And the gun bans begin

[Train]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Care to clarify your concern? You have a problem with requiring a license to own a firearm? Why is this a problem? I need a driver's license, I need a fishing license, why would firearms be different?

Driving and fishing aren't in the Bill of Rights?

An activity not being in the Bill of Rights does not mean it isn't a right

So would you support a license to speak to an assembly in a public place?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's time to move forward and quit clinging to 2 Centuries ago.

Easily said by a country that risked absolutely nothing to secure it's own independence.

..and that matters??

When you're suggesting that we toss out parts of our founding document I'd say it does.

Why? It has been done before with Prohibition. If something is not working, you toss it.

He's a sentimentalist.

Ok, let's repeal the other 9 amendments in the BoR because I decide in all my wisdom that they are antiquated and no longer relevant. I'll just trust my government to do no wrong.

A bit sensitive, aren't we? The constitution should be updated periodically. Almost every other nation on Earth does it.

Perhaps we can put GWB on it? He'll have plenty of time on his hands soon.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
As long as the gun grabbers ignore the "shall not be infringed" part, I'll conveniently ignore the "well regulated" part.

lol, this is sig worthy.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's time to move forward and quit clinging to 2 Centuries ago.

Easily said by a country that risked absolutely nothing to secure it's own independence.

..and that matters??

When you're suggesting that we toss out parts of our founding document I'd say it does.

Why? It has been done before with Prohibition. If something is not working, you toss it.

And we saw how well prohibition worked. Made pretty much everything worse and accomplished nothing it was intended to.

The question then is: Does the Right to Bear Arms work as intended? The whole Militia part was abandoned only a couple decades into it, there has never been need for an Armed overthrow of the Government, but there have been many cases of Individual Self Defense. Does it have to be a "Right" to bear arms is really the big question though. That, has been shown in infinite discussions on the matter, raises the importance of the subject exceedingly high. Removing the "Right" does not mean removing the ability to acquire, it just gives flexibility to deal with a situation as the need arrises without causing an unnecessary uproar over "Rights".

This is essentially the argument used to avoid giving new Rights, even though a Constitution or other guiding paper of great importance can be changed, it is never an easy thing to change. So you best be absolutely sure that what you put in is going to work and benefit all forever(if possible). Same Sex Marriage Ban was talked about, Prohibition was added/failed/then repealed, and it is the opinion of many based on real consequences that the second amendment also should be repealed. It is ultimately your decision.

 

[spidey07]

I find very funny the typical liberal posters who want to defend to the death other rights and liberty, yet want to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Typical - you can have rights and freedoms as long as they agree with me.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I find very funny the typical liberal posters who want to defend to the death other rights and liberty, yet want to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Typical - you can have rights and freedoms as long as they agree with me.

Like gay rights and abortion rights?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Farang
I find it amusing when dumbfucks try to apply their strict gun rights philosophies across the board and criticize major cities for enacting gun control laws to help curb soaring murder rates. I'm a hunter, I own a lot of guns, but don't try to say because someone is for stricter gun control in Chicago it means they are for it in rural Arkansas. I understand this particular politician is but as someone else said this bill is going to die, it is as much worth discussing as Rangel's military draft bill.

lol so you think more guns = high murder rates, low guns = low murder rates? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

He also thinks that more gun laws = fewer murders! I guess he's never seen or been to DC or Chicago...

A City Ban is useless. A National Ban is the only way a Gun Ban would be effective.

Right, because the national ban on drugs has been highly successful.

Drugs and Guns are very different.

You're right, they are different. Guns are easier to smuggle in because dogs can't smell them.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: spidey07
I find very funny the typical liberal posters who want to defend to the death other rights and liberty, yet want to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Typical - you can have rights and freedoms as long as they agree with me.

Like gay rights and abortion rights?

The right to kill babies is in the Constitution? Fuckin A.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: NeoV
a few more great comments

"Please 1000 hunters with 300 winmags w/6x scopes would shut this country down" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. good luck with that.

Gun control in Great Britain is an utter failure? Keep drinking the Kool-Aide. Aside from 2 or 3 areas with particularly high rates of crime (Manchester in particular) - gun crime included, gun violence in the UK is down, and is crazy low compared to the US.

07 USA=17,420 murders (as defined by person against person). - neither figure includes suicides btw.
07 UK = 243 murders (as defined by person against person).

Yes, I know the UK has a smaller population - approx 60 million people, vs the US, somewhere in the 280 M range, right? Let's be generous and give the US 300 M people - so multiply the UK quantity by 5, and you'd have around 1,200 murders......compared to the US' 17,420.

You tell me which country has a problem.

What kind of comparison is that? it's a different culture you can only compare Britain to Britain before the bans and after. It's a disaster. Only criminals have guns no one can defend themselves and murder goes up every year.

"Last year, there were nearly 10,000 firearms offences in England and Wales, a third higher than in 1998 with 566 people fatally or seriously injured."

http://www.newstatesman.com/la...ed-weapons-britain-gun

"Gun law takes over in gangland drug wars

James Clark, Home Affairs Correspondent

GUN crime in Britain will escalate sharply as drug gangs battle for supremacy, police experts will warn ministers after the election. Police estimate that nearly 300,000 illegal guns or replicas capable of being reactivated are now in circulation.

