Gun threads

[bob]

It's funny how quick the 1st amendment is disregarded as soon as the 2nd amendment is questioned, wouldn't you agree?

Or does freedom of speech only apply to us citizens in the us?

Unfortunately for your argument, both parties are merely exercising their rights guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

Freedom of speech does not imply that you are not responsible for what you say nor does it mean that you have to agree with or accept what others might have to say. You can say anything that strikes your fancy. Others can hold you in contempt for what you say. Both positions are guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

 

[Haakon]

its not about freedom of speech at all, i have no problem with his views. its that he is using his postition as a national newscaster to advance his position. newscasters are supposed to be neutral. if he would have presented a balanced approace to this debate, im all for listening, but he didnt, and he acted very unprofessional, to the point of calling that other guy a stupid man several times, bullying him and being down right rude.

termination of employment for unproffesional behavior...not for his views

mark galoob

While I see your points here, I should have added this link where now over 75k americans have signed a petition to get him deported for expressing his views (or attacking the 2nd amendment as they specify it)
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

This is linked to his views, not his interview manors, so I miscommunicated this, I apologize for that.

Deporting someone from the country for questioning gun laws however, is out right being prosecuted for your views and beliefs, and that is what 75k+ people have petitioned to the white house for.

 

[Marlene]

That being the case you might note that the 2nd amendment states, in part, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are no exceptions nor special conditions noted . None. Nada. Zip. Zero.

we have exceptions in that full autos aren't allowed. also, the right to keep and bear arms is just that, arms, not high cap clips.

Finally, who gets to be the arbiter to decide what some citizen or another might 'need' or not 'need'? While you may not see any need to own a gun, are you certain you can speak for everyone in this? As previously noted, 'need' almost always is criteria set by others.

I am a gun owner. do I need one or just want one, who to say. you may want a fully automatic weapon but it doesn't matter if you need, want or should, we the people said no to it as a good sense collective idea. I know there are those who want to out and out ban all guns, I'm not with those guys. I'm with the I don't want more armed government officals running around and I don't want the government to step in and ban guns because we are too stupid to take care of the issues ourselves.

it kind of sounds like both of us long for a perfect world, you bob where you aren't told what you can or can't do, and me who thinks the same but is willing to police myself before I am policed.

Back to the point, deal with the individuals whose wrappings aren't fully tight directly, not by denying or even limiting the rights of everyone else. Doing otherwise reduces this society to its lowest common denominator. A society where normalcy is reduced to the dumbest, poorest, most violent, most physically and/or mentally handicapped, etc.The end points at the bottom rather that what is typical. Not a society in which I'd like to participate

the biggest problem with that is we also are a society tht has cut back on mental health and now throw crazy people that we used to lock up out on the streets. from what we have been told about this dork in conn is that he had issues, big issues so what does his mommy do? she buys an assault rifle, high cap clips and takes nutty boy to the shooting range to teach him how to use it. who in that family was the crazy? the kid or the mom? some times identifing which is hard. it sucks that the worst of the worst are what dictates how our soicety runs and with that, I am in total agreement with you

 

[OldPaint]

everybody keeps going back to ......the NUT CASES. and they get access to GUNS, HOW?
lets look at the one in conn. WHY DID THE MOTHER of a mentally ill child.....OWN A BUSHMASTER???? 30 ROUND CLIPS? we been told the son was mentally ill. BUT THE MOTHER WAS NOT???? yea right. she knows she got a son with problems, AND KEEPS DEADLY WEAPONS, AND TRAINS HIM TO SHOOT???? i question the MENTAL STATE OF anyone who needs these kinda weapons in a house.
this is why i question most people who own these things. they claim total sanity, BUT their OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE attachment to these guns........FOR REASONS of PARANOID DELUSIONS that the govt and every bad man in the world is coming to get them. then we move on to GRANDIOSE ANTICIPATION of the opportunity to WANABEE RAMBO, DIE HARD, 007...pick any gun slinging killing machine that save the world.....and then to say they are mentally stable.................YEA RIGHT.

 

[SignManiac]

Nothing will fix the problem because the problem is the human condition. Like it or not, people die everyday from a multitude of ways. Sad to see innocents killed but when your number is up, it's up. I can die today in some tragic way, it might be one of you. Wrong place at the right time, shot, blown up, car wreck, don't matter. We all will die one day, just how it goes. It's impossible to eliminate every possible way to die. If not guns, then cars, planes, earthquakes, fires, etc. etc.

