Bob Costas goes on Gun Control tirade during Sunday Night Half-Time Show

[emperus]

Would regulations "infringe" upon the people's right to bear arms?

I assume you meant "more regulations" seeing we have some current regulations.

 

[TerryMathews]

This is the text of the 2nd amemdment.



I see no text that says that Guns can't be regulated. In fact the text calls for a "well regulated" militia. Like other rights so enumerated by the 2nd amendment and which we as a society limit (yelling Fire in a crowded theater), I don't see why we can't regulate guns which by it's design is a device to kill/wound.

But like others in this thread. I am often disheartened by the lack of thoughtfulness on this board.

The second is the only amendment that prohibits legislation.

The text you are looking for is here: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. .

 

[OverVolt]

This is the text of the 2nd amemdment.



I see no text that says that Guns can't be regulated. In fact the text calls for a "well regulated" militia. Like other rights so enumerated by the 2nd amendment and which we as a society limit (yelling Fire in a crowded theater), I don't see why we can't regulate guns which by it's design is a device to kill/wound.

But like others in this thread. I am often disheartened by the lack of thoughtfulness on this board.

Its usually when people who have never fired/held a gun try to regulate them. Current regulations are already kinda dumb. To a ridiculous extent, videogames and movies influence regulations more than the actual guns.

 

[TerryMathews]

I assume you meant "more regulations" seeing we have some current regulations.

You mean we have unconstitutional laws? My God, that has never happened before!

 

[buckshot24]

I assume you meant "more regulations" seeing we have some current regulations.

Not really. Old regulations can be just as unconstitutional as new ones.

 

[Blackjack200]

You mean we have unconstitutional laws? My God, that has never happened before!

Not really. Old regulations can be just as unconstitutional as new ones.

So are you both suggesting that existing regulations on firearms should be eliminated? Automatic rifles, explosive rounds, unlimited caliber, missiles, bombs... these are all "arms". Also, convicted felons and the mentally deranged still qualify as "people", right?

 

[buckshot24]

So are you both suggesting that existing regulations on firearms should be eliminated? Automatic rifles, explosive rounds, unlimited caliber, missiles, bombs... these are all "arms". Also, convicted felons and the mentally deranged still qualify as "people", right?

I'm suggesting that you can't ignore the last part of the text by regulating too much. I was watching Scalia talk about this and he was talking about there being prohibitions on some sorts of "arms" during the time the amendment was adopted. So there can be some sort of regulation on "arms" just as long as there isn't a general "infringement" to the right of owning "arms".

 

[emperus]

The second is the only amendment that prohibits legislation.

The text you are looking for is here: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. .

1.)a.) I'm confused as to what you are talking about. Where does it prohibit legislation? b.) Only? see amendment one referenced below.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

2.) You reference half of a sentence. The full sentence is referenced below. Take note of the commas.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[emperus]

Its usually when people who have never fired/held a gun try to regulate them. Current regulations are already kinda dumb. To a ridiculous extent, videogames and movies influence regulations more than the actual guns.

Interesting analysis. I believe we've had this debate before. So, you believe that in order to regulate something you need to have done/used it? Would a doctor/legislator have had to have a cocaine overdose to regulate cocaine so people don't overdose? Better yet to regulate cocaine generally?

 

[emperus]

I'm suggesting that you can't ignore the last part of the text by regulating too much. I was watching Scalia talk about this and he was talking about there being prohibitions on some sorts of "arms" during the time the amendment was adopted. So there can be some sort of regulation on "arms" just as long as there isn't a general "infringement" to the right of owning "arms".

Hmm. So, what are you generally arguing? You positions seem to be malleable depending on conversation.

 

[TerryMathews]

So are you both suggesting that existing regulations on firearms should be eliminated? Automatic rifles, explosive rounds, unlimited caliber, missiles, bombs... these are all "arms". Also, convicted felons and the mentally deranged still qualify as "people", right?

There's a process to remove an amendment. We've used it before (18th). If you want constitutional gun control, you should first repeal the second.

