Let's Talk About Gun Control

[Type Username Here]

Oh so throw all the common sense out the window, and follow one persons interperatation of a 250 year old document. Yeah that makes sense.

Not one person, a court. That's the system that was created here and copied all over the world.

Some people interperate the second amendment to refer to state militias not individuals. To me it doesn't matter either way.

Link? The US Code defines what a militia is explicitly. Again, you are ignoring the law.

At one point in time it was argued that slavery was protected by the constitution. Times change, situations change, and laws change. It is the way things work.

Then advocate they pass an amendment to redefine the Constitution. There is a process for that.

If it passes, I will support the new law.

 

[daze23]

the law and constitutionality is a constantly evolving issue. you can make some strict appeal to the law if you want, but I get the feeling you're not so supportive of laws you don't agree with

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Not one person, a court. That's the system that was created here and copied all over the world.



Link? The US Code defines what a militia is explicitly. Again, you are ignoring the law.



Then advocate they pass an amendment to redefine the Constitution. There is a process for that.

If it passes, I will support the new law.

So you'd ignore logic and basic human rights just to support an interpretation by un-elected goverment officials, of a 250 year old document.

I don't know what else to say

 

[MeachTheMonster]

You can say whatever you want, but just understand that the law is on my side. The burden is on you to prove why the government needs to take the rights of owning a gun away.

The problem is that you are on such an emotional roller coaster, that you don't understand that cities have put in place these strict gun laws you advocate. And they have all been ruled unconstitutional. And these were recently by the way

We live in a society of rules. It doesn't mean you can change that with a snap of the finger.

Sorry to have to introduce to to 9th Grade Civics and Government, but it's true friend.

Oh yeah, I like how you ignored all the valid points I made and the questions I asked you, just to cling on to what you thought you had left in your bogus argument. "It's against the law to ban weapons" it was also against the law for black folks to go to school, I guess that was a good idea as well, afterall it was the law of the land.

 

[Type Username Here]

Oh yeah, I like how you ignored all the valid points I made and the questions I asked you, just to cling on to what you thought you had left in your bogus argument. "It's against the law to ban weapons" it was also against the law for black folks to go to school, I guess that was a good idea as well, afterall it was the law of the land.

I don't get it though. Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP and the Civil Rights lawyer argued that the Constitution was not being followed. Do you realize that? They used the very premise of the Constitution to show the hypocrisy of the actions of the government.

Don't believe me, go read on Mr. Marshall and you'll learn his convictions. They used the 250 year old document, and the subsequent amendments to it, to argue in court.

And then the Supreme Court (the un-elected officials you mentioned in your previous post) said they were right.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I don't get it though. Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP and the Civil Rights lawyer argued that the Constitution was not being followed. Do you realize that? They used the very premise of the Constitution to show the hypocrisy of the actions of the government.

Don't believe me, go read on Mr. Marshall and you'll learn his convictions. They used the 250 year old document, and the subsequent amendments to it, to argue in court.

And then the Supreme Court (the un-elected officials you mentioned in your previous post) said they were right.

And eventually if/when federal gun control is implemented the constitution will be used as a reason to do so.

My point is, outside of the courts using the constitution to prove your point is worthless because the constitution has and always will be subject to different interpretations and changes.

Saying something is against the rules, isn't logical reasoning for not changing the rules.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Lol...TUH will never be reasonable on this issue. Bruh, you got the nerve to talk about people being emotional on this issue? Your whole argument is predicated upon an emotional attachment to guns. You keep talking about the Consitution this and the Constitution that, like the Constitution isn't a living document that isn't interpreted to mean whatever the SCOTUS wants it mean. Stop sucking the Constitution's dikk.

Also, your claim that the law is on your side is dubious at best. There is a very rational, LEGAL argument for gun control with SCOTUS cases to cite that you are either ignorant of or selectively ignoring. I'm busy right now and I don't feel like going back and forth about it now, but get on the podcast on Tuesday at 8 pm and I will take you to school.

 

[newworldafro]

Lol...TUH will never be reasonable on this issue. Bruh, you got the nerve to talk about people being emotional on this issue? Your whole argument is predicated upon an emotional attachment to guns. You keep talking about the Consitution this and the Constitution that, like the Constitution isn't a living document that isn't interpreted to mean whatever the SCOTUS wants it mean. Stop sucking the Constitution's dikk.

Also, your claim that the law is on your side is dubious at best. There is a very rational, LEGAL argument for gun control with SCOTUS cases to cite that you are either ignorant of or selectively ignoring. I'm busy right now and I don't feel like going back and forth about it now, but get on the podcast on Tuesday at 8 pm and I will take you to school.

why you adding phaggotry connotations to a document that has allowed the legal protection to even voice your opinion on this site........

....... ........ VVD.......

 

[newworldafro]

The Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocates, page 1

First, I want to offer deepest sympathy, prayers and condolences to the victims, the families and their friends of those who were killed in today's tragedy and the other tragedies previous to this one. I am not a gun owner and I do not actively promote the right to bare arms.


That being said, I do feel I can be somewhat impartial when it comes to the issue of gun control. After the events of this morning and a long day of reviewing comments and also involving myself in this debate. I have come to a few personal conclusions about some of the gun control advocates who are so vocal about their beliefs.

They really seem like a bunch of hypocrites. Blinded by their emotions and looking for a scapegoat to vent their frustrations, which are based on fear, and the false perception that more gun control would solve the problem of angry or psychotic people from carrying out their acts of violence against innocent civilians.

