[QUOTE=Ownederd;39224972]are your priorities really this screwed up[/QUOTE]
Not quiet sure what you are getting at.
[QUOTE=thisispain;39225002]the nra is nothing, fp members are quite capable of stirring themselves into a frenzy[/QUOTE]
Eh, they wouldn't do it if they'd read the whole article and/or if the media would report on things responsibly
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39224978]And it's a moot point. But sure, I'll concede that it is indeed a point.[/QUOTE]
Not really. While I'm sure they knew we'd continue to advance but I doubt they ever dreamed of some of the higher level consumer weapons we have now.
On a somewhat related note I love how Repubs are whining about how unconstitutional this is but were fine with all the shit the TSA was pulling
[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]
Except the frenzy took place immediately after the shooting, and the NRA didn't touch it until a week later. US gun owners don't need the NRA to cause a gun scare, the media suggesting gun bans is independent of the NRA warning of gun bans, and it's almost always the former that causes a panic buy.
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39225037]Not really. While I'm sure they knew we'd continue to advance but I doubt they ever dreamed of some of the higher level consumer weapons we have now.[/QUOTE]
And based off of the principle of the amendment, it's still a moot point.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39225033]Not quiet sure what you are getting at.[/QUOTE]
basically, i'm feeling "anything that isn't laissez-faire firearm regulation is a probable cause for impeachment" from you
are you really going to be this weird about this, or are you getting at something else that i'm not aware of
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39225037]Not really. While I'm sure they knew we'd continue to advance but I doubt they ever dreamed of some of the higher level consumer weapons we have now.[/QUOTE]
I doubt they dreamed we could instantly broadcast moving paintings of riots in Eastern Europe to our 5,000 square foot homes with boxes that kept food cold and created magical fire for cooking, either.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39225064]I doubt they dreamed we could instantly broadcast moving paintings of riots in Eastern Europe to our 5,000 square foot homes with boxes that kept food cold and created magical fire for cooking, either.[/QUOTE]
I bet they'd be scared as fuck of cars, I wanna take Washington on a highway cruise at 160 km/h
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39225077]I bet they'd be scared as fuck of cars, I wanna take Washington on a highway cruise at 160 km/h[/QUOTE]
Please, he IS an American after all, 100[B]mph[/B] should be good enough, and not offend his sensibilities with the metric system used by those British imperials nowadays.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39225064]I doubt they dreamed we could instantly broadcast moving paintings of riots in Eastern Europe to our 5,000 square foot homes with boxes that kept food cold and created magical fire for cooking, either.[/QUOTE]
Well I guess its good no one has gone on a murder spree with a TV yet
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39225037]Not really. While I'm sure they knew we'd continue to advance but i doubt they ever dreamed of some of the higher level consumer weapons we have now.[/QUOTE]
The generally accepted idea behind the Second Amendment is to protect the typically militarily inferior populace from a potentially tyrannical and more importantly, well armed government.
What logic is there in allowing that government to limit that right? It nullifies the entire amendment.
Killing is killing, it doesn't matter if you do it with a musket or an AR-15.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39225062]basically, i'm feeling "anything that isn't laissez-faire firearm regulation is a probable cause for impeachment" from you
are you really going to be this weird about this, or are you getting at something else that i'm not aware of[/QUOTE]
I'm against things which do not have statistics or actual reason to back them up is more my point.
Semi-Automatic rifles are hardly used in in murders[0.85% - 1.25% in the overall of firearm homicides]. The problem-child is handguns, and I firmly agree that something needs to be done about it.
I'm slightly in favor of the outright removal of any provisions provided by the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986, and instead going towards a relaxed licensing system where you are more free to own things such as SBRs and PDWs so long as you can prove your capability for firearm ownership with a local police department[ie. mental background checks every two years].
Edit:
Bad habit of saying firearms over rifles, sorry!
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39224494]The Second Amendment has literally nothing to do with hunting or sport.
I don't know why anyone who had ever read the single sentence that it is composed of would think that it does.[/QUOTE]
Yea, I mean it says this.
[QUOTE=2nd Amendment]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.[/QUOTE]
Nothing to do with hunting, all to do with making sure the citizens can have weapons. Can go and say its there to make sure the citizens can have the power to revolt if the government gets out of control with the militia part.
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39225091]Well I guess its good no one has gone on a murder spree with a TV yet[/QUOTE]
have people been killed because of a tv? more than likely
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39225077]I bet they'd be scared as fuck of cars, I wanna take Washington on a highway cruise at 160 km/h[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqpJvey-7-s[/media]
[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]
That may be true, but that can be said for everything they had.. nobody had any real answer to a musket other than another musket. While today a criminal/mass shooter can easily get ahold of a high capacity semi auto firearm, police are all packing high capacity pistols, and generally have shotguns, or even [B]assault rifles*[/B] stored in their patrol vehicles. It's not like the majority of US law enforcement are still walking around with 18th century muskets.
