... and contemptible as well.

Did I challenge his basketball skills? Or, for that matter, his tremendous baseball throwing skills? No, and why would I - the law doesn't require you to pass a background check before acquiring a basketball or baseball like it does for obtaining a shotgun. After all, this topic is about gun control laws and what The Serial Liar wants for gun laws and his claims relating to those laws.

And to restate what you so obviously can't grasp, the president is the one advocating universal background checks to stop disqualified persons from obtaining firearms, while at the same time he provides a picture of himself - a disqualified person - firing his shotgun "shooting skeets".

BTW, should you bother to learn a little bit about "shooting skeets", you'll find there is nothing in the rules that says "Anglos only". You'll even find that the list of past Olympic champions and world champions contains a fair number of of people from Hispanic countries, particularly Spain and Cuba, China, and Middle Eastern countries. Apparently, nobody told them of your pronouncement that skeet is for Anglos only. You know... like golf.

Quote :

You are arguing that the president should not have been allowed to own a gun, and by extension, any black druggie shouldn't either (leaving aside the issue that you also argued that the president DIDN'T actually shoot the gun). But you argue passionately that the background checks we have now, are OK for you and your buddies. Therefore one set of rules for black druggies, a different rule for you: racism.

Really, are you a moron or simply a crude, inept but vicious liar? That's the second time in one post you've claimed I said something I didn't. Not to mention that it is existing gun laws - not me - which says that known users of illegal drugs cannot possess firearms. And that law does not differentiate between white illegal drug users and black illegal drug users.

I've never argued that background checks are okay for ANYBODY - they're as unconstitutional as a background check on any other Constitutional right would be, and especially on the only one that says "shall not be infringed". Yet you claim I "argue passionately" that background checks are okay for me and my friends. I'm sure you'll have no problem finding the posts where I say "background checks are okay for me". Feel free to prove me wrong and redeem yourself - quote where I said what you claim I did.

But maybe you really are just really dumb with all this "racism" accusations of yours. Let's see if I can dumb it down enough that even a mental midget's brain can't try and twist it into something entirely different. Ready? Here we go:

1. The Serial Liar says we need even more, universal, background checks because it will prevent people who are not allowed to own firearms from getting firearms.
   
2. The background check criteria says known users of illegal drugs, of any racial background, are disqualified from obtaining/possessing firearms.
   
3. The Serial Liar is the most famous user of illegal drugs in the world today - it's not a carefully hidden secret.
   
4. The Serial Liar provides a picture of himself firing his gun - obviously, the world's most well known drug user passed the background check.
   
5. Ergo, to even a moron it should be obvious that background checks do not work as The Serial Liar claims they will - and he's the proof.

Is that simple enough for even you to understand?

Quote :

It doesn't take a lot of bravery to post in this forum, but I will do what I can: "shall not be infringed" means exactly what you think it does. The part you haven't figured out yet, is that the Constitution is not holy words handed down on stone tablets from on high, to be forever enshrined and worshipped. It is a working document subject to interpretation and yes, even to revision. The ultimate question we should be asking, is whether or not to revise the 2nd Amendment. Clinging to the existing text like a lucky charm isn't helpful, doesn't change anybody's mind, and just makes you sound like an NRA parrothead.

Rational, structured thought and you are complete and utter strangers. And for a simpleton like you to refer to the NRA or anyone else as a "parrothead" is a study in dark comedy.

But... Bingo! Yes, "shall not be infringed" does mean exactly what I KNOW it does. You finally got one, single thing right. How you can get that part and yet somehow or other think the words "shall not be infringed" are consistent with Presidential executive orders increasing gun control measures is truly incomprehensible. After all, if we can severely restrict the right to bear arms by executive and congressional fiat, then surely nobody would find it unconstitutional if the next president issued executive orders limiting the vote to males over 40 years of age. After all, it's not holy words, and it's subject to revision, so why not just some legislative action instead of a requirement that anything like that would have to first pass the test of one of the two amendment processes available?

Oh gee... that wouldn't fly quite as well, would it?

And, Wrong: the Constitution is not a "working" document, any more than a legal contract is a working document that one side gets to change whenever they see fit. When you have a "Constitution" that each successive president and Congress can change however they wish by executive and legislative actions, you don't have a Constitution anymore, and you certainly don't have unalienable rights. To put it in terms that maybe even a moron can understand, that's like playing baseball where the umpire who shows up for each game you play makes up what he thinks the rules should be as he goes along.

