16/13 ~ The War On Guns Begins.

[renard_ruse]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

Great point. There are restrictions on all of those things you mentioned.

Actually very limited to the point it can effectively be said there aren't really any de facto limits.

[Lancecastor]

Even the morons are allowed to use a reductio ad absurdum (extendio?) to make the point that there are reasonable limits to most things in a free society.

We have to interact at 4 way stops, where we observe rules that keep us from killing each other.

Same thing.

Most people agree there's lots of firepower out there to protect yourselves with.

And...that you're stretching your "rights" at the expense of the rest of us.

That's not the way it works in a nation that promises the pursuit of poontang and iced vodka for all.

[renard_ruse]

Originally Posted by Lancecastor

I mentoned the right to have an anti aircraft missile system on my roof last week...and Iran having nukes, but the Gun Nuts think those things are "different".

They just want to be left alone to decide what's right for themselves.

This system would also work well at traffic intersections.

So you get to decide that only allowing BB guns is enough to satisfy the 2nd Amendment? We have accepted limits now. Why all of a sudden a push to change them? Because of a news event? Making public policy because of a news event, generally, is not a great idea.

[renard_ruse]

In short, law abiding gun owners and anyone who might want to be a law abiding gun owner are being punished because one cretin committed an act that was already illegal?

[Lancecastor]

I think you're having an imaginary discussion with me.

[renard_ruse]

Originally Posted by Lancecastor

Even the morons are allowed to use a reductio ad absurdum (extendio?) to make the point that there are reasonable limits to most things in a free society.

We have to interact at 4 way stops, where we observe rules that keep us from killing each other...

There is no right to drive. Its a privilege. The right to keep arms was considered so important its specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

[Lancecastor]

Make sure you call your Congressperson with that.

[SgtSpiderMan]

Originally Posted by renard_ruse

Actually very limited to the point it can effectively be said there aren't really any de facto limits.

No it can't.

[Lancecastor]

From 1994-2004, there were some restrictions on high capacity magazines...and the 2nd Amendment somehow survived.

2004: Law Banning Magazines Holding More Than Ten Rounds Of Ammunition Expires

In 2004, ten years after it first became law, Congress allowed a provision banning possession of magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition to expire through a sunset provision. Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke told HuffPost that the expiration of this provision meant that Rep. Gabby Giffords's alleged shooter was able to fire off 20-plus shots without reloading (under the former law he would have had only ten).

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by Lancecastor

Even the morons are allowed to use a reductio ad absurdum (extendio?) to make the point that there are reasonable limits to most things in a free society.

We have to interact at 4 way stops, where we observe rules that keep us from killing each other.

Same thing.

Most people agree there's lots of firepower out there to protect yourselves with.

And...that you're stretching your "rights" at the expense of the rest of us.

That's not the way it works in a nation that promises the pursuit of poontang and iced vodka for all.

Lessee here, what's banned already?;

No artillery, missile or otherwise.........check
No explosives......................................check
No sawed off shotguns.......................check
No assault rifles..................................check
No machine pistols..............................check
No crew served weapons....................check
No sub-machine guns..........................check

Leaving rifles, shotguns, and pistols........all individual weapons.

Now the politicos want to ban certain rifles based on nothing more than cosmetics. Apparently they look scary. AND the cosmetics they are choosing to ban are those cosmetics that have a 'military' look to them. (Thus flying in the face of previous SCOTUS decisions.) Oh, and magazines, although the asshats incorrectly refer to them as 'clips', that are capable of holding more than 7 rounds.

That one is rich for discussion. According to most reports 50 to 100 rds were expended at Sandy Hook meaning that the mentally deranged shooter had to reload anywhere from 3 to 5 times. The capacity ban will sorely inconvenience future shooters, and there will be more, by requiring them to reload 8 to 10 times to achieve the same damage metric, assuming that they don't have the old 20 rnd. magazines that will be grand-fathered in.

Some are even calling for universal registration. Might as well bundle registration for Speech and Religion in there as well to see how that flies. We could finally muzzle those pesky Communists, Fascists, and Scientologists (I'm presuming that the Branch Davidians are now extinct.)

