When is this going to end, does anyone really care?

gimmesometruth27 · July 2011

Parachute wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

until people as a whole are worthy of weilding the power of guns, then perhaps we should rethink our gun laws?

don't flame me.... it is a serious question...

if we don't ask serious questions, then there will be no contemplating the very root of the issues...

Your first sentence is why people like you are so dangerous. You don't understand your own rights, or history.
And you will consistently vote to undermine your own Constitution, and ultimately your own freedom- and probably don't even know you're doing it.

WHO THE FUCK GETS TO DECIDE WHEN "PEOPLE AS A WHOLE ARE READY" FOR ANYTHING?

The Constitution gives THE PEOPLE/ US the power, and to keep that power out of the hands of those you are suggesting we just hand it over to!!

Think man!!

i understand perfectly fine. i see the world differently from you. does not make you wrong and me right and vice versa.

i appreciate you pointing out that you think that i am undermining the constitution with my political views. and that i don't know my history. i love the condescention in your tone. you can't see things any other way than through your own eyes. i see things and try to make them better for everyone. you seem to be one of those that clings to your gun and your bible when you feel threatened by anything new, ie making gun sales and access and permits a little better regulated.

i have not said to "hand over your guns to the government". i just said there should be restrictions and limits on things, like who the hell needs a 30 round magazine? who needs hollow point bullets or armor piercing bullets? you don't need those things to hunt, which so many pro gun people have said, unless you are hunting people. plain and simple. or unless you need to compensate for something else.

gimmesometruth27 · July 2011

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

but you never answered my question of "how does making getting a gun a little tougher equal sacrificing liberty for security?"

It becomes an issue of progressively more and more government control. We have been granted the right by our Constitiution to defend ourselves. The Founders didn't say "you have the right to defend yourself IF..."

There is no fair way to filter potential buyers, outside of the criminal background checks currently used. None.

yeah and african americans were 3/5 of a person at one time too. old documents can and should be updated from time to time if the current system is not working.

gimmesometruth27 · July 2011

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

guns are used for offensive and defensive purposes. unfortunately more people use them for offensive purposes....

How could you possible defend or prove this statement? The number of peaceful, law-abiding gun owners is EASILY in the millions. I don't see millions of people going around shooting every day. Your claim is completely preprosterous and indefensible.

i am including things like holding up a store and brandishing a gun in addition to murders and shootings where people are injured.. using the gun to intimidate and threaten people. most robberies are committed by armed people. and how many of those robberies are stopped by joe hero with a concealed weapon? why is it illegal to possess a gun in the process of committing a crime? why do the charges escalate when the perp has a gun on them?

Electric_Delta · July 2011

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yeah and african americans were 3/5 of a person at one time too. old documents can and should be updated from time to time if the current system is not working.

So who decides how to update those "old documents"? Barack Obama? George Soros? The United Nations?

That "old document" has done pretty well for this land and her people.

By the way, don't play the race card. With all due respect, that is the most redundant and trite argument in the world. We actually voted in an African-American.

Electric_Delta · July 2011

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

guns are used for offensive and defensive purposes. unfortunately more people use them for offensive purposes....

How could you possible defend or prove this statement? The number of peaceful, law-abiding gun owners is EASILY in the millions. I don't see millions of people going around shooting every day. Your claim is completely preprosterous and indefensible.

i am including things like holding up a store and brandishing a gun in addition to murders and shootings where people are injured.. using the gun to intimidate and threaten people. most robberies are committed by armed people. and how many of those robberies are stopped by joe hero with a concealed weapon? why is it illegal to possess a gun in the process of committing a crime? why do the charges escalate when the perp has a gun on them?

So we need to penalize EVERYONE for their irresponsible actions? Why can't people be responsible? I don't need Big Brother regulating my life because some crack fiend holds up a liquor store.

By the way, law-abiding gun owners stop way more crime than you know. By outlawing guns, you sacrifice personal liberty and put law enforcement in danger.

JonnyPistachio · July 2011

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yeah and african americans were 3/5 of a person at one time too. old documents can and should be updated from time to time if the current system is not working.

So who decides how to update those "old documents"? Barack Obama? George Soros? The United Nations?

That "old document" has done pretty well for this land and her people.

By the way, don't play the race card. With all due respect, that is the most redundant and trite argument in the world. We actually voted in an African-American.

