If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns

[legaleagle_45]

Prior to the decision in DC vs Heller, Washington DC banned the possesion of all functional firearms. The premier international gun control organization, IANSA, of which Brady is an affiliate member, advocates for the total elimination of all personal firearms with the exception of a single shot long arm with lethality limited to 100 meters. Persons who wish to own such a firearm must demonstrate a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose, must belong to a hunting or sports club and the firearm must be stored at said hunting or sports club when not in active use for hunting and sports. Self defense useage of firearms is not considered a legitimate useage and no firearms may be kept a t home.

It is not paranoid if they are really out to get you.

Given the fact there is no pending legislation in any jurisdiction seeking to confiscate firearms indeed renders those fearful of confiscation delusional and paranoid.

And DC vs Heller ended that argument.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

It did not end the argument, it merely delayed it with the hope that a change in the makeup of the court will change the result in Heller.

 

[Bfgrn]

Given the fact there is no pending legislation in any jurisdiction seeking to confiscate firearms indeed renders those fearful of confiscation delusional and paranoid.

And DC vs Heller ended that argument.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

It did not end the argument, it merely delayed it with the hope that a change in the makeup of the court will change the result in Heller.

The enclave of Washington DC is not the federal government. I find it ironic that you right wingers profess states rights and reverence for local governance, until a city passes a law that is LOCAL, based on LOCAL conditions and issues. Then the feds are your buddies.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Behold, Bfgrn, The Authoritarian in Chief has Arrived!

 

[Bfgrn]

Behold, Bfgrn, The Authoritarian in Chief has Arrived!

That is what a corporatist calls liberals.

The2ndAmendment and friends

You really are a dishonest piece of shit... you were a hardline progressive...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I was hardline progressive.

Then I realized that the leadership of Progressives just funnel as much money and more to corporations.

Tell me, has anything really changed under Democrat or Republican leadership since the creation of the Federal Reserve?

Then I realized that the leadership of the Progressives have no incentive to actually improve the lives of the poor, because then the poor wouldn't be dependent on them. How's Chicago doing?

 

[editec]

Both parties love and need the gun control debate.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Both parties love and need the gun control debate.

i would not be so sure about that

the once strong gop

in many ways will sell out the honest law abiding gun owner

given the chance and left unchecked

 

[12borowskia]

Most people think that gun control implies that government seizes control of all guns. Some people in favor of gun control would just like to implement more restrictions on what guns you can own. For example, not a gun that allows you to shoot up a public place and murder 20-30 people in a matter of minutes. I think American's should be allowed to own guns for personal protection that would allow you to ward off home intruders, but not mow down a dozen people at a time.

I'm assuming you're referring to fully automatic weapons when you talk about murdering 20-30 people in a matter of minutes; however, the problem with this statement is that automatic weapons are already banned and have been for 30 years. Now let's say you're talking about "military-style assault weapons." These guns don't fire any more rapidly than a handgun or a hunting rifle and therefore have no more killing power than these guns. Furthermore, assault weapons were banned for a 10 year period during the late 90's, and during this time the Columbine massacre happened. Magazine sizes were limited, and shooters simply brought more magazines. Banning weapons that look scary won't affect crime rates, so why all the fuss now? Why is our government trying so hard to push for legislation that won't save lives? The only reason I can see is that they're trying to further their own anti-gun philosophies, and the next step is to limit more types of guns.

 

[velvtacheeze]

I'm all for gun ownership. Once the gun owners are required to join a well-regulated militia, the Constitution will finally have been correctly interpreted.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The enclave of Washington DC is not the federal government. I find it ironic that you right wingers profess states rights and reverence for local governance, until a city passes a law that is LOCAL, based on LOCAL conditions and issues. Then the feds are your buddies.

Please show me where the debate is limited to the federal government? Please show me where I profess to be a right winger? I assume that you are a strong believer in state rights as well and that Mississippi can establish laws concerning segregation, Arkansas can pass any law it wants on abortion and Kentucky can teach creaationism in public school.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I'm all for gun ownership. Once the gun owners are required to join a well-regulated militia, the Constitution will finally have been correctly interpreted.

Not even close as such an interpretation results in a completely illusory right which protects absolutely nothing.

 

[Bfgrn]

The enclave of Washington DC is not the federal government. I find it ironic that you right wingers profess states rights and reverence for local governance, until a city passes a law that is LOCAL, based on LOCAL conditions and issues. Then the feds are your buddies.

Please show me where the debate is limited to the federal government? Please show me where I profess to be a right winger? I assume that you are a strong believer in state rights as well and that Mississippi can establish laws concerning segregation, Arkansas can pass any law it wants on abortion and Kentucky can teach creaationism in public school.

Right wingers who profess less government have NO problem with A LOT MORE government for people they deem second class citizens. The very laws you use as example ARE being pushed, proposed and even passed in regressive red states. Even though Roe v. Wade is the law, there are more and more counties you cannot get an abortion every year. States passing anti-abortion laws that only get shot down by the courts. Having a woman's uterus domain of the state, forcing people to piss in a cup and have GOVERNMENT determine if you qualify for benefits is standard operating procedure for right wing authoritarians.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Right wingers who profess less government have NO problem with A LOT MORE government for people they deem second class citizens. The very laws you use as example ARE being pushed, proposed and even passed in regressive red states. Even though Roe v. Wade is the law, there are more and more counties you cannot get an abortion every year. States passing anti-abortion laws that only get shot down by the courts. Having a woman's uterus domain of the state, forcing people to piss in a cup and have GOVERNMENT determine if you qualify for benefits is standard operating procedure for right wing authoritarians.