Not to mention the laws in question are only going to effect law abiding citizens, while it seems the majority of firearm crime comes from illegal and unregistered weapons. Removing all weapons from the streets is simply not a feasible task, there are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation in the US, and it would require billions of dollars in order to get even a meager percentage of them off the streets, and that's assuming that the majority of the population would even participate in something like a buyback.
These current proposed laws will not accomplish squat, they are contrived by lazy and/or firearm ignorant politicians as a kneejerk response to a couple of freak incidents. The proposed laws will do nothing to stem mass shootings or firearm crime in general; and will only piss off and inconvenience legal* gun owners while simultaneously removing some fundamental freedom of choice and civic responsibility.
While initiatives should probably be taken for better registration programs and more stringent licensing, none of the current proposed firearm legislation seems to be doing that.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;39224923]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[/QUOTE]
Sorry its just an often repeated fallacy that banning hi-cap mags would save lives, you'd think people would learn. In the Virgina Tech shooting the shooter used only 10 round mags and killed 32 people. Fact of the matter is there's no reason to ban them, and "they're unnecessary" isn't enough. There's no correlation between smaller mags and fewer victims when it comes to mass shootings.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;39224923]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. [/QUOTE]
We're talking about 30 round magazines here. That's not high grade weaponry.
The difference here is between necessity and luxury. hi-cap mags are a luxury, like fast cars or powerful computers. We don't need any of these things, they're just nice to have. I agree that in the modern world, phones and internet are regarded as necessity.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;39224923]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]
First, "assault weapons" is a term manufactured by politicians and activists to get you to react in a certain way. It is not in actual term ever used by anyone knowledgeable in firearms, and never was.
Stanford Law and Policy review:[QUOTE] Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles" so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined "evil" appearance.[/QUOTE]
gun-control activist Joe Sugarmann:
[QUOTE]Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.[/QUOTE]
essentially your ignorance is being exploited. An "assault weapon" can be any firearm, the legal definition has been changed multiple times.
in regards to high cap mags, it takes a fraction of a second to reload magazines
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrAt7-ij2k&list=UUZ-qxagOkAmCEP-Tu6YliUQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=552s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrAt7-ij2k&list=UUZ-qxagOkAmCEP-Tu6YliUQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=552s[/URL]
In specific, a half a second difference. Not enough to save lives.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39225117]
While initiatives should probably be taken for better registration programs and more stringent licensing, none of the current proposed firearm legislation seems to be doing that.[/QUOTE]
Personally thats what I'd like to see along with better mental health checks but as you said...no one seems to be thinking of that
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39225114]have people been killed because of a tv? more than likely [/QUOTE]
Don't be an arse. Yes I'm sure someone somewhere dropped one on someones head or something. But someone hasn't walked into a elementary school and started bashing kids in the head with a TV
why do i feel like this is all just a giant red herring and we're wasting our time discussing guns even tho guns are like the least important thing in the world right now
like i get it, people like guns, cool, but who cares? why is this like a hot button issue? what is exactly even accomplished by making this legislation?
america has a huge problem with class and wealth inequality, not to mention a lot of people in this country can't get fucking proper health care, and so we use our freedom of choice to discuss this shit?
cool u banned 30 round magazines, what the fuck are you going to do for our fellow human-beings next door in Oakland who are getting murdered?
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39225137]Don't be an arse. Yes I'm sure someone somewhere dropped one someones head or something. But someone hasn't walked into a elementary school and started bashing kids in the head with a TV[/QUOTE]
I bet you if we ban all da guns, TV murder-suicides will sky rocket.
Ron Paul 20-4ever
Why are we even talking about TV murders?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39225107]I'm against things which do not have statistics or actual reason to back them up is more my point.
[B]Semi-Automatic Firearms are hardly used in in murders[0.85% - 1.25% in the overall of firearm homicides][/B]. The problem-child is handguns, and I firmly agree that something needs to be done about it.
I'm slightly in favor of the outright removal of any provisions provided by the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986, and instead going towards a relaxed licensing system where you are more free to own things such as SBRs and PDWs so long as you can prove your capability for firearm ownership with a local police department[ie. mental background checks every two years].[/QUOTE]
i'm gonna have to ask for a professional source for this that's consistent with the past few years
[QUOTE=thisispain;39225150]
america has a huge problem with class and wealth inequality, not to mention a lot of people in this country can't get fucking proper health care, and so we use our freedom of choice to discuss this shit?
