Forum Thread

NRA Wins: Senate votes down four gun control measures


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 30 of 46 Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Although this thread pertains to the gun issue, my thought is once you deny a citizen of his or her's Constitutional Right, whether it be the First, Second, or last Amendment, and once you start down that slope of denying the due process of any citizen based on mere suspicion and that same citizen having little recourse to remedy the situation, then we will be heading to a despotic form of bureauacracy.

    J.C. sorry this is the only country in the world with these silly "amendments" written in different times than today.

    Sure certain freedoms, with the focus on "today" should be documented, but should also be subject to regular updates, which is not done with our antique outdated documents; our lawyers only "interpretrate" these; what is wrong. All these "rules" should be "flexible" and re-written to fit the times, and not cut in stone, like the NRA and our lawyers do.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "There is no reason an individual needs a weapon that can shoot dozens of rounds in a matter of seconds other than to kill as many human beings as possible. "

    So what are you going to do to prevent that weapon of war from getting into the hands of a mass murderer? Pass reasonable gun control laws? Firing how many rounds in how many seconds would be acceptable? Hillary proposed a lone wolf scenario. I am for that and I want to know why Obama hasn't issued a Presidential order to start that immediately? That is the first thing ever brought up that could stop mass murders and there is almost zero support and almost zero discussion and almost zero media coverage. Why???

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    jaredsxtn said: "I'm attacking all high powered weapons that aren't used for hunting or self protection in your home."

    The AR15 is not a high powered weapon. As I have said before it is one of the lowest powered center fired cartridges. Some pistols have more power than the standard AR15 round.

    "that serve no purpose other than to kill as many humans as possible."

    Once again the AR15 was not designed for killing. The short barrel and gas operated self loading action detract from the power of a fired round. Additionally the AR15 round is a very low powered round amongst the lowest power of center fire rifle cartridges. The reason I keep harping on these inaccuracies is because they fuel the fire for charging that anti gun people want all guns confiscated. The point is it doesn't matter how you describe the objective gun because anti gun people want all guns confiscated. That is the main reason for the hateful fight about gun control. The anti gun people keep saying it is not about confiscating all guns but there incorrect rhetoric whether coincidental or contrived could describe a majority of guns. All pistols could be outlawed because pistols by definition are self loading whether center fire or rim fire. A majority of the lowly 22's used for shooting targets and tin cans would be outlawed. AR15 is a 22 caliber. So no matter how much denied gun control rhetoric says confiscate all guns. The same goes for saying people don't need weapons of war and then calling for reasonable laws. What does "reasonable laws" have to do with "people don't need weapons of war"? Calling 20 million gun owners gun nuts and wanting turn 20 million people into criminals is not the way to reasonable laws. It is the way to incite people to support gun confiscation!

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Those Amendments are far from silly, they were put in to allow the citizenry a voice over the Government , also to prevent a government from becoming more powerful than those that they govern. As for "updating" as you call it , there is already in place a mechanism for that,check it for yourself if you don't believe me.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Those Amendments are far from silly, they were put in to allow the citizenry a voice over the Government , also to prevent a government from becoming more powerful than those that they govern. As for "updating" as you call it , there is already in place a mechanism for that,check it for yourself if you don't believe me.
    J.C. go ahead and stick your head in the sand; sorry the "second amendment" was written by people who had no idea on how crazy the US would become in the future; I guess no NRA was around either ; slaves had nothing to say or were hung. Only the law of the wild applied; see all our cowboy movies. Why do we have "mandatory" seatbelts in cars; for an DUI, you go to jail, but you can have an whole room full of guns and loads of magazines laying around, which to me are more dangerous than not having seatbelts. So on the one side the government "protects" you from harm; while at the other side they promote killing tools. Nuts.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    thank you for jumping to the "ban fertilizer, ban knives" drivel. amusing, but pointless. the devout will most certainly "carry out their deeds. however the lack of an automatic weapon will make it harder for him to do so. i do agree however that the populace of the united states is to emotionally stunted to deal with a second amendment. the impulse to leap to violence by the people in this country should give everyone pause regarding guns but it doesn't.

    it matters not where and how the ar-15 evolved. no civilian has any need for one.

    as for the second amendment let us look at other amendments as well. you do not have unlimited free speech. yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre although corny applies. you cannot incite to riot. freedom of the press is not unlimited as an example of publishing troop positions and the like in time of war would not be permitted. slander and libel laws limit speech and press. freedom of religion is limited by the gross example of not permitting human sacrifice and the more mundane example of not permitting sexual abuse of minors. if a "religion" demanded of its adherents theft of property of others it would not be permitted and so on. freedom to assemble is limited by permitting. freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances is limited by the judiciary quashing frivolous lawsuits.

    the following link provides the best information re: the second amendment that i can find.

    eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I can never understand the real motive other than just all banning guns outright, it can't because of the carnage as there are too many other ways to kill people and in much greater numbers than the gun. The discussion it seems always revolves around a misnamed semi-automatic hunting rifle as an Assault weapon (AR-15) when it's not anything of the kind, and most gun deaths are caused by handguns, and a high percentage of them are suicides, so what is the real incentive behind these more Gun Laws Now group when the current guns laws are not enforced. And out of consideration and respect for the Okla. City bombing victims I will not even comment on the foolish "drivel"description regarding fertilizer being used to kill people and which was also applied to knives.