The text is very clear. Im not sure what you're trying to argue?

 

[emperus]

You mean we have unconstitutional laws? My God, that has never happened before!

So which current Gun regulations do you think are unconstitutional?

 

[TerryMathews]

So which current Gun regulations do you think are unconstitutional?

922o. 922r. I'm sure others.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

No, you wrote:

"Learn to fucking read" your own posts.

Here are all my posts and, specifically, the posts you and zinf made in response to what I said:

This is not a partisan issue, it is a liberty issue. I voted for Obama and I would never accept the loss of the 2nd amendment.

There is no disagreeing on my point. This nation has made it clear to their government that gun control will never be on the table, ever.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20120806,00.html

They already tried this when that kid shot up the Batman movie. The people of this country will not stand for it. It is not a partisan issue, the country is united on this and plenty of other issues that partisan hacks like you try to separate them on just to fulfill your stupid agendas. Wake up man, nobody is buying it anymore.

The people involved in this shooting were black. Insert more racist drivel now:

Gee, I wonder why?

Actually, I don't. It's because the unarmed populace cannot fight back at all. Just know this, you will know the end of this country is very close when they finally do call for everyone to turn over their guns. And people like Dlerium will be the one banging on your front door with his hand out asking for your piece.

We find it continually annoying that an issue that is so clearly not up for discussion keeps coming up. A large majority of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment is not up for discussion. If you don't like it, go start a Dickheadtatorship elsewhere. We live in a Democracy and the people living here aren't as stupid as you, and the idiots who run this country, want to think they are.

So of course, zinfamous has to go into righty conspiracy world and take my post out of context here:

If you believe these two statements make any sense side by side, then I pity you.

So I try to be an adult and clear it up here:

It very clearly does make sense to anyone who is paying attention, especially when taken in context with the post I was responding to.

My point was that this really is not up for discussion because it is not the 50/50 issue people like Costas and the rest of the gun control morons pretend that it is. The split probably more like 80/20 and thus you cannot come around and say I don't know why this is not up for discussion, because we live in a Democracy. The fact that we live in a Democracy tells you that if you try to join the 20% in an argument you're going to have an Atlas-like uphill battle.

How is that so hard to understand? And YOU pity ME?

/facepalm

So then, of course, you have to go into righty troll mode and try to fixate on the post I had already discussed at further length, to clear up the big government lefties want to steal our freedoms paranoia you idiots might be feeling. Yet, here you are, fixating on the original post which I clearly went into further detail on:

So areas in which there is an 80/20 gap are not open for discussion and can't be mentioned in public? Your understanding of the Constitution on which this country was founded is laughably contorted and inaccurate, and/or you are a brain-dead simpleton. In either case, I myself do not pity you, because you are not worthy of my pity. You are, in any event, one of the people who are contributing to the irrelevance of this forum.

So when I call you a troll, know it is in the purest and most pathetic form of the word. People like you make this forum the trash heap that it currently is because you refuse to accept what people say, and instead label them and try to push them into your view of said label. This is exactly why gun control will never be embraced in this country, because the thought of having someone like you have a gun and a media outlet while the rest of us are unarmed is about the most frightening proposition anyone could think of.

I don't know what is more shameful, your pathetic attempts to distort and refabricate or your clearly anti-American views on this topic. Either way, you can cozy up with the other nutjobs in this forum on my ignore list.

 

[hal2kilo]

Here are all my posts and, specifically, the posts you and zinf made in response to what I said:












So of course, zinfamous has to go into righty conspiracy world and take my post out of context here:



So I try to be an adult and clear it up here:



So then, of course, you have to go into righty troll mode and try to fixate on the post I had already discussed at further length, to clear up the big government lefties want to steal our freedoms paranoia you idiots might be feeling. Yet, here you are, fixating on the original post which I clearly went into further detail on:




So when I call you a troll, know it is in the purest and most pathetic form of the word. People like you make this forum the trash heap that it currently is because you refuse to accept what people say, and instead label them and try to push them into your view of said label. This is exactly why gun control will never be embraced in this country, because the thought of having someone like you have a gun and a media outlet while the rest of us are unarmed is about the most frightening proposition anyone could think of.