All in all what is being proposed will do precious little to protect anyone from future whack jobs. And quite frankly might have exactly the opposite effect of providing a false sense of security where none exists. The notion of banning all weapons does nothing more than expand the 'gun free' zone to encompass the entire nation, except for the elite that will have exempted body guards. And given that it's axiomatic that the criminal isn't encumbered by any laws, congress, by writ of law, will have created a huge 'target rich' environment for the criminal and the criminally insane.

While our friends on the left laugh with derision at La Pierre's notion of placing armed individuals in the schools the fact remains that the only effective response to an armed individual bent on mayhem is a counter armed response. The police do not respond to such situations by running around waving books of law and crying, "You can't do this, it's illegal!!!!" And even though the police do arrive with the tools to deal with the situation, virtually all of the damage has been done in those critical minutes between the initiation of the attack and their arrival. The notion that the mere passage of some law that is going to act as an impenetrable shield between you and an armed attacker is Pollyanna-ish in the extreme.

We have laws against most everything that annoys or endangers us. Speeding, writing bad checks, smoking some weed in the privacy of your own home, the list is endless. NONE of them stop the commission of the crime by those that want to ignore or excuse themselves from the law. All the law does is establish guilt and assign penalties/punishments AFTER THE FACT.

So push all you want for a total ban. The responsible gun owner is going to ignore the laws just like the dude smoking weed in his home. You will be no safer for the passage.

Ishmael

[ivantheterrible]

Originally Posted by SgtSpiderMan

Make it harder for those who would commit illegal acts to get guns.

since when do criminals obey the law?

[a1eyeblind1]

Originally Posted by akatrex

And you believed the 900 number. Remember Obama's Lips were moving.



The Majority were Crips, Bloods, Sureño and Gang Bangers etc...

Cleaning up the Gene Pool Daily!



And Obama's Bitch Eric Holder is responsible for 200 plus Mexican Deaths.

And you have links and proof; Right? LOL

*Asshole*

[Lancecastor]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

So push all you want for a total ban.

Ishmael

I don't position myself as pushing for anything ....my observations are:

* your country has lots of guns at home, more than anyone else in the world
* you also have more gun deaths than any other top ten democracy
* it's been an ongoing debate for decades in the USA

The Founders are probably shaking their heads, wondering why you people are slavishly adhering to words they wrote in another time.

You have a problem, one that needs fixing.

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by Lancecastor

I don't position myself as pushing for anything ....my observations are:

* your country has lots of guns at home, more than anyone else in the world
* you also have more gun deaths than any other top ten democracy
* it's been an ongoing debate for decades in the USA

The Founders are probably shaking their heads, wondering why you people are slavishly adhering to words they wrote in another time.

You have a problem, one that needs fixing.

* arguable, but not worth the time.
* Yup, the point being? How many of those deaths are actually felons? Brush up on our reporting laws and procedures Lance. Even with adjustments I'll concede that fact and I still don't care.
*Over a century I'll venture to guess.

Ahh, the core argument of the so called 'modernist.' That somehow all these modern doodads we have have profoundly changed mans relationship to man and mans relationship to his government and that anything older than 15 min. ago is of no value. Try as I might I can find zero evidence to support that notion.

Ishmael

[Lancecastor]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

Ahh, the core argument of the so called 'modernist.' That somehow all these modern doodads we have have profoundly changed mans relationship to man and mans relationship to his government and that anything older than 15 min. ago is of no value. Try as I might I can find zero evidence to support that notion.

Ishmael

Times change and the social contract changes with it....not thrown out, but yes it is fluid.

Slavish adherence to customs created in other times leads to decay, irrelevance and decline.

Most Catholics, for example, now accept that Mass does not need to be performed in Latin in order to be "official".

Likewise, I suggest most Americans accept that the notions of being able and having the right to defend their country, their home and themselves plays out differently on the ground today than it did 200 years ago.

There's lots of room for grays in between the black and white of the polarized discussion preferred by zealots on both sides.

[imalickin]

So, I have read the "Executive Orders" and as yet, I find nothing that would have stopped what happened at Sandy Hook.

Even if you did ban law abiding citizens from having "Assault Rifles", Sandy Hook would still have happened. The perpetrator didn't legally own the weapons used. They were stolen from - insert name here. A criminal, no matter their ilk, will obtain the tools required to perform the task they have in mind. Whether those tools be - lock picks or "Assault Rifles".