The number of firearm offences increased from 4,903 in 1997 to 6,843 last year, but ministers will be told that a particularly high surge in murders using firearms in the past 18 months will continue, with more and more criminals prepared to use weapons to defend their businesses and territory.

http://www.kc3.com/news/brit_gun_ban_2.htm

Gangwars are Gangwars. Gun Ownership has little to no affect on whether they occur or not and almost never does a non-Gang Gun get used when the Gangs are Warring each other.

Who do you think does most of the killing in the US?

Everybody should just be quiet and let these gun grabbing fools continue to argue against their own position.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's time to move forward and quit clinging to 2 Centuries ago.

Easily said by a country that risked absolutely nothing to secure it's own independence.

..and that matters??

When you're suggesting that we toss out parts of our founding document I'd say it does.

Why? It has been done before with Prohibition. If something is not working, you toss it.

He's a sentimentalist.

Are all the other amendments sentimental too? Lefty wackjobs sure did get upset when Bush ignored the 4th, perhaps they should have just realized that he was doing away with a silly sentimental amendment that wasn't needed.

If you want to amend the constitution, then do it. Restricting firearm ownership is unconstitutional. Deal with it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: NeoV
a few more great comments

"Please 1000 hunters with 300 winmags w/6x scopes would shut this country down" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. good luck with that.

Gun control in Great Britain is an utter failure? Keep drinking the Kool-Aide. Aside from 2 or 3 areas with particularly high rates of crime (Manchester in particular) - gun crime included, gun violence in the UK is down, and is crazy low compared to the US.

07 USA=17,420 murders (as defined by person against person). - neither figure includes suicides btw.
07 UK = 243 murders (as defined by person against person).

Yes, I know the UK has a smaller population - approx 60 million people, vs the US, somewhere in the 280 M range, right? Let's be generous and give the US 300 M people - so multiply the UK quantity by 5, and you'd have around 1,200 murders......compared to the US' 17,420.

You tell me which country has a problem.

What kind of comparison is that? it's a different culture you can only compare Britain to Britain before the bans and after. It's a disaster. Only criminals have guns no one can defend themselves and murder goes up every year.

"Last year, there were nearly 10,000 firearms offences in England and Wales, a third higher than in 1998 with 566 people fatally or seriously injured."

http://www.newstatesman.com/la...ed-weapons-britain-gun

"Gun law takes over in gangland drug wars

James Clark, Home Affairs Correspondent

GUN crime in Britain will escalate sharply as drug gangs battle for supremacy, police experts will warn ministers after the election. Police estimate that nearly 300,000 illegal guns or replicas capable of being reactivated are now in circulation.

The number of firearm offences increased from 4,903 in 1997 to 6,843 last year, but ministers will be told that a particularly high surge in murders using firearms in the past 18 months will continue, with more and more criminals prepared to use weapons to defend their businesses and territory.

http://www.kc3.com/news/brit_gun_ban_2.htm

Gangwars are Gangwars. Gun Ownership has little to no affect on whether they occur or not and almost never does a non-Gang Gun get used when the Gangs are Warring each other.

Who do you think does most of the killing in the US?

Everybody should just be quiet and let these gun grabbing fools continue to argue against their own position.

Most, sure, but the Murder rate is still shockingly high if you take them out of the equation.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I don't see anything here that would even remotely change the lives of any responsible law abiding citizen that either owns or plans to own a fire arm. In fact, I am betting that if those of you who are upset over it were not even aware of its existence then you wouldn't notice a lick of difference even if it passes. You are blowing smoke just to blow smoke because you like doing that when issues concern firearms. Get over it. This thing is not going to change your lives at all including taking away your guns.

In short, why do you care?

Except of course if you move, in which case not knowing about this law makes you a criminal. So yeah, I'd say it would affect quite a few of us.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's time to move forward and quit clinging to 2 Centuries ago.

Easily said by a country that risked absolutely nothing to secure it's own independence.

..and that matters??

When you're suggesting that we toss out parts of our founding document I'd say it does.

Why? It has been done before with Prohibition. If something is not working, you toss it.

He's a sentimentalist.

Ok, let's repeal the other 9 amendments in the BoR because I decide in all my wisdom that they are antiquated and no longer relevant. I'll just trust my government to do no wrong.

A bit sensitive, aren't we? The constitution should be updated periodically. Almost every other nation on Earth does it.

Great. So tell us which other amendment we can get rid of. I'd like to remove the 1st, because assholes like you don't need freedom of speech.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's time to move forward and quit clinging to 2 Centuries ago.

Easily said by a country that risked absolutely nothing to secure it's own independence.

..and that matters??

When you're suggesting that we toss out parts of our founding document I'd say it does.

Why? It has been done before with Prohibition. If something is not working, you toss it.

He's a sentimentalist.