And furthermore for the morons out there, it isn't "clinging to the existing text". It's the very rational and very logical position that if you want to change the Constitution - any part of it - you do it legitimately, the way that was provided for changing the Constitution. You do it by using one of the two methods provided for amending the Constitution. You don't change the right to bear arms, who can vote, freedom of expression, etc with some legislative text and a signature.

Of course, no anti-gun Democrat in history has had the honesty to propose an amendment to the Second Amendment to get the changes in they want, banning scary looking rifles or whatever. No, they always slime around doing it legislatively, because they know there's no way in hell they could ever get changes to the Second Amendment passed, even in Democrat country.

And people like you have no problem with them doing that. You even propose unconstitutional laws of your own - like prohibiting the sale and manufacture of ammunition, instead of the firearms as you suggest. And of course, you blather about "racism" or something equally stupid when others say it would violate the Constitution to do that and/or there is no end of evidence that the changes they seek wouldn't accomplish anything in the first place. You don't have a rational and intelligent argument to defend what they are doing, so you scrabble around and start claiming others are "racists" instead.

What The Serial Liar and the Democrats want is unconstitutional. What they want will not work. There is a mountain of evidence that it will not work, and nothing that suggests it will. What their skin color is, or whether they wore a uniform at one time or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Wow, I stumbled in here and can't believe the amount of piss that is flying around.
Jager, I'm sure you can do better in a debate, than you are. There is no need to call people names, to get your point across.
I never realized how full of hatred you really are. If Rush Limbaugh needed a stand in, you would be perfect for the job.

Have a good day...

Let me preface this with a reference to the rules for off-topic:
In the event that you simply just can't stay away from a certain topic, and feel the need to counter a post, be prepared to back what you say with fact.

This is the one area of the forum where we show extremely wide latitude in allowing pretty much anything goes. But yes, if you call somebody a racist, you can expect to get challenged to back that up with fact, and there won't be any sympathy for you wetting your panties that somebody responded to that accusation harshly.

japako wrote:

Wow, I stumbled in here and can't believe the amount of piss that is flying around.
Jager, I'm sure you can do better in a debate, than you are. There is no need to call people names, to get your point across.

Wow, I stumbled on your post, and I'm guessing you're not thinking of the "you're a racist" comments being leveled here when you talk about calling people names. No, no, no... that's not name calling. In fact, I'm guessing that you follow the same twisted thinking that they do.

Funny how that works with folks like you. One set of rules for you; another set of rules for those we don't agree with. How do you come to that kind of world view, anyways?

In this world, see the reference to the rules for the Off-Topic area posted at the top. You don't get to post that kind of crap and then somehow think the person you levelled it at shouldn't come right back at you.

Quote :

I never realized how full of hatred you really are. If Rush Limbaugh needed a stand in, you would be perfect for the job.

Amazing... in your stumbling you apparently missed the "you're a racist" stuff flying around. Didn't even catch your attention... not a word of mention about that. Nope, no hatred there folks, nothing to see here, move along now.

And apparently, while I don't have time to listen to talk radio, you obviously do as you seem to have some knowledge of what Limbaugh says. It's always mildly amusing when the intellectual best somebody can offer is "Ummmmm... you sound like Glen Beck... or ummmmmm... Rush Limbaugh.... you know, one of THEM guys".

God forbid they actually are mentally capable of coming up with something along the lines of "You're wrong, and here is why". Not to mention I have a hard time believing that they actually do listen to any of those people, instead of getting their information in carefully edited snippits offered up from some leftists source.

I understand that for many people in your world, conservatives are supposed to soft-shoe around, apologizing all the time for their beliefs, and to keep their mouths shut about unconstitutional laws and actions. While the leftists and statists happily run around calling them racists, haters, throw gramma in the street, etc, conservatives are just supposed to shut up and smile meekly, maybe apologize some more. You know... the Boehner/McCain approach. Try to be more like The Prez and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and all that good "messaging" stuff we're hearing about.

I'm not like that, nor am I going to apologize for not being like that. And if you're some pathetic sorry asshole who calls me a "racist" or "hater" simply because you don't agree with my views and aren't smart enough to come up with an intelligent argument for why you think my views are wrong, yes, I am going to be in your face about how stupid or deliberately malicious you are for saying that. I'm sure that upsets you sunshine, but into every life a little rain must fall.

So stumble right on back out if you choose and have a nice day yourself. Or stay and try and make an intelligent argument that these gun law proposals are constitutional and/or effective if you think you're up to it. You can even stay and offer little better than mindlessly chanting "You're a racist". If you do choose to stay, I can promise any response you get will be in the same character as to what you posted.

