Gun Control Thread- Should we?

ATF Online - Firearms - Enforcement (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/enforcement/)

[QUOTE=HailGreen28;980378]No, you didn't. You just parroted what the desperate politician in LA said.

RR's joke does far less harm than your argument and what the paper's actions do.

QUOTE]

Yes I did but what worse is that you being part of that gun culture are too blind to see the need for change and new laws.As for RR's joke ...tell the people in Conn it does far less harm.

No, you didn't. You just parroted what the desperate politician in LA said.

RR's joke does far less harm than your argument and what the paper's actions do.

Yes I did but what worse is that you being part of that gun culture are too blind to see the need for change and new laws.As for RR's joke ...tell the people in Conn it does far less harm.Couple things in your post I don't understand.

What "gun culture" am I a part of? And how is this "worse" than feel good gun control measures?

I think I proposed something that would be a new law earlier this thread.

Why would the people in Conn. care about RR's joke, especially now? (Kind of a segue: By the way, aren't Conn. gun laws fairly strict?)

.As for RR's joke ...tell the people in Conn it does far less harm.

When did I make fun of the murders in Conn?

Oh, and here's another link:

Regulating the Militia (http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/336529)


There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

And another link:

Celebrity Anti-gun PSA

Demand Celebrities Go F*ck Themselves [Extended Cut] - YouTube

And another link:

Celebrity Anti-gun PSA

(snip awesome vid)Great video.

I don't think the First Amendment should be sacrificed for the Second, but as long as we're talking about tweaking the law under the 2nd, those hypocritical celebs should definitely look themselves in the mirror and talk about tweaking the law under the 1st as well.

Change the MPAA ratings, and enforce them, for starters?

When did I make fun of the murders in Conn?

Oh, and here's another link:

Regulating the Militia (http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/336529)


There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.


RR, there are some major issues with this little snippet. First, it was written somewhere between 1811 and 1832. During that time the assault rifle was a musket. Not exactly an efficient killing machine in the situations we deal with today. If you have 50 guys lined up, pretty efficient. One crazy guy with a musket, easily disabled by 2 people 50 yards away.

Secondly, it clearly illustrates that the motivation behind the 2nd amendment is to be available to defend the country. Regardless of if those attacks come from an internal or an external source. Most importantly, the militia is meant to be a replacement for a military. He illustrates that clearly by making points as to both the fiscal and political burdens that comes with a full-time military. And a leader (president) that has a military at their disposal.

Let's be honest. The constitution was written is 1787. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. That's 221 years ago. I don't believe that rules written in the 1700s are still applicable today. Thomas Jefferson said he didn't believe the dead should rule the living and that the constitution should be updated every twenty years. Legislation has to grow with the culture.

You can't use arguments from 221 years ago to defend actions today. While I'm sure Justice Story was a brilliant man -- there's no way he could forsee the way this country has grown and the way technology has evolved. Using a 200-ish year old decision that you selectively take segments from is not a very strong argument.

And another link:

Celebrity Anti-gun PSA

Demand Celebrities Go F*ck Themselves [Extended Cut] - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1SZurGArxE&feature=player_embedded)

Yes. There's certainly no difference between their beliefs and the roles they're asked to play. Make believe versus real life. They are paid to take us away into an unrealistic world. Politically I'm sure they disagree with many roles they play. Their roles do not define their beliefs.

RR, there are some major issues with this little snippet. First, it was written somewhere between 1811 and 1832. During that time the assault rifle was a musket. Not exactly an efficient killing machine in the situations we deal with today. If you have 50 guys lined up, pretty efficient. One crazy guy with a musket, easily disabled by 2 people 50 yards away.

That's a straw man.

Secondly, it clearly illustrates that the motivation behind the 2nd amendment is to be available to defend the country. Regardless of if those attacks come from an internal or an external source. Most importantly, the militia is meant to be a replacement for a military. He illustrates that clearly by making points as to both the fiscal and political burdens that comes with a full-time military. And a leader (president) that has a military at their disposal.

No, it doesn't it says, in part, 'The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.'

So that would be the tyrannical rule point that the colonials had just rejected from Britain.

Let's be honest.

Just a personal foible, any time someone says 'Let's be honest' or variations thereof I assume that they haven't been honest previously. Otherwise why mention the need. I digress.....

The constitution was written is 1787. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. That's 221 years ago. I don't believe that rules written in the 1700s are still applicable today. Thomas Jefferson said he didn't believe the dead should rule the living and that the constitution should be updated every twenty years. Legislation has to grow with the culture.

If this is the case why wasn't it made part of the Constitution?

You can't use arguments from 221 years ago to defend actions today.

I hear people use scripture (of varying religions) every day to justify their actions. This is at least a decently written document.

While I'm sure Justice Story was a brilliant man -- there's no way he could forsee the way this country has grown and the way technology has evolved. Using a 200-ish year old decision that you selectively take segments from is not a very strong argument.

If we are to attempt to keep pace with a potentially despotic government, as the 2nd Amendment clearly states its goal, then there shouldn't be a limit, should there?

Yes. There's certainly no difference between their beliefs and the roles they're asked to play. Make believe versus real life. They are paid to take us away into an unrealistic world. Politically I'm sure they disagree with many roles they play. Their roles do not define their beliefs.

Or they could say "No, I'm not acting in a movie that glorifies violence"?

Of course they wouldn't, they are whores.