Ok, let's repeal the other 9 amendments in the BoR because I decide in all my wisdom that they are antiquated and no longer relevant. I'll just trust my government to do no wrong.

A bit sensitive, aren't we? The constitution should be updated periodically. Almost every other nation on Earth does it.

Great. So tell us which other amendment we can get rid of. I'd like to remove the 1st, because assholes like you don't need freedom of speech.

Militias. Useless in today's world. Worse, the President of the United States (Federal government) has direct control over them. This was never meant to be.

 

[JS80]

lol how are you a phd in economics when unintended consequences of government intervention is one of the first lessons of economics?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: JS80
lol how are you a phd in economics when unintended consequences of government intervention is one of the first lessons of economics?

Never heard that before. Besides, how the fuck is one state going to stop the Federal government? Remember back in the early 20th century when miners in West Virginia went on strike and US NAVY fighter pilots bombed them?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's time to move forward and quit clinging to 2 Centuries ago.

Easily said by a country that risked absolutely nothing to secure it's own independence.

..and that matters??

When you're suggesting that we toss out parts of our founding document I'd say it does.

Why? It has been done before with Prohibition. If something is not working, you toss it.

He's a sentimentalist.

Ok, let's repeal the other 9 amendments in the BoR because I decide in all my wisdom that they are antiquated and no longer relevant. I'll just trust my government to do no wrong.

A bit sensitive, aren't we? The constitution should be updated periodically. Almost every other nation on Earth does it.

Great. So tell us which other amendment we can get rid of. I'd like to remove the 1st, because assholes like you don't need freedom of speech.

You already threw that bit out along with a few others when the partiot act was introduced.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's time to move forward and quit clinging to 2 Centuries ago.

Easily said by a country that risked absolutely nothing to secure it's own independence.

..and that matters??

When you're suggesting that we toss out parts of our founding document I'd say it does.

Why? It has been done before with Prohibition. If something is not working, you toss it.

He's a sentimentalist.

Ok, let's repeal the other 9 amendments in the BoR because I decide in all my wisdom that they are antiquated and no longer relevant. I'll just trust my government to do no wrong.

A bit sensitive, aren't we? The constitution should be updated periodically. Almost every other nation on Earth does it.

Great. So tell us which other amendment we can get rid of. I'd like to remove the 1st, because assholes like you don't need freedom of speech.

Oh how silly of us. You are correct. The Right to possess an Object is so much more important than the Right to Free Thought and Right to speak those thoughts without recrimination. Ironically though, even though the second explicitly mentions "well regulated" and the first does not, Speach is somewhat regulated.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Care to clarify your concern? You have a problem with requiring a license to own a firearm? Why is this a problem? I need a driver's license, I need a fishing license, why would firearms be different?

epic fail

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's time to move forward and quit clinging to 2 Centuries ago.

Easily said by a country that risked absolutely nothing to secure it's own independence.

..and that matters??

When you're suggesting that we toss out parts of our founding document I'd say it does.

Why? It has been done before with Prohibition. If something is not working, you toss it.

He's a sentimentalist.

Ok, let's repeal the other 9 amendments in the BoR because I decide in all my wisdom that they are antiquated and no longer relevant. I'll just trust my government to do no wrong.

A bit sensitive, aren't we? The constitution should be updated periodically. Almost every other nation on Earth does it.

Great. So tell us which other amendment we can get rid of. I'd like to remove the 1st, because assholes like you don't need freedom of speech.

You already threw that bit out along with a few others when the partiot act was introduced.

You mean the same Patriot Act that Democrats almost all voted for?

By the way, I've never voted for Bush.

 

[OutHouse]

Laws dont fix stupid

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Oh how silly of us. You are correct. The Right to possess an Object is so much more important than the Right to Free Thought and Right to speak those thoughts without recrimination.

And how do you think you can defend the right to do so?

Ironically though, even though the second explicitly mentions "well regulated" and the first does not, Speach is somewhat regulated.

Speech isnt regulated, consequnses of it are. Let me guess, you want to play the "You cant yell fire in a crowded theatre card" ?? That would like saying the 2nd ammend supporters saying it protects the right to shoot people.

The 2nd is also the only one that explicitly mentions "being necessary to the security of a free State" hows that for Irony?

 

[DealMonkey]

404: Gun ban not found.

Perhaps the OP needs a boot up his arse, instead of on his back? :laugh:

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Care to clarify your concern? You have a problem with requiring a license to own a firearm? Why is this a problem? I need a driver's license, I need a fishing license, why would firearms be different?

epic fail

You mean the OP? Yeah, claiming there's a gun ban in the bill when there clearly isn't is a pretty epic failure.

And seriously, why is a firearm license so much worse than a driver's license or fishing license? People seem to be okay with having to pay a fee every year in order to go fishing, or hunting for that matter. Why is that better than a blanket fee on all firearms?

Say what you want about the rest of the bill, but I was responding specifically to the OP's claim of "gun ban!" followed by his "WTF GUN LICENSE IMMA HIDE MY FIREARMS IN MY BUNKER"

 

[BoberFett]

Registration leads to confiscation. Study history, junior.