HeyBurke Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 You do realize that the Constitution was written in a way that we could amend it in the future, correct? Thomas Jefferson even said that the amendments should expire after 19 years. Don't try and lecture me over the Constitution. I took an oath to protect that document with my life when I joined the Marine Corps. I took the time to educate myself over it. It's nutty right wingers like you who need some perspective. Don't play the "veteran card" on me. I spent a few years in uniform too. Plus, I believe you guys should work on amending the Constitution - make it illegal to own any gun. Get back to me on that... I'm not 'pulling the veteran card'. I'm simply stating why I have so much passion about this issue. People like you are exactly what's wrong with this country. So complacent and so stuck in the past, that any proposed change is nails on the chalkboard to you. It really disgusts me that you and your ilk get away with that. The fact that you're a veteran makes it even worse. My ilk and I get away with respecting the Constitution and it disgusts you - that's a unique perspective. Tell me more. BTW, I was active duty. You were active duty? Congrats! I'm a reservist. What's that matter? Do you think you have more right to an opinion because you were active duty? Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 still, not sure what your point was or if you actually believe the constitution should never be ratified and we should continue living under all the pretenses of the 18th century society. Bad news for you...the Constitution was ratified. Or were you so excited that you meant to type the word "amended"? I'm the guy who suggested you gun control advocates start a campaign to amend the Constitution to ban owning arms. so after my response to you, you just point out a mistake i made? well played. again, i never said owning guns should be banned, just that there should be limits. Link to comment
krill Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/07/28/the-end-of-gun-control/ Interesting article I saw today on reddit. tl;dr version...3D printers that are now as cheap as $500 can easily "print" something like an AR-15 receiver. In theory for around $1000 you could buy a Saiga, print a automatic receiver that's illegal, print high capacity magazines, buy off the shelf accessories, and have true assault rifle. I do very much question why people defend having military rifles like an AR-15 with high capacities magazines as something they need, but at the same times there are questions about the efficacy of gun control keeping weapons out of the hands of those who intend to do harm with them. From what I know the original assault weapons ban left so many loopholes that all it really did was add red tape, and now with people being able to create their own equipment with printers, how likely is it that any kind of regulation would keep something like a high capacity magazine out of reach for a killer? Link to comment
Yossarian Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 You do realize that the Constitution was written in a way that we could amend it in the future, correct? Thomas Jefferson even said that the amendments should expire after 19 years. Don't try and lecture me over the Constitution. I took an oath to protect that document with my life when I joined the Marine Corps. I took the time to educate myself over it. It's nutty right wingers like you who need some perspective. Don't play the "veteran card" on me. I spent a few years in uniform too. Plus, I believe you guys should work on amending the Constitution - make it illegal to own any gun. Get back to me on that... I'm not 'pulling the veteran card'. I'm simply stating why I have so much passion about this issue. People like you are exactly what's wrong with this country. So complacent and so stuck in the past, that any proposed change is nails on the chalkboard to you. It really disgusts me that you and your ilk get away with that. The fact that you're a veteran makes it even worse. My ilk and I get away with respecting the Constitution and it disgusts you - that's a unique perspective. Tell me more. BTW, I was active duty. You were active duty? Congrats! I'm a reservist. What's that matter? Do you think you have more right to an opinion because you were active duty? Not really...you're the one who pulled the veteran card on me. I'm sure the Constitution needs to be protected and defended in Lincoln. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO) Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution. “My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.” I saw that this morning too - I thought that was a good interview. I doubt if you're buying his book...right? The key word is "bear." i do not know whether or not you doubt if i am buying his book. if i had to guess, i would guess you do doubt i will buy his book. yeah, you have the right to bear arms, it does not mention what arms. Link to comment