I think the slavery issue reflects what Gimme is trying to say, its not the 'race card'. The U.S. Constitution was written a long time ago, and there are a few parts that don't reflect the times anymore. The men that came up with the "right to bear arms" didnt likely foresee semiautomatic weapons, Ak-47s, 30+ magazines full of hollow point bullets..etc, etc..

Many of us are arguing that gun laws need to be stricter because we are tired of seeing innocent people dying needlessly. I don't mean to be a dick, but some people in here make it seem that their rights to own a gun are more important than innocent peoples lives.

Electric_Delta · July 2011

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I think the slavery issue reflects what Gimme is trying to say, its not the 'race card'. The U.S. Constitution was written a long time ago, and there are a few parts that don't reflect the times anymore. The men that came up with the "right to bear arms" didnt likely foresee semiautomatic weapons, Ak-47s, 30+ magazines full of hollow point bullets..etc, etc..

Many of us are arguing that gun laws need to be stricter because we are tired of seeing innocent people dying needlessly. I don't mean to be a dick, but some people in here make it seem that their rights to own a gun are more important than innocent peoples lives.

I don't want to see people hurt. I hate waking up to bad news like that, it's heartbreaking. Nonetheless, we can't alter the Constitution to suit the "modern world." We can't leave ourselves weak and without protection. By that same token, those who own firearms must act responsibly, and the overwhelming majority does. Again the OVERWHELMING majority does.

I don't mean to sound like a dick either, but some people in here make it seem like I should forfeit my rights because they don't like guns.

Mikeack · July 2011

Guns are all about protecting yourself from other people with guns. Kind of ironic huh, if there were not so many, many more would not be purchased.

Parachute · July 2011

My right to own a gun is more important than "someone's" life.

It is fundamental. The Constitution guarantees the American way of life.

And many, many people have died to protect that...

You want to give over all freedoms and power to the Gov't, in the name of protecting an individual?

You would sell us all out- in the name of saving one. Very noble. And very stupid.

No wonder they don't call us the "Greatest Generation."

JonnyPistachio · July 2011

Electric_Delta wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I think the slavery issue reflects what Gimme is trying to say, its not the 'race card'. The U.S. Constitution was written a long time ago, and there are a few parts that don't reflect the times anymore. The men that came up with the "right to bear arms" didnt likely foresee semiautomatic weapons, Ak-47s, 30+ magazines full of hollow point bullets..etc, etc..

Many of us are arguing that gun laws need to be stricter because we are tired of seeing innocent people dying needlessly. I don't mean to be a dick, but some people in here make it seem that their rights to own a gun are more important than innocent peoples lives.

I don't want to see people hurt. I hate waking up to bad news like that, it's heartbreaking. Nonetheless, we can't alter the Constitution to suit the "modern world." We can't leave ourselves weak and without protection. By that same token, those who own firearms must act responsibly, and the overwhelming majority does. Again the OVERWHELMING majority does.

I don't mean to sound like a dick either, but some people in here make it seem like I should forfeit my rights because they don't like guns.

I think you may be assuming too much..I dont believe Gimme is even saying forfeit you rights..just stricter laws. You also say there is no other way to filter out potential buyers outside of criminal background checks. I completely disagree. I dont have the immediate answer, but if waiting periods are longer or you have to reload after 10 rounds instead of 30, how is that compromise not worth some peoples lives?

Nobody on the pro-gun side ever has an answer for the fact that the "right to bear arms" has nothing to do with the evolution of a firearm and how much more powerful and deadly they are today as opposed to 200 years ago when that idea was drafted.

Electric_Delta · July 2011

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Nobody on the pro-gun side ever has an answer for the fact that the "right to bear arms" has nothing to do with the evolution of a firearm and how much more powerful and deadly they are today as opposed to 200 years ago when that idea was drafted.

If it's not broken, why fix it? The law is the law. It works.

JonnyPistachio · July 2011

These are the kinds of things I like to see:

The "one-handgun a month law" is a law that limits handgun purchases to one per 30-days, for an individual. Proponents support such laws to keep criminals, or would be criminals from amassing large numbers of firearms in a short time. Supporters argue that gun traffickers frequently purchase large numbers of cheap handguns from states without such laws, particularly those in the south,[citation needed] to sell them in states with such laws.
The first of such laws was passed in 1975 in South Carolina (and has since been repealed). The laws gained fame after the state of Virginia enacted one in 1993 to reduce gun trafficking to the Northeast.[citation needed] At the time, 40% of the guns used in crime in New York City were traced back to Virginia.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_handgun_a_month_law

also:
http://www.lcav.org/content/multiple_pu ... _sales.pdf

JonnyPistachio · July 2011

Electric_Delta wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Nobody on the pro-gun side ever has an answer for the fact that the "right to bear arms" has nothing to do with the evolution of a firearm and how much more powerful and deadly they are today as opposed to 200 years ago when that idea was drafted.