  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The emotions are wrong about gun control. Violence and mass murders will continue and probably increase while people fight over gun control. There are over 10,000,000 military style weapons and over 300,000,000 million guns. The execution of removing 10,000,000 military style guns is financially and logistically impossible. A buy back program would cost 10 billion dollars alone to buy the guns. To operate the program would cost at least another 10 billion. Ten million guns weigh about 5000 tons and stacked 10 foot high would cover 5 city blocks. And street violence and mass murders would continue. Obama has said you can't eliminate mass murders . So why all the hate and fighting about gun control when gun control won't fix the problem. When talking about a ten million gun problem why are they talking about reasonable gun control laws. Just plain rediculous.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There are now at least 360 million guns in the USA.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Here Pa. especially in Philadelphia, the largest city in Pa. whenever a crime where the use of a gun is applied , we have a mandatory sentence of 5 years above the original crime being committed, but there is a catch, our Liberal Court System , where many of the Judges abhor the mandatory sentencing laws now see fit to determine if the gun is operable or not, if not no mandatory sentence,needles to say if the gun is unloaded it is determined to be inoperable, reasonable ? I think not! To have truly effective Gun laws, you must have a consistent application of those laws and not try to circumvent those very laws, if the laws are proven to be particularly burdensome, then the legislature must seek the remedy thru change / amend those laws, but you must enforce the applicable laws first to see if they are or are not workable.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    yeah, well, here's the deal. the carnage caused by other weapons and/or uan bombs is dwarfed by the carnage caused by guns. no other means comes close. and people aren't going to turn to crashing airplanes into buildings on any kind of scale to match gun deaths. so, yeah, it was drivel whether you like it or not.

    the only purpose for a gun is to shoot someone or something, period. guns have no other purpose. all the other methods you describe, fertilizer, knives etc have primary and normally used purposes which do not include killing. that they are used on occasion for killing is unfortunate. guns however...

    and read the goddamn link to jefferson's views re: right and the second amendment.

    and, chet, i agree that this country will never give up their childish obsession about guns so gun control meaning background checks, limitations for those on no-fly lists, eliminating sales at gun shows (you can order a gun but not sell one at gun show would be an idea), keeping track of private sales by individuals, melting down confiscated guns and development of technology that locks firing a gun to biometrics etc only makes sense. as the link i posted notes the second amendment was not what is put forth by the nra nor by those who want guns banned. and jefferson, he of the unalienable rights rhetoric, noted that, like hannah arendt noted, rights are subject to alteration. rights do not exist outside of the body politic. anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: Although this thread pertains to the gun issue, my thought is once you deny a citizen of his or her's Constitutional Right, whether it be the First, Second, or last Amendment, and once you start down that slope of denying the due process of any citizen based on mere suspicion and that same citizen having little recourse to remedy the situation, then we will be heading to a despotic form of bureauacracy.

    J.C. sorry this is the only country in the world with these silly "amendments" written in different times than today.

    Sure certain freedoms, with the focus on "today" should be documented, but should also be subject to regular updates, which is not done with our antique outdated documents; our lawyers only "interpretrate" these; what is wrong. All these "rules" should be "flexible" and re-written to fit the times, and not cut in stone, like the NRA and our lawyers do.

    It is all ranting and raving. But not one positive step. The immense and growing number of gun owners can't see the logic of challenging multi millions of gun owners because of the argument that their guns might fall into a devisnt's hands. On the other side gun control advocates can't understand why people for any reason in the world would want to have instant death easily accessible to anybody. I personally can't understand why people will stagnate an economy, let people deteriorate and die rather than use ((not lose)) their money in a progressive way to create livelihoods for all the people in the world. More people die from socially preventable causes than from guns. The only thing gun control does is change the subject from the real problems. The problems that create mass murderers in the first place.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I just saw on the news that a father shot his son in Pinellas Park, Florida over an argument of who was going to buy the beer. The police arrived on the scene and shot the father. Both father and son are dead...over a beer. Wow.

    Florida...again.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    I just saw on the news that a father shot his son in Pinellas Park, Florida over an argument of who was going to buy the beer. The police arrived on the scene and shot the father. Both father and son are dead...over a beer. Wow.

    Florida...again.

    Look at it this way Schmidt. It could have been Texas.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    I just saw on the news that a father shot his son in Pinellas Park, Florida over an argument of who was going to buy the beer. The police arrived on the scene and shot the father. Both father and son are dead...over a beer. Wow.

    Florida...again.

    Look at it this way Schmidt. It could have been Texas.
    Not Florida again; an another kid shot his brother somewhere; it is an ridiculous US "antique" "brainless" "old piece of paper" "stubborn" "head in the sand" problem.