Whatever choice is fine with me.

mucker wrote:

Na...the far right is very careful in calling him anything but a ni....nice guy. They are very practiced at that.
But they have no problem ranting about how your black/muslim/immigrant/druggie president is so devious that he duped 300+ million people on his plan to give white peoples money to his unemployed immigrant friends.
and how he obviously needs to take all their guns first before implementing his commie utopia.
The fact that this smear fest began the instant they saw him compete for pres...and their hardest core members just can't let it go. Says something about their intelligence over the majority of this planet...

Then again, you could be on to something...

I would seek medical attention for that high fever.

mucker wrote:

But they have no problem ranting about how your black/muslim/immigrant/druggie president is so devious that he duped 300+ million people .

President Obama received approx. 66 million votes (2012).

I'm sure in your mind Mucker, my noted this fact makes me a racist.

Remember folks, as 'the dear leader' keeps telling us ... "we're all in this together" ...




Oops, almost forgot, that pic proves I'm a racist - or something ... so ....

gatorfan wrote:

mucker wrote:

But they have no problem ranting about how your black/muslim/immigrant/druggie president is so devious that he duped 300+ million people .

President Obama received approx. 66 million votes (2012).

I'm sure in your mind Mucker, my noted this fact makes me a racist.

If you looked carefully I was ranting about the far right again. Not just anyone right of center.

And, yes, I do think the far right agenda seems like a breeding ground for racism.
There is a lot of racism out there...its anyone's guess as to where the majority of their political leanings lie. For me, seems it is the right wing extremist. I guess one could believe that racism is spread randomly/evenly throughout the spectrum. I don't believe that. Though everywhere....the better known groups certainly display a perverted right wing agenda.

I guess if you consider yourself a right wing extremist...then I guess it was aimed at you too.

mucker wrote:

I do think the far right agenda seems like a breeding ground for racism.
There is a lot of racism out there...its anyone's guess as to where the majority of their political leanings lie. For me, seems it is the right wing extremist. I guess one could believe that racism is spread randomly/evenly throughout the spectrum. I don't believe that. Though everywhere....the better known groups certainly display a perverted right wing agenda.
I guess if you consider yourself a right wing extremist...then I guess it was aimed at you too.

You seem to have missed the history lesson that the Left has been and still is the party of restricting the freedoms of the people. The Left supported and promoted racism as a way of life. They continue by keeping the law abiding citizens ability to protect them selves from criminals the repressive hand of the leftist agenda and their mindset that we are servants of the government. Sorry to inform you but here in the USA the government was set up to be as a servant to the people, not the other way around. The Leftist have perverted the concept declaring them selves to be the purists fighting for people rights. At what cost though... and what rights? The right to have big government watch over you, take care of you, and control every portion of your life? The leftist upper class is willing to take care of the lower class as long as they have no desire to better them selves, or remain where they are for the most part. Some will promote education as a tool to elevate the poor as long as they continue in the agenda. The Right on the other hand promotes self empowerment... the ability to take responsibility for your economic actions and freedom.
I am aware that the Canadian party system defines themselves in a far different manner than those in the United States, and I am sure they have no hidden agendas...

John

IndigoWolf wrote:

Sorry to inform you but here in the USA the government was set up to be as a servant to the people, not the other way around.

exactly. but you can't make decisions that will make 300 million people equally happy. Living in a democracy means that if the majority of the population decides for one thing or another, the rest has to follow along. In this case, the majority voted for obama, and the rest just has to accept this as is. you can call him names and a leftie or whatever, but he still represents you, as american as he was voted by the majority.

as far as your freedoms, shouldn't they stop where they invade someone else's freedoms? you have the freedom to do what you want, as long as it doesn't take away someone else's freedom. and shooting someone with a gun and killing him, is taking away his freedom.


you want the freedom to own a gun, maybe some other guy wants the freedom of doing drugs, and someone else wants the freedom to build chemical weapons in is backyard. who's to say that your freedom is more important than someone elses? or that your freedom is "better" or "right" compared to the guy next door?

if you want to live in anarchy, just say so, at least the discussion would make sense. but if want to live in a place that is actually liveable, you have to live by certain rules. maybe you won't like some, but you still have to respect them, to make society as a whole a liveable place. so you will have to respect other people's freedoms.


now the real question is, whether owning a gun is taking away someones freedom. and it is not, on it's own. however when a gun is used against any person, it is. even if he was a criminal, because you have taken his right to a fair trial with a judge and a lawyer.


maybe the solution would be to replace all bullets with rubber bullets so you can still own your pretty little toys, and people won't get killed, just sent to hospitals, which is the smaller of the two evils I guess

bigg wrote:

Living in a democracy means that if the majority of the population decides for one thing or another, the rest has to follow along.

