US Senate rejects universal (expanded) background checks - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319708]yes im sure thats what eltro is saying or maybe hes saying, if people vote in favor of something that is technically "unconstitutional", we just should go ahead and pass it and not get hinged on the fact that an old, flawed bit of paper disagrees[/QUOTE] Because mob rule is cool right? The Bill of rights are there to protect the minority from the majority, not the other way around.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319754]well im sorry but imo the result of having consistent federal firearms regulation is more important to me than your right to feel sufficiently hidden while purchasing a machine that has the capacity to kill lots of people with great efficiency[/QUOTE] yea and i think having a consistent definition of marriage is more important than your right to feel equally protected by the law with your homosexual partner. my point is i think your opinion is sorta dumb and i don't feel particularly thrilled about having other people decide where my name is written down or whether i get tracked or not.

[QUOTE=erfinjerfin;40319766]dude the US is not a police state you're blowing this way out of proportion[/QUOTE] what is your definition of police state, then?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40319763]yea and we've made drugs harder to get too. all it does is cause more violence when you create a larger black market with a lucrative commodity. it gives gangs an even bigger reason to shoot each other on the streets and gives police more cause to bust into potentially innocent people's houses and shoot them.[/QUOTE] i think its disingenuous to compare the sale of casual illegal drugs to trafficking illegal firearms dude. and even then, while we definitely haven't eliminated illegal drugs, i think its a bit silly to say we haven't made it even slightly more difficult to obtain them

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40319773]Because mob rule is cool right? The Bill of rights are there to protect the minority from the majority, not the other way around.[/QUOTE] why is it that when you win a vote its a triumph of democracy and liberty, and when i win a vote its "mob rule"

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319799]i think its disingenuous to compare the sale of casual illegal drugs to trafficking illegal firearms dude. and even then, while we definitely haven't eliminated illegal drugs, i think its a bit silly to say we haven't made it even slightly more difficult to obtain them[/QUOTE] But we have made the production of drugs quite a bit more dangerous.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319799]i think its disingenuous to compare the sale of casual illegal drugs to trafficking illegal firearms dude. and even then, while we definitely haven't eliminated illegal drugs, i think its a bit silly to say we haven't made it even slightly more difficult to obtain them[/QUOTE] i agree, drugs are harder to get now. that wasn't sarcasm. harder to get means that the market becomes more lucrative, and if it's an illegal market that often means more violent. by eliminating casual sale of guns you will create a bigger industry for criminal organizations to traffic these guns en masse and i hate gangs with huge arsenals.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40319773]Because mob rule is cool right? The Bill of rights are there to protect the minority from the majority, not the other way around.[/QUOTE] too bad the bill of rights is flawed

you're right, making gun sales more restricted will totally reduce the amount of guns on the streets and make them harder to obtain illegally. i think the effects of that are worse than just letting a fool buy a gun from a gunshow, though.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40319817]i agree, drugs are harder to get now. that wasn't sarcasm. harder to get means that the market becomes more lucrative, and if it's an illegal market that often means more violent. by eliminating casual sale of guns you will create a bigger industry for criminal organizations to traffic these guns en masse and i hate gangs with huge arsenals.[/QUOTE] do you not agree that this limited, albeit lucrative, market will reduce the number of firearms being purchased illegally and in avoidance of federal firearms regulations? because i think the effects of unregulated firearm trade nationwide is far more hurtful than the backlash that will come from having to continually enforce these laws against a criminal market

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40319798]what is your definition of police state, then?[/QUOTE] I think of a police state as a nation where the citizens are constantly living in fear of making even the [i]slightest[/i] legal mistake because it could land them in jail for a very long time (or worse in some cases). Russia under Stalin's rule is a good, albeit extreme example of what I mean. I'm just going to grab the Merriam-Webster definition as well: [quote]a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures [/quote] that does not sound like the United States to me

[QUOTE=Eltro102;40319745]because.........................................................................................?[/QUOTE] You are not of this country, and have no fucking clue about our legislation, so just fucking stop posting about it. In the United States of America, it is every American's right to own a firearm. Our country was founded to prevent a tyrannical government. The more systems the federal government has in place to track gun owners, the more control they gain. The government does NOT need more control, and them gaining such controls goes against the very foundation of our country. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting and Xenophobia" - Megafan))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40319851]You are not of this country, and have no fucking clue about our legislation, so just fucking stop posting about it. In the United States of America, it is every American's right to own a firearm. Our country was founded to prevent a tyrannical government. The more systems the federal government has in place to track gun owners, the more control they gain. The government does NOT need more control, and them gaining such controls goes against the very foundation of our country.[/QUOTE] lol i think he understands what the constitution is you can't just wave away everything he says with "you're not american", especially because i'm american and i'm saying the exact same thing