Kids are killed and everyone cares all of a sudden, yet every day thousands die across the land and nobody takes notice. Unless of course they are related to you. Sorry, but as a human race, we are all vulnerable to death. We shouldn't take it so personal, it happens.

 

[Techman]

no one really needs a gun at all

No one has the right to force a needs test on any one else. There are no needs test on any constitutional right. No not one. Not even if someone wishes it.
This is an arrogant position and interferes with another constitutional right of the pursuit of happiness.

 

[tsgstl]

"Al Whicher, who served on my [ United States Secret Service ] detail when I was Vice President and President, was killed in Oklahoma City. He was no Nazi. He was a kind man, a loving parent, a man dedicated to serving his country -- and serve it well he did...
...I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of N.R.A.'s objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts, and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.
However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us."


George HW Bush




This was ex-president George HW Bush's public letter of resignation from the his lifetime membership to NRA, sent after Wayne "Armed guards in schools" LaPierre gave a speech blaming gun laws for the Oklahoma City bombing, implying that the victims were "jack-booted thugs" "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms."
​

 

[bob]

we have exceptions in that full autos aren't allowed. also, the right to keep and bear arms is just that, arms, not high cap clips...

A magazine, regardless of capacity, is as an integral part of a magazine-fed gun as is its barrel. Arms. Not parts of arms. Arms.

Moreover I see no reason nor constitutional basis to ban fully automatic firearms. Other than limiting the ability of the citizenry to stand up to a tyrannical government. Reasonable people will probably not become unreasonable simply because they're holding a fully automatic firearm. Besides, they're fun to shoot. A bit expensive though, you can blow through hundreds of dollars worth of ammunition in no time at all.

...I don't want the government to step in and ban guns because we are too stupid to take care of the issues ourselves...

I don't want the government to step in and ban guns because this is not one of the things government is permitted to to as per the constitution. Not because of stupidity. There is no exception made in the 2nd amendment for stupidity. Individual or collective.

it kind of sounds like both of us long for a perfect world, you bob where you aren't told what you can or can't do, and me who thinks the same but is willing to police myself before I am policed.

As for myself, I try to live perfectly, by my definition of perfection and no one else's, in an imperfect world. I'm not dismayed that I'm doomed to failure. I try always to plan for success and deal with failure. I see no advantage to wasting time planing for failure as opposed to merely dealing with it as it occurs.

 

[OldPaint]

if owning a BUSHMASTER... is "the pursuit of happiness"........then you prove my point about the mentally ill ..........OWNING GUNS))))) a reassessment of your priorities would be a good start.

 

[John Butto]

This was in October...
436th Homicide, Chicago Surpasses Last Year’s Total
October 29, 2012 5:22 AM
They, politicians, are just talking about it now because it is front page news.

 

[cajun312]

This was in October...
436th Homicide, Chicago Surpasses Last Year’s Total
October 29, 2012 5:22 AM
They, politicians, are just talking about it now because it is front page news.

Doesn't Chicago have very strict gun laws? I guess the Mayor Rahm Emmanuel isn't too worried about his kids, they go to a school that has.....armed guards. Of course he came out against the NRA proposal about using armed guards in schools.
When Bill Clinton called for armed guards in schools after the Columbine shootings the media agreed with him. Why such a change now, does it depend on who wants the guards?

 

[Bly]

It's odd. One idiot fails to blow up a plane with a shoebomb, and we all have to take our shoes off at airports.

Lunatics routinely kill scores of people using firearms, and nothing happens.

Weird.

 

[Haakon]

A magazine, regardless of capacity, is as an integral part of a magazine-fed gun as is its barrel. Arms. Not parts of arms. Arms.

Moreover I see no reason nor constitutional basis to ban fully automatic firearms. Other than limiting the ability of the citizenry to stand up to a tyrannical government. Reasonable people will probably not become unreasonable simply because they're holding a fully automatic firearm. Besides, they're fun to shoot. A bit expensive though, you can blow through hundreds of dollars worth of ammunition in no time at all.

The constitution says nothing about firearms at all, just arms, ie weaponry of all kinds. So on that basis alone if the (tyrannical) government possess nuclear weapons, should then citizens be able to own nuclear weapons in order to stand up to the government?

Neither fully automatic guns or nuclear weapons existed when the laws were written, so it's not strange that nothing is mentioned in the constitution.

But since a handgun, automatic or not poses no threat to a man in a bunker with the launch code to a long distance bomb, should all citizens, constitutionally, be able to own arms of the same kind as the (tyrannical) government?