I don't know what is more shameful, your pathetic attempts to distort and refabricate or your clearly anti-American views on this topic. Either way, you can cozy up with the other nutjobs in this forum on my ignore list.

So Don and Zin are righties huh. You're an idiot. (oh and a truther which is 7 levels of hell lower)

 

[emperus]

922o. 922r. I'm sure others.

So you think banning machine guns and the ban of importing parts to assemble shotguns and rifles that were previously banned are unconstitutional?

18 USC § 922 (o)
(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2)This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A)a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B)any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

18 USC § 922 (r)
It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection shall not apply to—
(1)the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(2)the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

So Don and Zin are righties huh. You're an idiot. (oh and a truther which is 7 levels of hell lower)

That is indeed a spectacularly strange and paranoid way of interpreting what I said.

 

[TerryMathews]

So you think banning machine guns and the ban of importing parts to assemble shotguns and rifles that were previously banned are unconstitutional?

Yes, and for that matter 922o did not even pass it's floor vote. Charlie Rangle falsified the voice vote tally. The whole roll call is available in the CSPAN archive.

 

[buckshot24]

Hmm. So, what are you generally arguing? You positions seem to be malleable depending on conversation.

That you can't just ignore the not "infringing" part when regulating "arms". I don't know how malleable I'm being here I think you were assuming I was against all regulations when I wasn't.

 

[monovillage]

So you think banning machine guns and the ban of importing parts to assemble shotguns and rifles that were previously banned are unconstitutional?

Yes and totally ineffective. Any gun prohibition is just as successful as alcohol prohibition was and the current prohibition on marijuana is/was in this country.

Here's a guy making an AK47 receiver out of a shovel.
Caution photo tsunami.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!

 

[Blackjack200]

There's a process to remove an amendment. We've used it before (18th). If you want constitutional gun control, you should first repeal the second.

The text is very clear. Im not sure what you're trying to argue?

That's an odd thing to say when it seems pretty clear that I wasn't arguing anything at all in the post you quoted, I was merely trying to understand your argument.

Based on what you're saying here (the bit about needing to amend the constitution, a virtually impossible hurdle to clear), it seems like you feel the weapons I referred to should all be fully available to anyone who would like to purchase them, regarless of criminal history or state of mind.

Is that how you feel?

 

[emperus]

That you can't just ignore the not "infringing" part when regulating "arms". I don't know how malleable I'm being here I think you were assuming I was against all regulations when I wasn't.

I guess I assumed you responded to my post for a reason. I said that I believe that gun ownership should be legal but "well regulated" and so then the next question is to the degree of regulation. I don't believe that the current regulations go far enough.

We already infringe on the right to own guns. Ask a mentally ill person or an ex-con.

 

[emperus]

Yes and totally ineffective. Any gun prohibition is just as successful as alcohol prohibition was and the current prohibition on marijuana is/was in this country.

Here's a guy making an AK47 receiver out of a shovel.
Caution photo tsunami.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!

So do you believe that because a regulation does not prevent something 100% it is ineffective and thus unnecessary? if so, we have murder laws and people still kill does that make them ineffective and unnecessary?

 

[emperus]

Yes, and for that matter 922o did not even pass it's floor vote. Charlie Rangle falsified the voice vote tally. The whole roll call is available in the CSPAN archive.

Do you believe in any regulation on any weapon? Should people be allowed to own drones, tanks, and say nuclear weapons?

 

[monovillage]

So do you believe that because a regulation does not prevent something 100% it is ineffective and thus unnecessary? if so, we have murder laws and people still kill does that make them ineffective and unnecessary?

Who said anything about being 100% effective? Not me, i'm just pointing out that passing laws and regulations that you know are not going to be obeyed is a exercise in futility.