[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40319851]You are not of this country, and have no fucking clue about our legislation, so just fucking stop posting about it. In the United States of America, it is every American's right to own a firearm. Our country was founded to prevent a tyrannical government. The more systems the federal government has in place to track gun owners, the more control they gain. The government does NOT need more control, and them gaining such controls goes against the very foundation of our country.[/QUOTE] so the very foundation of your country is flawed? we don't live in a world where a government like the us of a can fall into tyranny without anyone but pro-gun activists noticing the second amendment is outdated and stupid, the foundation of your country is outdated and should be changed

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319886]lol i think he understands what the constitution is you can't just wave away everything he says with "you're not american", especially because i'm american and i'm saying the exact same thing[/QUOTE] And you've done a stellar job of showing how well you understand current legislation on the matter.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319810]why is it that when you win a vote its a triumph of democracy and liberty, and when i win a vote its "mob rule"[/QUOTE] Because what you're voting against is going to limit the Second Amendment. I'm not sure how the hell you don't understand that. I know you don't like the second amendment because you think it's silly, but it's a principle the United States was founded on and it's part of our culture. There have been things in the constitution that have been added and modified, yes, but that was because they gave way to human rights. Slavery was abolished because black people ARE people, thus they deserve rights and should never be owned. This is not a human rights issue. Restricting the Second Amendment or abolishing it will not make everyone's human rights better. It will punish gun enthusiasts who practice their hobby safe and responsibly, and it would also take away a populaces way of defending itself against a future oppressive government. There are things in our country that will happen because of our rights. Bad things. Things that are tragic and sad. But that is the price we have to pay in order to keep our freedoms. There is a multitude of things the government could do to protect the people from crazy assholes, but the document you hate on so much is what keeps them from doing that.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;40319903]And you've done a stellar job of showing how well you understand current legislation on the matter.[/QUOTE] i messed up on literally one law predicated on my prior firsthand experience (which turned out to be the result of an FFL not doing their job), and admitted i was wrong that doesn't invalidate anything i'm saying right now tho

[QUOTE=Eltro102;40319895]so the very foundation of your country is flawed? we don't live in a world where a government like the us of a can fall into tyranny without anyone but pro-gun activists noticing the second amendment is outdated and stupid, the foundation of your country is outdated and should be changed[/QUOTE] Why is it stupid? You don't justify exercising a freedom, you justify taking it. So why shouldn't I be allowed to own a gun?

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40319912]Because what you're voting against is going to limit the Second Amendment. I'm not sure how the hell you don't understand that. I know you don't like the second amendment because you think it's silly, but it's a principle the United States was founded on and it's part of our culture. There have been things in the constitution that have been added and modified, yes, but that was because they gave way to human rights. Slavery was abolished because black people ARE people, thus they deserve rights and should never be owned. This is not a human rights issue. Restricting the Second Amendment or abolishing it will not make everyone's human rights better. It will punish gun enthusiasts who practice their hobby safe and responsibly, and it would also take away a populaces way of defending itself against a future oppressive government. There are things in our country that will happen because of our rights. Bad things. Things that are tragic and sad. But that is the price we have to pay in order to keep our freedoms. There is a multitude of things the government could do to protect the people from crazy assholes, but the document you hate on so much is what keeps them from doing that.[/QUOTE] no i fully understand that it will limit the first amendment i just don't give a shit

[QUOTE=dogmachines;40319903]And you've done a stellar job of showing how well you understand current legislation on the matter.[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure him and most people understand pretty well how the simplistic and outdated gun legislation in your country works!![SUP]ps i lived there for a bunch of years so uh[/SUP]