If it's not broken, why fix it? The law is the law. It works.

Thats your opinion.
I feel it is broken.
You might recall (I think you were in on the discussion about Giffords shooting)...
They used to have magazine limits to like 10-15 rounds. That freak in Arizona purchased his gun legally, and got off 30 rounds before someone tackled him. They were talking about re-establishing this law that would limit magazine capacities.. something that would've likely saved lives.. and been such a terrbile inconvenience for the responsible gun owners to have to reload at the range... :roll:

gimmesometruth27 · July 2011

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yeah and african americans were 3/5 of a person at one time too. old documents can and should be updated from time to time if the current system is not working.

So who decides how to update those "old documents"? Barack Obama? George Soros? The United Nations?

That "old document" has done pretty well for this land and her people.

By the way, don't play the race card. With all due respect, that is the most redundant and trite argument in the world. We actually voted in an African-American.

it has been amended 17 times, not counting the original 10 which are called the bill of rights.

if it has been changed/added to 17 times then it is not perfect. it has been changed to reflect the changing times. that is why they call it a "living document" because it changes over time, as the people in our government see fit.

to answer your first question, Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.
those can be found
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstit ... tamend.htm

so no, those people you listed can not change it alone.

Electric_Delta · July 2011

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Thats your opinion.
I feel it is broken.
You might recall (I think you were in on the discussion about Giffords shooting)...
They used to have magazine limits to like 10-15 rounds. That freak in Arizona purchased his gun legally, and got off 30 rounds before someone tackled him. They were talking about re-establishing this law that would limit magazine capacities.. something that would've likely saved lives.. and been such a terrbile inconvenience for the responsible gun owners to have to reload at the range... :roll:

That policy is your opinion and I disagree also. The anti-gun left never lets a crisis go to waste.

Electric_Delta · July 2011

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

so no, those people you listed can not change it alone.

No kidding.

Go Beavers · July 2011

Parachute wrote:

My right to own a gun is more important than "someone's" life.

It is fundamental. The Constitution guarantees the American way of life.

And many, many people have died to protect that...

You want to give over all freedoms and power to the Gov't, in the name of protecting an individual?

You would sell us all out- in the name of saving one. Very noble. And very stupid.

No wonder they don't call us the "Greatest Generation."

Thank you NRA flier. Where do I sign up and how much do I have to pay the lobbyists?

JonnyPistachio · July 2011

Electric_Delta wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Thats your opinion.
I feel it is broken.
You might recall (I think you were in on the discussion about Giffords shooting)...
They used to have magazine limits to like 10-15 rounds. That freak in Arizona purchased his gun legally, and got off 30 rounds before someone tackled him. They were talking about re-establishing this law that would limit magazine capacities.. something that would've likely saved lives.. and been such a terrbile inconvenience for the responsible gun owners to have to reload at the range... :roll:

That policy is your opinion and I disagree also. The anti-gun left never lets a crisis go to waste.

True, it is my opinion, and please excuse me for feeling that an update to a law might have saved the life of an innocent 9 year old that was needlessly murdered...So you'd rather have the ability to shoot off 30+ rounds for convenience than possibly save lives.. I get it, nevermind.

brandon10 · July 2011

Americans and their constitution. I don't understand the obsession with an article that was written 100's of years ago??

Keep clinging to the past America. Meanwhile the rest of the world will bypass you. It really is the bible thumpers and Republicans that hold America back. It's such a beautiful country. It's really too bad.

Edit: And doesn't the constitution have a bunch of amendments? If it was so great, why all the need for amendments?

chadwick · July 2011

brandon10 wrote:

Americans and their constitution. I don't understand the obsession with an article that was written 100's of years ago??

Keep clinging to the past America. Meanwhile the rest of the world will bypass you. It really is the bible thumpers and Republicans that hold America back. It's such a beautiful country. It's really too bad.

Edit: And doesn't the constitution have a bunch of amendments? If it was so great, why all the need for amendments?

where are you?

When is this going to end, does anyone really care?

Comments

Categories