 

[John Butto]

To Haakon: Back when the law was written muskets and cannons were like automatic weapons to an Indian with a bow and arrow. So you see Bob does have a point. I also heard your same argument on MSNBC, so you need to start thinking for yourself.

 

[John Butto]

To Haakon again: Just saw where you are from Norway. Your citizens should have gun laws more like us when Germany invaded in WW2. Could have put up a better fight against a tyrannical government. Don't you know we are just a bunch a cowboys carrying guns and having a drink with Miss Kitty and Doc over here.

 

[bob]

The constitution says nothing about firearms at all, just arms, ie weaponry of all kinds. So on that basis alone if the (tyrannical) government possess nuclear weapons, should then citizens be able to own nuclear weapons in order to stand up to the government?...

Why not? Do you want to own one? Just how would you go about becoming the proud owner of a nuclear weapon? The entire middle middle east has been desperately attempting to acquire one for decades. Thus far they haven't been successful.

Neither fully automatic guns or nuclear weapons existed when the laws were written, so it's not strange that nothing is mentioned in the constitution.

These things are not mentioned specifically in the constitution not because they didn't exist but because the document was composed to be timeless. Note that it made no mention of the length or breadth swords, the bore and power load of muzzle-loaders, cannons, and any other specific arms of the day. If the authors were worried about high end weapons one would think they might have specifically excluded field artillery.

In fact they could easily have included non time specific language that would have limited a citizen's choices in armament. Perhaps included some reasonability or needs test. They did not.

It says 'arms' and that's exactly what it means.

But since a handgun, automatic or not poses no threat to a man in a bunker with the launch code to a long distance bomb, should all citizens, constitutionally, be able to own arms of the same kind as the (tyrannical) government?

They already have the ability via the constitution. Nothing in that document places any limit or reasonability or needs test on the arms citizens might choose to effect. Coming up with any of those items poses another problem entirely. Having the right to possess something does not mean that anyone has to accommodate you in the acquisition of whatever that something might be.

If the citizenry is not allowed to be as well armed as its adversary , then what use is the 2nd amendment as regards a check on overreaching government?

 

[Bigcat_hunter]

if owning a BUSHMASTER... is "the pursuit of happiness"........then you prove my point about the mentally ill ..........OWNING GUNS))))) a reassessment of your priorities would be a good start.

You are correct,.... sort of. Owning "Bushmaster" is not the pursuit of happiness. Owning a fully automatic. silenced M4 is.....

 

[synergy_jim]

my favorite part when people start talking gun bans is the fact they want to get rid of assault weapons. Guess what??? They are already banned. An AR-15 is hardly an assault weapon.... Its no different than a wood stocked .223 rifle.

Paint it black.... that makes it more deadly.....


give me a break.

 

[Haakon]

To Haakon: Back when the law was written muskets and cannons were like automatic weapons to an Indian with a bow and arrow. So you see Bob does have a point. I also heard your same argument on MSNBC, so you need to start thinking for yourself.

No MSNBC in Norway, I do all my own thinking. I need to cut to the point more clearly it seems. As you would say over there, it's no point bringing a knife to a gunfight, and it would be just the same bringing a gun when the bombs are falling on your head.

But where do you draw the line, 6-shooter, semi auto handgun, fully automatic assault rifle, handgrenade, tank, nuclear bomb? Either you take a stand where a line is drawn, othervise you believe that all citizens constitutionally should have the right to own ANY kind of weapon.

To Haakon again: Just saw where you are from Norway. Your citizens should have gun laws more like us when Germany invaded in WW2. Could have put up a better fight against a tyrannical government. Don't you know we are just a bunch a cowboys carrying guns and having a drink with Miss Kitty and Doc over here.

Maybe so, but realistically a "better fight" just means more people dead on both sides with no results other than that. Compare if you will with your own recent war invasions in countries with NO gun laws and AK-47s and road bombs a-plenty for all insurgents. BTW if you want some facts about civilian losses in ww2 in Norway, about 3000 lives were lost during the whole war (5 years), mostly from the Norwegian Resistance groups (Milorg and Sivorg). Or about the same losses as you have in (peacetime) gun killings in about 3 months over there now.

 

[synergy_jim]

if owning a BUSHMASTER... is "the pursuit of happiness"........then you prove my point about the mentally ill ..........OWNING GUNS))))) a reassessment of your priorities would be a good start.

where do you draw the line? Why do people own 500hp cars? are they mentally ill?