Probably me being politically incompetent here, but I'm less disturbed by the acts the White House wants to pass and more the fact the White House is using Executive Orders for something that's fairly blatant legislation.
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39224843]Where in the Constitution does it say anything about high capacity clips?
The Constitution was written with muskets in mind. Not high powered rifles[/QUOTE]
i'm p. sure there were "high capacity clips" back in the day. even with muskets.
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39224843]Where in the Constitution does it say anything about high capacity clips?
The Constitution was written with muskets in mind. Not high powered rifles[/QUOTE]
The sentiment doesn't change.
Do you think the founders thought the development of weaponry would become stagnant in their near future?
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39224843]Where in the Constitution does it say anything about high capacity clips?
The Constitution was written with muskets in mind. Not high powered rifles[/QUOTE]
god damnit I can't find the quote I put in a different thread that addressed this but to put it simply if you really think the founding fathers were that narrow sighted I think you need to get your head checked
there was at least an equivalent.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;39224822]Not really. An unnaturally high proliferation of homosexual marriage doesn't result in more violent crime, for one.
Two, with a higher incidence of gay marriage, people don't gain the ability to purchase a means to inflict harm and death upon whomever they please.
Third, do I really need to go on? It was a pretty idiotic comparison.[/QUOTE]
Nor does a higher proliferation of high capacity magazines do either of those things.
The mindset for violent crime is what creates violent crime, not high capacity magazines or "assault weapons". Having access to a means to harm someone does not create violent crime in the same way that having access to heroin does not make someone a heroin addict. Have we forgotten already that the previous assault weapons ban did absolutely nothing to crime? The government even admitted this, that's why it wasn't voted back in after the sunset period.
People are the problem, not how many rounds their guns hold. For example Harris Klebold was limited only to ten round magazines in his Hi-Point Carbine. To remedy this he just carried more magazines.
But I agree it's a stupid as fuck comparison, we should just drop it.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39224875]Probably me being politically incompetent here, but I'm less disturbed by the acts the White House wants to pass and more the fact the White House is using Executive Orders for something that's fairly blatant legislation.[/QUOTE]
Nope, you are right to be concerned. This is the White House going against the Constitution to do things it knows it can't get done the legal way (I.E. through Congress).
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39224852]show me where in the constitution where it says muskets and I'll show you where it says high capicity magazines
multiple shot weapons existed back then, its public record.[/QUOTE]
Don't try and compare anything they had back then to what we have now.
Information sharing, research, and enforcement of existing laws? Sounds perfectly good to me.
But, Republicans and the NRA will never let go of Boogyman Obongo using executive orders to take away their guns. The gun industry has had it's best four years of sales ever and it's all because of the Obama straw man that is gonna take away all your guns, like, seriously, any minute now.
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39224843]Where in the Constitution does it say anything about high capacity clips?
The Constitution was written with muskets in mind. Not high powered rifles[/QUOTE]
While that's not a terrible point, it's still a bit fallacious.
Field cannons were really the epitome of military technology when the 2nd amendment was written, so a basic musket really was basically top of the line military hardware, moreso than a semi auto carbine would be today. Oh and more buzzwords again, "high powered rifle," of course not taking into account the fact that the .70 caliber lead ball muskets back in those days could basically turn your entire torso into jello.
Obama what are you doing.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;39224897]Information sharing, research, and enforcement of existing laws? Sounds perfectly good to me.
But, Republicans and the NRA will never let go of Boogyman Obongo using executive orders to take away their guns. The gun industry has had it's best four years of sales ever and it's all because of the Obama straw man that is gonna take away all your guns, like, seriously, any minute now.[/QUOTE]
If that is where it ends, I don't have a problem with that. Even some of the more....excitable gun owners I've spoken to agree that they have no problem with that. But if he uses the EOs to ban weapons or accessories, the uproar will be loud enough to be audibly heard.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39224899]While that's not a terrible point, it's still a bit fallacious.
Field cannons were really the epitome of military technology when the 2nd amendment was written, so a basic musket really was basically top of the line military hardware, moreso than a semi auto carbine would be today. Oh and more buzzwords again, "high powered rifle," of course not taking into account the fact that the .70 caliber lead ball muskets back in those days could basically turn your entire torso into jello.[/QUOTE]
Well I figured high powered rifle was better then assault rifle
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;39224897]
But, Republicans and the NRA will never let go of Boogyman Obongo using executive orders to take away their guns. [/QUOTE]
it happened once before, I don't see why its out of the question now.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;39224897]Information sharing, research, and enforcement of existing laws? Sounds perfectly good to me.