Wrong. We live in a Federal Constitutional Republic where the Constitution of the United States (among other things) protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

How do you not know this?

it sure does. as it should. but who determines who is a minority? and who needs protecting?

who decides that one right is more important than the other?

as I said before in a post here that is now long lost, comparing data (no bs opinion) or crime rate and murder rate in the us to some other developed country (I used germany at the time), you can see a huge difference in those numbers. the problem probably lies rooted deeper into society than just the guns. of course banning guns and leaving everything else the same would lead no where. but I think this would be a great opportunity for the us to start an overall change progress. starting from the education and culture of the citizens, that along with a stricter gun control could lead in the long run to reduced crime, violence and murder. it's not just one of the things, but if all of them are done together, there is the chance to change something.

however, reading many of the comments here it seems many of you are fine with the way things are so leaving murders and deaths so high instead of taking the opportunity to change something.


after all, this is how it's always been, so let's leave it like that

bigg wrote:

but who determines who is a minority?

Apparently you - with your "majority rules" grade school babble. The majority most certainly DOES NOT RULE- and should not rule - in any just society and there are protections against this in all modern "democracies".

Google "Tyranny of the Majority" and get yourself an education.

Don't try and slip out of this with emotional blather about me wanting to live with murder and death so be it ....

From the firing line:
If you're a gun company exec-or an employee of a gun company in those increasingly restrictive states- that's a comment you might want to ponder.

Staying in a political and regulatory environment where you're not wanted might not impact your earnings with today's demand for product, but if you're not wanted in your good times, you'll certainly be less welcome should you find your company in need in the future. If you're an employee of one of those companies whose paycheck finances your family's life, you might want to consider the politicians - and union leaders-who say they represent you while supporting movements designed to drive your employers to other locations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigg says:
however, reading many of the comments here it seems many of you are fine with the way things are so leaving murders and deaths so high instead of taking the opportunity to change something.
after all, this is how it's always been, so let's leave it like that


Wrong thinking... It hasn't always been like this, and we have been doing something about it. We now have a large portion of the states issuing concealed carry permits. As this has occurred violent crime in these states has decreased dramatically. It was only a couple weeks after Indiana started issuing permits that the city of Gary suddenly mellowed into a more docile, calmer, quieter, city. At one time they were one of the murder capitol cities of the world. I witnessed this happen, I lived 5 miles south of Gary at the time. This type of thing has happened time and time again in areas that have chosen to allow the law abiding citizens the right to arm themselves for personal defense. A Police Officer is only minutes away when seconds count during a violent crime. They arrive to draw chalk lines, talk to witnesses, and attempt to figure out what may have happened after the fact.
We have a long way to go ... there are a lot of politicians that like it the old way for some strange reason. Somehow I think dollars are driving that machine lining the political pockets.

John

Whats really funny about this thread is that if you go back to the older posts all the libs are saying that Obama and the dems haven't tried to threaten anybody's rights and its all a myth. How about now? We might be able to say "I told ya so".

Also, I don't have to justify why I "need" a gun. Its my right as an American. If we lose our guns, we might as well have lost our freedom, our country, and everything so many veterans have died for. Remember, the only reason we are here as a country is because our fore fathers picked up their guns to fight off a tyrannical government...Their own government. The first amendment added to the constitution after the founding fathers decided they wanted a great free nation, was added so we would always have a great free nation. 

Skithis wrote:

Whats really funny about this thread is that if you go back to the older posts all the libs are saying that Obama and the dems haven't tried to threaten anybody's rights and its all a myth.  How about now?  We might be able to say "I told ya so".

Also, I don't have to justify why I "need" a gun.  Its my right as an American.  If we lose our guns, we might as well have lost our freedom, our country, and everything so many veterans have died for.  Remember, the only reason we are here as a country is because our fore fathers picked up their guns to fight off a tyrannical government...Their own government.  The first amendment added to the constitution after the founding fathers decided they wanted a great free nation, was added so we would always have a great free nation. 

Well said Skithis... At this point in the cycle we can see more of where their intended outcome is headed. NOT pretty.

 

And the history lesson continues...