[QUOTE=erfinjerfin;40319847]I think of a police state as a nation where the citizens are constantly living in fear of making even the [i]slightest[/i] legal mistake because it could land them in jail for a very long time (or worse in some cases). Russia under Stalin's rule is a good, albeit extreme example of what I mean. I'm just going to grab the Merriam-Webster definition as well: that does not sound like the United States to me[/QUOTE] i would say the that definition sounds like many parts of the usa. people are surprisingly repressed in this country, it's just not done with the same methods that a person like stalin would use. [QUOTE=Kopimi;40319840]do you not agree that this limited, albeit lucrative, market will reduce the number of firearms being purchased illegally and in avoidance of federal firearms regulations? because i think the effects of unregulated firearm trade nationwide is far more hurtful than the backlash that will come from having to continually enforce these laws against a criminal market[/QUOTE] well i'll have to agree to disagree. it isn't just enforcement against a black market, it's that the black market becomes more lucrative due to limited supplies. if cocaine got wiped off the streets temporarily, then when it came back it would be incredibly expensive and people would go to great lengths to obtain and distribute it. that creates rich and powerful gangs and a stronger gang culture in the usa. to make the point in a more conventional way, it redistributes wealth and power from average gun buyers/sellers to large corporate entities. it settles power in the hands of the few and in this case the few are sociopathic crime lords with private armies that can go around murdering people.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319926]no i fully understand that it will limit the first amendment i just don't give a shit[/QUOTE] second* so you don't care about the second amendment. So do you care about any of the other amendments? And if you do, why? Because you use those Amendments? What makes those Amendments any more important than the second amendment?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319886]lol i think he understands what the constitution is you can't just wave away everything he says with "you're not american", especially because i'm american and i'm saying the exact same thing[/QUOTE] You are also an idiot because you think a gun registry is okay. They do not prevent crimes, and there are a few states that have had them for years. All they do is give the upper hand to governmental forces, whether they be state or federal. Just look at the handgun ban of San Francisco. That ban passed, despite being utterly unconstitutional in every way. Every person living in San Francisco in their registry would have been a criminal had they not turned their handguns in by the deadline. Thankfully that ban was overturned. All a gun registry will do is potentially criminalize any and all gun owners.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40319946]second* so you don't care about the second amendment. So do you care about any of the other amendments? And if you do, why? Because you use those Amendments? What makes those Amendments any more important that the second amendment?[/QUOTE] Well, the second amendment [i]actually[/i] affects only those who wish to purchase a gun/already own a gun or have been affected by someone with a gun. The first amendment affects every citizen's daily operation. I think that would make it more important.

This is good.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40319946]second* so you don't care about the second amendment. So do you care about any of the other amendments? And if you do, why? Because you use those Amendments? What makes those Amendments any more important that the second amendment?[/QUOTE] i care about lots of amendments and to some degree the 2nd amendment, and i see the point you're trying to make but instead of playing this long drawn out game i'll just respond to the point you're trying to make: i support lots of amendments, the first amendment is probably my fav, the difference between my support of the first amendment and second amendment isn't that the first amendment is more important, it's that in my opinion i can defend the necessity of that amendment without bringing up that it is in the constitution. it stands for itself, whereas i don't think the second amendment does, at least not fully. and more to that, even the first amendment has limitations. you cant threaten to murder someone and their family, you cant shout fire in a crowded theatre. these are technically violating the first amendment but they're necessary exceptions because preventing people from making death threats and staying around to act on those threats is more important than someones right to say "im going to slit your throat and burn your house down".

[QUOTE=Eltro102;40319895]so the very foundation of your country is flawed? we don't live in a world where a government like the us of a can fall into tyranny without anyone but pro-gun activists noticing the second amendment is outdated and stupid, the foundation of your country is outdated and should be changed[/QUOTE] It's clear you don't realize how ignorant the large majority of the U.S. populace is. It's a good thing you don't live here though, so you don't have to worry about any of it.

[QUOTE=erfinjerfin;40319990]Well, the second amendment [i]actually[/i] affects only those who wish to purchase a gun or have been affected by someone with a gun. The first amendment affects every citizen's daily operation. I think that would make it more important.[/QUOTE] The first amendment only affects those who wish to speak their mind publicly. The second amendment allows anybody to possess a firearm.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40319942]well i'll have to agree to disagree. it isn't just enforcement against a black market, it's that the black market becomes more lucrative due to limited supplies. if cocaine got wiped off the streets temporarily, then when it came back it would be incredibly expensive and people would go to great lengths to obtain and distribute it. that creates rich and powerful gangs and a stronger gang culture in the usa.[/QUOTE] i think thats a good point and i see where you're coming from. i don't have any real evidence to say this is wrong but personally i'm on the side of private sale being run through an FFL. i get you tho

[QUOTE=erfinjerfin;40319990]Well, the second amendment [i]actually[/i] affects only those who wish to purchase a gun or have been affected by someone with a gun. The first amendment affects every citizen's daily operation. I think that would make it more important.[/QUOTE] It effects everyone. It's everyone's right. I don't protest. Should I oppose the right to protest? I'm Athiest. Should I oppose religious establishment rights, forcing them to pay taxes and not respect religious people and their holidays and prayer times? Just because it doesn't effect you doesn't mean it's a lesser right. It's a right that should be upheld just as much as the others, because a right that you use every day, might not be used by someone else, and do you [I]really[/I] want those people to decide for you?