So then, why does the left and Obama in particular want the citizens of America unarmed?

There could and are a number of reasons. The primary reason is control.

Remember, Obama is a despot and despots don't like subjects with guns.

[Wat_Tyler]

Magazines hold ammunition, and clips hold hair.


The capacity cap in the Clinton law did not make owning hi-cap mags illegal. It made a $20 magazine cost $100, and you could buy/own all you wanted.


The "assault weapons" ban likewise banned nothing. It made a $200 cost $600 . . . until they started manufacturing the same rifles with thumbholes stocks instead of pistol grips, and without bayonet lugs or flash suppressors. Then they cost $200 again.


If Obama really had wanted to, he could have re-instituted the Clinton ban by executive order/fiat and been every kid's Santa for having saved them all from the evils of "assault weapons" . . . except there is no office left for him to run for.

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by Lancecastor

Times change and the social contract changes with it....not thrown out, but yes it is fluid.

Slavish adherence to customs created in other times leads to decay, irrelevance and decline.

Most Catholics, for example, now accept that Mass does not need to be performed in Latin in order to be "official".

Likewise, I suggest most Americans accept that the notions of being able and having the right to defend their country, their home and themselves plays out differently on the ground today than it did 200 years ago.

There's lots of room for grays in between the black and white of the polarized discussion preferred by zealots on both sides.

Yes, they're called cycles of history. Freedom -> Dependency -> Tyranny -> Collapse -> New Tyranny -> Collapse -> Maybe a New Freedom -> ad infinitum.

There is no new form of social contract or government under the Sun. Merely rehashes of previous forms. Although those forms come across as "new" to the overwhelming majority in that for the overwhelming majority history started with their birth.

The goal of governments are to control the population to the greatest extent possible via bribery, extortion, and violence. The populations allow this as long as the bribes are large enough, and those extorted and visited with violence are of some other group not in favor with my group(s). Eventually the government stomps on too many groups and there's a revolt, a new government formed, and as history shows usually with even worse results than the previous government, leading to another cycle of revolution. All of this because a new generation is bored and are convinced that they are considerably wiser than previous generations. They aren't, it's just their way of trying to wrest power from the previous generation because they're too impatient to wait for them to die.

This is particularly true of relatively affluent societies where each succeeding generation demands that the government does more and more of those things which they should be doing for themselves until one day they awaken to realize that the Master has become the Servant of the Slave.

Ishmael

[Lancecastor]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

Yes, they're called cycles of history. Freedom -> Dependency -> Tyranny -> Collapse -> New Tyranny -> Collapse -> Maybe a New Freedom -> ad infinitum.

There is no new form of social contract or government under the Sun.

Ishmael

Everyone has their own thoughts on what the words "Gun Control" mean to them.

And you always do a great job of letting us know where you're coming from.

Me, I think your view is limited in scope and fatalistic.

I do not believe that all things are on "Repeat".

Nor do I believe "there is nothing new under the sun".

I have a less limited view of the possibilities.

I believe the majority of Americans who elected your current goverment did so because of their shared desire for something different and something better.

So, I will be interested to see how that plays out...because times have changed even in the short years and months since the "hope" campaign and the "forward" campaign.

[VaticanAssassin]

Two people on lit, with different opinions, having a well thought out argument without calling each other doo doo heads....

The universe may explode.

[Lancecastor]

Originally Posted by VaticanAssassin

Two people on lit, with different opinions, having a well thought out argument without calling each other doo doo heads....

The universe may explode.

fucking pussy coward dickless irrelevant boy-band listener!

How's that? Better?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by VaticanAssassin

Two people on lit, with different opinions, having a well thought out argument without calling each other doo doo heads....

The universe may explode.

Lancey and your impotent father have a lot in common.

[VaticanAssassin]

Originally Posted by Lancecastor

fucking pussy coward dickless irrelevant boy-band listener!

How's that? Better?

Balance has been restored.....

[Lancecastor]

Originally Posted by SeanH

Lancey and your impotent father have a lot in common.

He's my alt.

[VaticanAssassin]

Originally Posted by SeanH

Lancey and your impotent father have a lot in common.

They are not complete morons?