Let's Talk About Gun Control

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,400
Daps
32,646
Reppin
humans
There you have it folks. Straight from the horses' mouth.

They want to impose authoritarian measures outside the concept of a social contract. The rule of law means nothing to them, only emotion and ideology.

I applaud them for their honesty, at least they stopped hiding behind the "we are just trying to make some changes to the gun laws" BS they hide behind.

The conservation ends here. The rules on how to change the rules aren't up to be changed when you see fit. There is a process to amend. It has been amended multiple times.
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
92,244
Reputation
3,851
Daps
164,711
Reppin
Brooklyn
There you have it folks. Straight from the horses' mouth.

They want to impose authoritarian measures outside the concept of a social contract. The rule of law means nothing to them, only emotion and ideology.

I applaud them for their honesty, at least they stopped hiding behind the "we are just trying to make some changes to the gun laws" BS they hide behind.

The conservation ends here. The rules on how to change the rules aren't up to be changed when you see fit. There is a process to amend. It has been amended multiple times.

Are you mad?
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,400
Daps
32,646
Reppin
humans
Are you mad?

I'm not mad at all.

The posts presented by some of you are on the fringe of this debate. Outside of this site, they would be mocked, even by some on their side of the debate.

Coming out and saying that the constitution (or any social contract) is garbage and should be thrown away, instead of using the process to amend it, might be the legal equivalent of saying that clouds are held up by pillars.

It would be laughed at and ignored.
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,400
Daps
32,646
Reppin
humans
The results of the last Federal Assualt Weapons Ban, both sides presented:

Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.

That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent. Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime." A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of Brady Campaign's claim that the ban was responsible for violent crime's decline.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

daze23

Siempre Fresco
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
32,544
Reputation
2,745
Daps
45,224
I'm not mad at all.

The posts presented by some of you are on the fringe of this debate. Outside of this site, they would be mocked, even by some on their side of the debate.

Coming out and saying that the constitution (or any social contract) is garbage and should be thrown away, instead of using the process to amend it, might be the legal equivalent of saying that clouds are held up by pillars.

It would be laughed at and ignored.

he said it's just "food for thought"

in fact one time I remember saying something similar, and someone dapping me...

http://www.the-coli.com/higher-lear...ks-cousin-another-reminder-2.html#post1413905

yxr5t.jpg
 

kevm3

follower of Jesus
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
16,320
Reputation
5,605
Daps
83,681
We have millions of gun owners here. Why should they be forced to bear the burden of the actions of a few loonies?

And governments throughout history have murdered more than anyone. Why do you think we have gun rights in the first place, as well as separation of powers here in America? But now separation of powers have slowly, but surely been dissolving, and now we have the government trying to confiscate guns through various means. It's obvious what will happen as power continues to coalesce and as the population is increasingly disarmed. History attests to that.

The children being murdered by guns is terrible, but we need to attribute that to the actions of a looney man, for in that same time period, in China, a man stabbed several kids with a knife. Do we need to ban knives too?
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,400
Daps
32,646
Reppin
humans
he said it's just "food for thought"

in fact one time I remember saying something similar, and someone dapping me...

http://www.the-coli.com/higher-lear...ks-cousin-another-reminder-2.html#post1413905

yxr5t.jpg


Wow, you're just resorting to delusion now. It's a thread about changing the health care in the system and I'm supposed to determine that such a broad statement by you is indicative of throwing out the constitution. The problem you neglect to mention is that there is nothing in those Amendments that says government programs can't be scrapped and retooled.

I'll break it down for you:

1) The Constitution doesn't need to be scrapped. Why? Because there is process to change it.

2) The Amendments to the Constitution are explicitly there to limit government abuse and ensure the rights of individuals.

3) I don't agree with every SCOTUS decision. That's fine if any of you don't either. I respect the decision and law though. I don't like the Citizens United Ruling for one. I don't like the Affordable Health CareAct ruling. Doesn't matter though, it's the law of the land and unless there is a Constitutional Amendment, I'll have to respect it. I support a Constitutional Amendment to re-define several things.

Maybe we need to re-up those Obamacare Threads after the SCOTUS ruling? You'd be surprised how many of these people were singing a different tune about constitutionality and SCOTUS interpretations. I have a nice collection of screenshots from those threads too.

I understand that these are emotional moments. But the rule of law is there to set order especially during emotional moments. Everyone makes emotional outbursts or advocates certain things during emotional times, I'm not different. That old Casey Anthony thread was a good example on my part. As a parent, I was convinced that she did it and that they let a child killer free. Once the emotion subsided, and other posters were advocating reason, it became clear to me that I must respect the process of the law and the court's decision.
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,400
Daps
32,646
Reppin
humans
This is also a major issue I get into with these fukking Ron Paul dikk riders.

They have no problem when he advocates the Constitution in one case, and then turns around and says "Well, you know those Amendments giving slaves their freedom, establishing citizenship and equal rights under the law, and the Income Tax one? Let's just completely neglect those. They aren't in the original Constitution."

Daily Kos: Ron Paul: ignore the 14th Amendment
 

MeachTheMonster

YourFriendlyHoodMonster
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
73,450
Reputation
4,269
Daps
116,421
Reppin
Tha Land
Wow, you're just resorting to delusion now. It's a thread about changing the health care in the system and I'm supposed to determine that such a broad statement by you is indicative of throwing out the constitution. The problem you neglect to mention is that there is nothing in those Amendments that says government programs can't be scrapped and retooled.

