• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dems introduce HR Bill 5717 severely attacking 2nd Amendment rights

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
It's pretty fucked up how Dems also said; "We're going to take the firearms first and then go to court."

Oh wait, that was Trump...
 
shortylickens said:
Theres nothing in the constitution (Bill of Rights) that says its ok to station troops in your home so long as theres I.D.
The problem with the 2nd Amendment is it uses the word Infringed and NOBODY in American agree exactly what that means. Its just way too open.
Ditto privacy and due process. there's too much leeway and that's why we have the so-called Patriot Act, which is distinctly not patriotic and lets Uncle Sam get away with loads of bullshit.
Click to expand...

No, the problem with the 2nd is that we have a Supreme Court that’s decided to break with precedent and totally distort the original meaning and purpose of the 2nd to what we have now. It’s the supreme courts distortion of the amendment that is causing the confusion.
 
shortylickens said:
Theres nothing in the constitution (Bill of Rights) that says its ok to station troops in your home so long as theres I.D.
The problem with the 2nd Amendment is it uses the word Infringed and NOBODY in American agree exactly what that means. Its just way too open.
Ditto privacy and due process. there's too much leeway and that's why we have the so-called Patriot Act, which is distinctly not patriotic and lets Uncle Sam get away with loads of bullshit.
Click to expand...
Infringed means to be unreasonably restricted. It was made vague on purpose so the definition of that would change over time.
 
shortylickens said:
Which is ironic because the real nazis were disarmers.

Disarmament of the German Jews - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Nope, the Nazis actually expanded gun rights for most German citizens.

www.politifact.com

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

Republican Ben Carson has been criticized for suggesting that gun control enabled the rise of the Nazis and led to the e
www.politifact.com www.politifact.com

Considering you thought the Nazis restricting gun rights made restricting them bad how does this change your position?
 
Paladin3 said:
Such compelling rebuttals. If you guys are basically going to tell me I'm full of shit, but can't come up with anything more than this, I consider it your concession over the debate.

EDIT: but in the end it doesn't really matter. This bill, and that's all it is a bill that is still in committee, or been proposed for committee consideration, I can't remember which, won't go anywhere. And if it does it will be struck down as unconstitutional if Trump does even sign it.

There isn't the political or public will to overturn the 2nd Amendment at present, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. In fact, there are lots first time gun owners in liberal states trying to buy guns who are getting slapped in the face with the current restrictions. And a lot of them are pissed. Right now I'd say there are more folks interested in practicing their 2A rights than in a long time.
Click to expand...
I don't recall anyone saying that. However I did ask you...

How many of your guns were lost under Obama?
Why is the inability of you to sell 20 guns in a month vs 1 an infringement?
 
Paladin3 said:
Can we institute a test to vote? Require a licence? If the answer is no then we can't require one for 2A gun rights unless you have committed a crime and lost those constitutional rights. Change the constitution or crap like proposed bill 5717 is unconstitutional.

I don't know why you guys think some constitutional rights are okay to fuck with and others a sacred. If you've got the votes and political will to change the constitution then go for it. Otherwise, respect ALL our constitutional rights.

EDIT: and if the goal is to reduce illegal gun violence, what sick/evil/criminal planning on committing murder is going to decide not to because he has to resort to illegal sources to obtain his weapon? The main purpose of this bill is to be a deterrent to lawful citizens obtaining lawful firearms for lawful purposes.
Click to expand...
False equivalency. You cant kill some by voting.
 
Interesting bill. It seems to be aimed (NPI) at poor people. Don't have the cash for training and a licence, no gun for you.
 
Greenman said:
Interesting bill. It seems to be aimed (NPI) at poor people. Don't have the cash for training and a licence, no gun for you.
Click to expand...

You’re right, but obstacles to gun ownership will always hit the poor first. Since gun ownership is generally a bad idea though it’s kind of like saying cigarette taxes hit the poor harder. It’s true, but kind of irrelevant.
 
allisolm said:
A total of 36 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls.

I live in FL and have to produce a photo ID every time I vote. That has been in effect since 1977 without being considered "overly burdensome".
Click to expand...

This is why I've never understood first, why it's controversial, and second, why it's necessary. My impression was that you always have to present an ID when voting. I certainly always have to.
 
fskimospy said:
You’re right, but obstacles to gun ownership will always hit the poor first. Since gun ownership is generally a bad idea though it’s kind of like saying cigarette taxes hit the poor harder. It’s true, but kind of irrelevant.
Click to expand...
True enough. I'd have to read through the entire thing to try and understand the boundaries, but since it's certain this will go down in flames, I'm not going to bother.
Why not simply require that to own a firearm requires an IQ above 120, and that you've never committed an act of violence against another? I understand that that's discriminatory against stupid people, but stupid people shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms.
 
Moonbeam said:
Gun lovers like myself have to face the fact that allowing guns to remain legal means a huge number of people will die from gun violence. My guess is that most pro gun people are not really willing to face the fact that their own egotistical desires are more important to them than other people's lives.
Click to expand...
Geepers, Moonbeam, I notice that none of the pro gun people lining up to agree with your point. They seem to want to make a different one, that rights are all equal and should be equally protected, never mind what damage they cause. But let's look at the facts, the deaths that gun violence is causing and the damage caused by conservatives being allowed to vote should both be prevented by laws, no? How can a country extend rights to people who have no understanding of their own personal responsibility or what it even means. But what irresponsible person will admit to that fact. You would have to admit that you are worthless or at least that's how you feel. People who have egos precisely to protect them from such feelings and realizations are not going to have that. No, we will have gun laws and all laws enacted by sleeping machines. Then we can play the blame game.
 
fskimospy said:
I have to say without reading this bill if they are actually trying to ban guns that’s a very smart bill.

It’s just math, no reason to be mad at math.
Click to expand...

The bill does much of that. How would you feel if voting booths could be sued out of production? It's not a ban in any way. Keep what we have and no alternatives allowed.

It wouldn't be a very smart bill if the goal was to ban voting.
 
fskimospy said:
Because the average person owns a gun for self protection but owning a gun makes you more likely to be the victim of both homicide and suicide.
Click to expand...
You don't think those things, with the possible exception of some suicides, are actually caused by negative feelings? What if we lived in a world where most people were far along in the development of their human potential and excited by the good they can do for all life.
 
Moonbeam said:
You don't think those things, with the possible exception of some suicides, are actually caused by negative feelings? What if we lived in a world where most people were far along in the development of their human potential and excited by the good they can do for all life.
Click to expand...
They probably are! The difference is if someone has negative feelings and doesn’t have a gun they do way less damage than someone who does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top