[/QUOTE]
Because according to Repubs we can't fix healthcare because it'd cost money and its just hard and stuff
[QUOTE=thisispain;39225150]why do i feel like this is all just a giant red herring and we're wasting our time discussing guns even tho guns are like the least important thing in the world right now
like i get it, people like guns, cool, but who cares? why is this like a hot button issue? what is exactly even accomplished by making this legislation?
america has a huge problem with class and wealth inequality, not to mention a lot of people in this country can't get fucking proper health care, and so we use our freedom of choice to discuss this shit?
cool u banned 30 round magazines, what the fuck are you going to do for our fellow human-beings next door in Oakland who are getting murdered?[/QUOTE]
Fucking amen. Compared to all the other shit that's going on right now, 30 round magazines are a non-issue.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39225155]i'm gonna have to ask for a professional source for this that's consistent with the past few years[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf[/url] Page 2
[QUOTE]AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2%
according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime
are assault pistols rather than assault rifles. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=thisispain;39225150]why do i feel like this is all just a giant red herring and we're wasting our time discussing guns even tho guns are like the least important thing in the world right now
like i get it, people like guns, cool, but who cares? why is this like a hot button issue? what is exactly even accomplished by making this legislation?
america has a huge problem with class and wealth inequality, not to mention a lot of people in this country can't get fucking proper health care, and so we use our freedom of choice to discuss this shit?
cool u banned 30 round magazines, what the fuck are you going to do for our fellow human-beings next door in Oakland who are getting murdered?[/QUOTE]
Oh I know, everyone loves to hype up a tragedy to ridiculous proportions to where we talk about it for months on end. Welcome to the western media.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39225153]I bet you if we ban all da guns, TV murder-suicides will sky rocket.
Ron Paul 20-4ever
Why are we even talking about TV murders?[/QUOTE]
Because Craig Wilmore tried to say that my argument of guns now vs guns of then was invalid because the Constitution didn't mention TVs so I jokingly replied that its good that no one has gone on a TV killing spree
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39225155]i'm gonna have to ask for a professional source for this that's consistent with the past few years[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.fbi.gov[/url]
Go at it.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39224369]If the following appears:
- Hi-Cap Magazine Ban
- Assault Weapon Ban
- Pointless 'bullet tracing' introduction
Call for impeachment[/QUOTE]
That's not how executive orders work. They can't introduce new laws, they can only define or strengthen existing laws.
Also that's not how impeachment works; you can only impeach a president for committing a crime, not for political policy that you disagree with.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225180]That's not how executive orders work. They can't introduce new laws, they can only define or strengthen existing laws.
Also that's not how impeachment works; you can only impeach a president for committing a crime, not for political policy that you disagree with.[/QUOTE]
Committing a crime, like going around Congress and creating your own unilateral legislation?
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39225155]i'm gonna have to ask for a professional source for this that's consistent with the past few years[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf[/url]
From the Department of Justice.
It's from 2004, I hope that's recent enough. It pertains to the previous Assault Weapons ban.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39225155]i'm gonna have to ask for a professional source for this that's consistent with the past few years[/QUOTE]
Well semi-automatic rifles[sorry about the slur on semi-auto firearms lol], are apart of the subset of rifles and rifles in genereal only account for 2.8% of the overall homicides in the country. This is provided by [url=http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8]FBI.Gov[/url] which is at 2011, and has other years prior as well.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225180]That's not how executive orders work. They can't introduce new laws, they can only define or strengthen existing laws.
Also that's not how impeachment works; you can only impeach a president for committing a crime, not for political policy that you disagree with.[/QUOTE]
wrong
[quote]On February 19, 1942, two months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066. In this one-page decree, the president used his authority as the commander-in-chief to authorize the U.S. military to "exclude" 122,000 Japanese Americans -- more than half of them U.S. citizens -- from their homes and businesses and relocate them to isolated and desolate internment camps. A month later, Congress passed Public Law 503, making it a federal offense to disobey the president's executive order.
[B]An executive order, also known as a proclamation, is a directive handed down directly from a president or governor (the executive branch of government) without input from the legislative or judicial branches[/B]. Executive orders can only be given to federal or state agencies, not to citizens, although citizens are indirectly affected by them.[/quote]
and wrong
[quote]According to the US Constitution, "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" justify impeachment, although the exact definition of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is often the subject of debate. Usually, impeachment is reserved for serious offenses and abuses of power, [B]and it is up to the impeaching body to determine whether or not an offense is impeachable. Offenses do not have to violate criminal law in order to be impeachable[/B].[/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