Why are people so quick to blame guns? Why not society as a whole? Is it because they do not want to accept any personal responsibility for the problem? They will say, "We need to ban guns". Yet they will say, "support our troops". They will buy themselves and their children the latest "Call of Duty" or other FPS video game and the most violent and vulgar music CD's. They

Why isn't it a violent society to blame? Why isn't it a war mongering government to blame? Why isn't it the fault of violent video games? Or violent music? Why not the bullies in school? Abusive parents, relatives or neighbors? Why just guns? Why aren't all the other factors being considered as the cause of these tragedies?

These people are either crazy, violent, angry, emotionally disturbed or all of the above. Their problems didn't begin the moment they acquired a gun. In fact, I would guess that their problems began long before the day they snapped and went on their deadly rampages. Shouldn't we place the blame on all the factors that led up to these senseless tragedies and not just gun control?

Okay, moving on to my next point. Drunk driving is illegal. Yet it is responsible for the deaths of more people in the USA than gun violence does. How come those same anti-gun people aren't out there trying to get stricter alcohol control or trying to ban alcohol all together? Why are bartenders and liquor stores required to run a background check on people to see if they have prior convictions for DUI's and alcohol related crimes?

Drugs are illegal but that doesn't stop people from getting the drugs they want. Why would more gun control stop criminals and crazy people from getting guns? It wouldn't, in fact I think they would either find a gun on the black market or they would devise a different method to carry out their disturbing and evil acts of violence.

Personally, in my own life, I have been affected more by people's use and abuse of drugs and alcohol rather than guns. I would feel a lot safer if there were less drunk people out there roaming the streets and driving on the highways. But, I'm not out there trying to take away anyone's right to drink. I'm not out there trying to get stricter laws concerning the sale of alcohol.

I wonder what would happen to all those anti-gun advocates if the government decided to take away their right to drink alcohol. Would they be in an uproar demanding their right to buy, drink and sell alcohol? Probably. Would they be upset enough that they would take up arms to fight for those rights? I bet that some would.

It all comes down to the individuals personal responsibility. That is why even though I don't own a gun myself. I support the right of others to own a gun. I don't drink and people who abuse alcohol bother me deeply. But I support their right to drink whatever they want. I would like to see more freedom restored to the people of this country and not less.

Bartenders and liquor stores have no control over the actions of their customers once they leave their place of business. Neither do the gun stores. Some people like to drink alcohol and others like to own guns and hunt. dikk Cheney likes to do both.

I just don't think that more gun control is the solution to this problem. At the very least I would like all the contributing factors to the problem be acknowledged and not just blame it on guns. Why aren't we also blaming the failures of society? I'll tell you why. Because it's a lot easier to find a scapegoat, move on and shove the real problem under the rug.

 

[No1]

Not to get into the middle of anything, and I'm not going to get all long and drawn out about it. But the US needs to rip up the Constitution and start over like Canada did. That's why we never know what anything means and we're waiting on SCOTUS. We shouldn't be that reliant on a document that could not predict what we would become and could not account for shyt. Canada and South Africa both have better constitutions than we do.

 

[newworldafro]

Not to get into the middle of anything, and I'm not going to get all long and drawn out about it. But the US needs to rip up the Constitution and start over like Canada did. That's why we never know what anything means and we're waiting on SCOTUS. We shouldn't be that reliant on a document that could not predict what we would become and could not account for shyt. Canada and South Africa both have better constitutions than we do.

My first responses are


But I'm willing to listen :

1) What do you propose to take its place

2) So can you give us some outlines of what the Canadian and South African Constitutions have that the U.S. one doesn't......

 

[No1]

My first responses are


But I'm willing to listen :

1) What do you propose to take its place

2) So can you give us some outlines of what the Canadian and South African Constitutions have that the U.S. one doesn't......

: this is food for thought, you do the dishes. Go look at what Canada did when they re-did their constitution a few decades back. The protections for minority groups and marginalized groups alone are better than letting the judiciary arbitrarily create standards.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

why you adding phaggotry connotations to a document that has allowed the legal protection to even voice your opinion on this site........

....... ........ VVD.......

Hush.

 

[newworldafro]

: this is food for thought, you do the dishes. Go look at what Canada did when they re-did their constitution a few decades back. The protections for minority groups and marginalized groups alone are better than letting the judiciary arbitrarily create standards.

I could do that...but you should provide a link to get me started on this process to upend the Bill of Rights.....have some thread courtesy breh.........

You do realize too that we have a Constitutional process in the U.S. whereby 2/3 of states can add amendments to the U.S. Constitution.....RIPPING up this vital paperwork seems a bit rash , when we could add amendments to it ... don't you think???

 

[88m3]

List of NRA fund recipients

National Rifle Assn: All Recipients | OpenSecrets

All 31 Pro-Gun Senators Refused Invitations To Appear On ‘Meet The Press’
By Aviva Shen on Dec 16, 2012 at 11:09 am

The Sunday morning news shows were dominated by discussion of what can be done after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, which claimed 28 lives on Friday. Several strong gun control advocates, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) appeared on the morning shows to push for tighter restrictions and a new assault weapons ban. Their counterparts on the pro-gun side of the aisle, however, categorically refused to appear on MSNBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ to discuss the shooting.
‘Meet the Press’ producer Betsey Fischer Martin tweeted:
Betsy Fischer Martin
✔
@BetsyMTP
BTW, we reached out to ALL 31 pro-gun rights Sens in the new Congress to invite them to share their views on @meetthepress - NO takers.
16 Dec 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
The National Rifle Association canceled a country music event this weekend but has yet to release any statement after the school massacre.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...used-invitations-to-appear-on-meet-the-press/