So you oppose state rights and would lobby against any local community which tries to restrict gun rights, correct?

 

[Bfgrn]

Right wingers who profess less government have NO problem with A LOT MORE government for people they deem second class citizens. The very laws you use as example ARE being pushed, proposed and even passed in regressive red states. Even though Roe v. Wade is the law, there are more and more counties you cannot get an abortion every year. States passing anti-abortion laws that only get shot down by the courts. Having a woman's uterus domain of the state, forcing people to piss in a cup and have GOVERNMENT determine if you qualify for benefits is standard operating procedure for right wing authoritarians.

So you oppose state rights and would lobby against any local community which tries to restrict gun rights, correct?

I believe in state rights with qualifiers. The litmus test must be human health, safety and if harm is involved. I strongly believe there are laws that must be passed on a federal level to be effective. Pollution laws are a perfect example. If state A has strict air and water pollution laws, and neighbor state B is a major polluter, carcinogens and poison do not honor state lines.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Given the fact there is no pending legislation in any jurisdiction seeking to confiscate firearms indeed renders those fearful of confiscation delusional and paranoid.

And DC vs Heller ended that argument.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Yeah, but the NRA can't make any money off the truth.

The NRA is a non-profit. It doesn't make money off anything.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm all for gun ownership. Once the gun owners are required to join a well-regulated militia, the Constitution will finally have been correctly interpreted.

Fortunately, your opinion on the matter is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Right wingers who profess less government have NO problem with A LOT MORE government for people they deem second class citizens. The very laws you use as example ARE being pushed, proposed and even passed in regressive red states. Even though Roe v. Wade is the law, there are more and more counties you cannot get an abortion every year. States passing anti-abortion laws that only get shot down by the courts. Having a woman's uterus domain of the state, forcing people to piss in a cup and have GOVERNMENT determine if you qualify for benefits is standard operating procedure for right wing authoritarians.

So you oppose state rights and would lobby against any local community which tries to restrict gun rights, correct?

Never mind that the protections of 2nd has been applied to actions by the states thru the 14th amendment.

 

[Vandalshandle]

After we take away your guns (a couple of my friends and I have volunteered to do that for Obama over a couple of weekends), we are going to confiscate all the printing presses, and then force you to watch Keith Olbermann 18 hours per day. Then we are going to put you in a prison cell with a militant lesbian feminist, and we are going to change all the military uniforms to pink. We also have plans to appoint Obama president for life, and we are going to give the Southwest back to Mexico. The Star Spangled banner will be replaced by the "International" Finally, we are going to force feed Rush with junk food and narcotics, until he explodes, and take Palin across the Bearing Straight and leave her in Siberia with a polar Bear on a shrinking ice island that is melting from global warming.

 

[Bfgrn]

And DC vs Heller ended that argument.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Yeah, but the NRA can't make any money off the truth.

The NRA is a non-profit. It doesn't make money off anything.

How old are you sonny? Non-profit?? The N.R.A. is a corporate sponsored gun group telling us what to do, when their real mission is to make more money for the corporations that line their dirty pockets with rolls of cash and silver bullets.

And they run a protection racket. Richard Painter is not a liberal...

The N.R.A. Protection Racket
By RICHARD W. PAINTER


The most blatant protection racket is orchestrated by the National Rifle Association, which is ruthless against candidates who are tempted to stray from its view that all gun regulations are pure evil. Debra Maggart, a Republican leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives, was one of its most recent victims. The N.R.A. spent around $100,000 to defeat her in the primary, because she would not support a bill that would have allowed people to keep guns locked in their cars on private property without the property owner’s consent.

The message to Republicans is clear: “We will help you get elected and protect your seat from Democrats. We will spend millions on ads that make your opponent look worse than the average holdup man robbing a liquor store. In return, we expect you to oppose any laws that regulate guns. These include laws requiring handgun registration, meaningful background checks on purchasers, limiting the right to carry concealed weapons, limiting access to semiautomatic weapons or anything else that would diminish the firepower available to anybody who wants it. And if you don’t comply, we will load our weapons and direct everything in our arsenal at you in the next Republican primary.”

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the N.R.A. spent almost $19 million in the last federal election cycle. This money is not just spent to beat Democrats but also to beat Republicans who don’t toe the line.

NYTimes

Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Most people think that gun control implies that government seizes control of all guns. Some people in favor of gun control would just like to implement more restrictions on what guns you can own. For example, not a gun that allows you to shoot up a public place and murder 20-30 people in a matter of minutes. I think American's should be allowed to own guns for personal protection that would allow you to ward off home intruders, but not mow down a dozen people at a time.

What if that "dozen people" arrive in black SUVs to try to take away my guns?

Call
LONESOME EARL!!!