lo country Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Here is a thought. What if the firearms, ammunition, accessories are "taxed" at a higher rate to purchase. A VAT or use tax if you will. (Commerce Clause) They are taxed at such a rate that it makes them virtually impossible to purchase. It is a "tax" not a penalty. Or if Chicago, Philly, Boston et al are allowed to use view point discrimination (not my words ACLU Illinois) to keep Chick-fil-a out of their respective cities, could a person in that particular govt entity then not issue a tax permit/business license/occupancy license etc based upon their assertion that the company doesn't represent their "values" or that their values are harmful to their city/county as a whole? There are many ways that the govt can "control" the ownership without even looking like it. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Here is a thought. What if the firearms, ammunition, accessories are "taxed" at a higher rate to purchase. A VAT or use tax if you will. (Commerce Clause) They are taxed at such a rate that it makes them virtually impossible to purchase. It is a "tax" not a penalty. Or if Chicago, Philly, Boston et al are allowed to use view point discrimination (not my words ACLU Illinois) to keep Chick-fil-a out of their respective cities, could a person in that particular govt entity then not issue a tax permit/business license/occupancy license etc based upon their assertion that the company doesn't represent their "values" or that their values are harmful to their city/county as a whole? There are many ways that the govt can "control" the ownership without even looking like it. very good point. Link to comment
irafreak Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 How about a background check on people to watch movies? guns don't kill people, movies kill people? is that your argument? It was a sarcastic response to the typical overreaction to these things. If a woman was standing on the street corner and a serial killer approached her would he be less likely to attack her if he noticed she had a gun hanging out of her purse? Let's say we have laws in place that prohibit guns being sold period. It might have slowed this guy down...or he might have just taken another page out of the Dark Knight film and made a homemade bomb and planted it in the theatre. These guys find their way to create chaos. So what's to stop the governement from laying down laws against movies being made with certain levels of violence (other than the multi millions that movie companies make...) I know it's a stretch. The point I was making is that we can't prevent all this crap from happening...hell that was the point of Batman Begins. As they cracked down on crime more and Batman became more advanced the criminals followed suit. Guns or no guns these kind of people will find ways to destroy people's lives. i agree to a certain extent, but the argument you are making is that why even having laws that make murder illegal? people are still going to kill. all i am saying is that there should be some regulations to make mass killings harder. what is the purpose of anyone owning an ar-15 or any assault rifle with an extended clip? if the mere possession of such weapons was illegal, it would certainly give law enforcement more options to prevent such crimes. I don't disagree with you on this. I was just bringing another issue to discuss. On another issue...I don't know why we don't just put these people out of their misery. How many cases have we heard of where people this disturbed end up turning their lives around? Link to comment
rawhide Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Since I didn't read all the vitriol and witty ripostes throughout this thread here are some FBI numbers Since the Brady Act requiring background checks which are supposed to be done; 1998 to 2010 149 million checks have been done. Same FBI info violent crime from 1991 to 2010 all violent crime has dropped murder from 9,8 to 4.3 per 100k, etc. Yet, the population has increased. How can this be you say. Has it been due to some superduper gun laws, no. Has it been do to less people, no. Two things increased: population and the number of people buying guns. just sayin' NFA gun laws are enforced also. Just ask the lady and men at Sons of Guns Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Two things increased: population and the number of people buying guns. just sayin' Actually . . . the statistics show otherwise. The percentage of households with guns has declined fairly steadily since 1960. Link to comment
rawhide Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Which statistics?? I'm just going by what I read in the FBI.gov site. I did not mention households. Just number of people. Link to comment
walksalone Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 Thats fine, they can ban them, after I get my rifles, and I'm on my 10 acres northwest of Rapid City... 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Which statistics?? I'm just going by what I read in the FBI.gov site. I did not mention households. Just number of people. Households are made of people. Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Those numbers are so low now because Obama took away all our guns. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Those numbers are so low now because Obama took away all our guns. Yes he did. Also, the fact that he hasn't taken our guns yet just proves that he will definitely try to take them if he is re-elected. Link to comment
Recommended Posts