But, Republicans and the NRA will never let go of Boogyman Obongo using executive orders to take away their guns. The gun industry has had it's best four years of sales ever and it's all because of the Obama straw man that is gonna take away all your guns, like, seriously, any minute now.[/QUOTE]
sometimes i have to wonder if the rhetoric isn't designed just to give bursts of gun sale revenue.
i mean i'm not insane or believe in any of the conspiratorial bullshit, but it seems that the gun industry benefits more from anti-gun rhetoric than anyone else.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39224672]That's so backwards. You don't have to justify not banning something, you have to justify banning it in the first place.
What are you doing?[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying you have to justify not banning something, please next time read posts better instead of getting all accusatory like some 6 year old
I'm saying that the fact that people in here are actually using the idea that "we don't need internet or phones but we still have them" as a counter argument to the justification that higher amounts of bullets and mags or whatever aren't necessary is just terrible. Just because there are other things in life we don't need but still use doesn't mean that is a justifiable reason to keep high-grade weaponry.
And maybe check your context? Considering recent events have probably served as quite a satisfactory justification for most people as to why assault weapons need to be banned, isn't it up to others now to provide a satisfactory reason as to why they shouldn't be?
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39224908]Well I figured high powered rifle was better then assault rifle[/QUOTE]
Assault rifles are not legal anywhere in the US and nobody but firearm professionals with high grade licenses can own them.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39224926]Assault rifles are not legal anywhere in the US and nobody but firearm professionals with high grade licenses can own them.[/QUOTE]
Or the die hard collectors.. :v:
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39224843]Where in the Constitution does it say anything about high capacity clips?
The Constitution was written with muskets in mind. Not high powered rifles[/QUOTE]
Do you honestly believe that the founding Fathers lacked the foresight to know that they wouldn't be using muskets forever?
If that were the case it's a fucking wonder this country lasted for the first decade of its existence.
Also the part about the high capacity "clips" is right next to the part about muskets.
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39224895]Don't try and compare anything they had back then to what we have now.[/QUOTE]
I'm not, you are? Of course things become more efficient over time, but high capacity weapons existed back then, and saying otherwise is moot. Less than 5% of murders are committed with "assault weapons"
Firearms existed before muskets, firearms existed after muskets. Do you think the founding fathers thought technology would suddenly stop, lol?
[url=http://www.nramuseum.org/the-museum/the-galleries/the-road-to-american-liberty/case-22-the-paper-cartridge/cookson-volitional-repeating-flintlock.aspx]12 shot repeating baby killer from 1750, before the US even existed[/url]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39224930]Or the die hard collectors.. :v:[/QUOTE]
Well that kinda stems into what I meant by "firearm professional," somebody who can prove they have the training and sensibility to be able to own a fully automatic assault rifle.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39224369]If the following appears:
- Hi-Cap Magazine Ban
- Assault Weapon Ban
- Pointless 'bullet tracing' introduction
Call for impeachment[/QUOTE]
this isn't a made-for-tv political drama
holy shit that took long to find.
[quote]"The muskets of their time served the exact same purpose, to kill. The objective was to end the life of those that were oppressing them.
Killing is a terrifying thing, and it cannot be considered by degrees. You are talking about the obliteration of another human being. It is the most total, the most complete act a human being can commit. The idea that you think the men who framed this nation did not understand that the ultimate nature of the act they were committing is unimaginable to me. There is no such thing as 'a little bit of war.' The difference is those men trusted their fellow citizen to take responsibility for themselves and did not blame innocent people when evil men did evil things."[/quote]
In the end point is still that what they had when it was written is nothing like what we have now.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39224369]If the following appears:
- Hi-Cap Magazine Ban
- Assault Weapon Ban
- Pointless 'bullet tracing' introduction
Call for impeachment[/QUOTE]
are your priorities really this screwed up
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39224926]Assault rifles are not legal anywhere in the US and nobody but firearm professionals with high grade licenses can own them.[/QUOTE]
not true, but I'm not gonna bother arguing. If you want the real legality ask and I'll type it up
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39224967]In the end point is still that what they had when it was written is nothing like what we have now.[/QUOTE]
And it's a moot point. But sure, I'll concede that it is indeed a point.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;39224343]I'm sure people will overlook this, and assume that guns will be taken.[/QUOTE]
Rest assured that the NRA and other lobbying organizations for gun manufacturers will be on the scene to drum up fear and continue the buying frenzy.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39224995]Rest assured that the NRA and other lobbying organizations for gun manufacturers will be on the scene to drum up fear and continue the buying frenzy.[/QUOTE]
the nra is nothing, fp members are quite capable of stirring themselves into a frenzy
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39224995]Rest assured that the NRA and other lobbying organizations for gun manufacturers will be on the scene to drum up fear and continue the buying frenzy.[/QUOTE]
gotta keep the culture of fear boiling hot
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