I'll break it down for you:

1) The Constitution doesn't need to be scrapped. Why? Because there is process to change it.

2) The Amendments to the Constitution are explicitly there to limit government abuse and ensure the rights of individuals.

3) I don't agree with every SCOTUS decision. That's fine if any of you don't either. I respect the decision and law though. I don't like the Citizens United Ruling for one. I don't like the Affordable Health CareAct ruling. Doesn't matter though, it's the law of the land and unless there is a Constitutional Amendment, I'll have to respect it. I support a Constitutional Amendment to re-define several things.

Maybe we need to re-up those Obamacare Threads after the SCOTUS ruling? You'd be surprised how many of these people were singing a different tune about constitutionality and SCOTUS interpretations. I have a nice collection of screenshots from those threads too.

I understand that these are emotional moments. But the rule of law is there to set order especially during emotional moments. Everyone makes emotional outbursts or advocates certain things during emotional times, I'm not different. That old Casey Anthony thread was a good example on my part. As a parent, I was convinced that she did it and that they let a child killer free. Once the emotion subsided, and other posters were advocating reason, it became clear to me that I must respect the process of the law and the court's decision.

:rudy:
Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. On one hand you wanna talk about limiting goverment and promoting freedom, you don't trust them so you need your guns to protect yourself from them, but as soon as its an issue that you agree on, you support them and the government's word is golden. You were just complaining about the new tsa rules, they were upheld by the SCOTUS yet you still say the rules are wrong, and complain about their implementation.

If you ask me, from a pure democracy and freedom standpoint the SCOTUS decisions are the worst to get behind. These are decisions that are not voted on by the people. And they are being made by individuals the public didn't elect. The majority of the people could be totaly against a given decision but, the SCOTUS could still make it. That doesn't sound like freedom or democracy to me.

You use the constitutional argument to prevent progress and real conversation because you have no other logical leg to stand on. Historically this has always been done and always will be done.

Just tell the truth. You like your guns and you don't want anybody to stop you from having them. All the extra stuff just gets in the way of people who actually want to move society forward.
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,400
Daps
32,646
Reppin
humans
:rudy:
Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. On one hand you wanna talk about limiting goverment and promoting freedom, you don't trust them so you need your guns to protect yourself from them, but as soon as its an issue that you agree on, you support them and the government's word is golden. You were just complaining about the new tsa rules, they were upheld by the SCOTUS yet you still say the rules are wrong, and complain about their implementation.

Link to the TSA rules being upheld by SCOTUS? All I remember is that they refused to hear the case about body scanners due to it not being filed in Federal Appeal's court first. I'm not saying you're lying, I just haven't heard of it.

Who said anything about limiting the government entirely? I'm in favor of the government doing a lot of things but providing the right for citizens to be armed is not an American concept and not solely an American implementation.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the government can't enforce food safety, air quality, business practices, etc. But there is something there about owning weapons.

If you ask me, from a pure democracy and freedom standpoint the SCOTUS decisions are the worst to get behind. These are decisions that are not voted on by the people. And they are being made by individuals the public didn't elect. The majority of the people could be totaly against a given decision but, the SCOTUS could still make it. That doesn't sound like freedom or democracy to me.

That makes us both hypocrites then because I'm sure you were happy as fukk when SCOTUS determined Obamacare to be Constitutional.

You use the constitutional argument to prevent progress and real conversation because you have no other logical leg to stand on. Historically this has always been done and always will be done.

No. You want to scrap the rules because you can't win by the rules. You know damn well that if you put it up to a Constitutional Convention, your side would lose.

Just tell the truth. You like your guns and you don't want anybody to stop you from having them. All the extra stuff just gets in the way of people who actually want to move society forward.

All the extra stuff is called "laws" and "rights".
 

MeachTheMonster

YourFriendlyHoodMonster
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
73,450
Reputation
4,269
Daps
116,421
Reppin
Tha Land
Link to the TSA rules being upheld by SCOTUS? All I remember is that they refused to hear the case about body scanners due to it not being filed in Federal Appeal's court first. I'm not saying you're lying, I just haven't heard of it.
Excuse me, it was t the SCOTUS but it was upheld as constitutional by the courts.TSA Body Scanners Constitutional, Rules D.C. Cir. - Civil Rights Law - Decided

Who said anything about limiting the government entirely? I'm in favor of the government doing a lot of things but providing the right for citizens to be armed is not an American concept and not solely an American implementation.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the government can't enforce food safety, air quality, business practices, etc. But there is something there about owning weapons.
That's because the constitution was written 250 years ago, those things were of no concern then. Neither were grenades and machine guns. And yes there is something in the constitution about owning weapons. And that's what the debate is over. The right to bear arms isn't unlimited, so the debate is over which limits should be implemented.

That makes us both hypocrites then because I'm sure you were happy as fukk when SCOTUS determined Obamacare to be Constitutional.
You'll never here me invoke the SCOTUS or the constitution when debating what's right for the country or in what direction we should move as a society. I like the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare because it leaves the door open for a single payer system which is what I ultimately support.

No. You want to scrap the rules because you can't win by the rules. You know damn well that if you put it up to a Constitutional Convention, your side would lose.
I don't want to scrap the rules. And limits on firearms have been upheld. I advocate making those limits more consistent, and looking at them from a more modern perspective.

Instead of having a conversation on how we can improve things you say ":whoa: don't touch my guns, they're my constitutional right" and nothing ever gets done.

All the extra stuff is called "laws" and "rights".
Like I said those laws and right are only important if they support your position.
 
Top