Mom's Demand Action- no more dead children

[Esmeralda]

Your interpretaton is not supported by the language of the Constitution.

Our interpretation is standing and settled law.
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

As long as the pro-gun people continue to cling to this issue they way they are, and to threaten to fight over it, by force (all the firearms and ammunition they have collected), what you are doing is literally tearing the country apart and destroying it. It is despicable. The majority of Americans want more gun control. The majority of Americans want more gun control. You are destroying your own country with this stance you've taken. Sad and despicable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your interpretaton is not supported by the language of the Constitution.

Our interpretation is standing and settled law.
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

As long as the pro-gun people continue to cling to this issue they way they are, and to threaten to fight over it, by force (all the firearms and ammunition they have collected), what you are doing is literally tearing the country apart and destroying it. It is despicable. The majority of Americans want more gun control. The majority of Americans want more gun control. You are destroying your own country with this stance you've taken. Sad and despicable.

Your appeal to emption proves you know you cannot back your claims/positions w/ anything substantive. Your capitulation is accepted.

 

[martybegan]

Your interpretaton is not supported by the language of the Constitution.

Our interpretation is standing and settled law.
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

As long as the pro-gun people continue to cling to this issue they way they are, and to threaten to fight over it, by force (all the firearms and ammunition they have collected), what you are doing is literally tearing the country apart and destroying it. It is despicable. The majority of Americans want more gun control. The majority of Americans want more gun control. You are destroying your own country with this stance you've taken. Sad and despicable.

Your side is the one trying to pass gun bans that go against the will of a majority of the people of this nation. IF the majority wanted more gun control, it would a simple matter to get it. The fact is the majority of people DO NOT want it, polls aside. Outside of metro areas gun control is a LOSING position for members of both parties.

Show me where we are "destroying" our country.

 

[Esmeralda]

Our interpretation is standing and settled law.
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

As long as the pro-gun people continue to cling to this issue they way they are, and to threaten to fight over it, by force (all the firearms and ammunition they have collected), what you are doing is literally tearing the country apart and destroying it. It is despicable. The majority of Americans want more gun control. The majority of Americans want more gun control. You are destroying your own country with this stance you've taken. Sad and despicable.

Your appeal to emption proves you know you cannot back your claims/positions w/ anything substantive. Your capitulation is accepted.

I did not capitulate. Your tedious games are tiresome. I did not appeal to emotion: I appealed to reason, something you are refusing to do. My point is that the pro-gun people are being completely unreasonable and in so doing, destroying the country. Seriously, I do not have the energy or the inclination to continue a discussion with someone who is incapable of using honest critical thinking skills and just repeats right wing propaganda.

 

[martybegan]

I am not grasping at straws. There is no such thing as 'to bear arm.' No such terminology exists or ever did. The language that was used at that time is bearing arms. That is how it was said, and they didn't mean having multiple weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

You have no idea if that is true, or not true. You think its true because it supports your agenda.

If they wanted people to have only one muzzle loading musket, they would have said, one muzzle loading musket. They said "arms" which they knew would become more advanced with time, as they had seen it happen in the past, from arqubuses to matchlocks, to flintlocks etc. etc.

They specifically restricted infringment on the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, not the STATES right, the PEOPLE's.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

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.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

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.

Your interpretaton is not supported by the language of the Constitution. The language of the constitution makes it clear that the bearing of arms is to be part of a well-regulated Militia. As well, no one is trying to 'infringe' on your right to have a gun; what is being proposed are some sane regulations in having them, sane and reasonable regulations that will make all of us safer.

Those of you who are clinging to this idea that there should be no regulations on the ownership of firearms are tearing the country apart, even threatening to destroy it. It's despicable and very, very sad.

What you call "sane regulations" is infringement. Also, the milita is called by the state, and what is expected is THE PEOPLE to show up, armed and ready to serve. Just because the states choose not to call up the unorganized milita does not remove the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

And your regulations will make law abiding person safer, because criminals will continue to ignore them. Some of your more idiotic regulations, like trigger locks and keeping a weapon unloaded in the home actually put people MORE at risk, just for obeying the law.

 

[Esmeralda]

Our interpretation is standing and settled law.
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

As long as the pro-gun people continue to cling to this issue they way they are, and to threaten to fight over it, by force (all the firearms and ammunition they have collected), what you are doing is literally tearing the country apart and destroying it. It is despicable. The majority of Americans want more gun control. The majority of Americans want more gun control. You are destroying your own country with this stance you've taken. Sad and despicable.

Your side is the one trying to pass gun bans that go against the will of a majority of the people of this nation. IF the majority wanted more gun control, it would a simple matter to get it. The fact is the majority of people DO NOT want it, polls aside. Outside of metro areas gun control is a LOSING position for members of both parties.

Show me where we are "destroying" our country.

THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY want more restrictions on gun ownership. All the polls show this. We are not going against the will of 'the people,' you are.

 

[martybegan]

As long as the pro-gun people continue to cling to this issue they way they are, and to threaten to fight over it, by force (all the firearms and ammunition they have collected), what you are doing is literally tearing the country apart and destroying it. It is despicable. The majority of Americans want more gun control. The majority of Americans want more gun control. You are destroying your own country with this stance you've taken. Sad and despicable.

Your side is the one trying to pass gun bans that go against the will of a majority of the people of this nation. IF the majority wanted more gun control, it would a simple matter to get it. The fact is the majority of people DO NOT want it, polls aside. Outside of metro areas gun control is a LOSING position for members of both parties.

Show me where we are "destroying" our country.

THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY want more restrictions on gun ownership. All the polls show this. We are not going against the will of 'the people,' you are.

Rights are not subject to the whim of the majority. (also, Polls, lol). The best you can get is that 92% people what "universal background checks" which falls under the poll catagory of "it sounds good So I will say yes even though I have no idea what it entails"

The only people pushing for new restrictions on guns are progressive politicans, and the machines that keep them in office. Look outside the major metros and you will find most people are just fine with the current gun laws we have, or even think the current ones are too restrictive.

The only place to pass a new gun ban was New York, in the dead of night without full review. It will be challenged in the courts, and alot of legislators from upstate will be losing thier jobs next election cycle.

 

[Esmeralda]

You have no idea if that is true, or not true. You think its true because it supports your agenda.

If they wanted people to have only one muzzle loading musket, they would have said, one muzzle loading musket. They said "arms" which they knew would become more advanced with time, as they had seen it happen in the past, from arqubuses to matchlocks, to flintlocks etc. etc.

They specifically restricted infringment on the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, not the STATES right, the PEOPLE's.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

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.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

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.

Your interpretaton is not supported by the language of the Constitution. The language of the constitution makes it clear that the bearing of arms is to be part of a well-regulated Militia. As well, no one is trying to 'infringe' on your right to have a gun; what is being proposed are some sane regulations in having them, sane and reasonable regulations that will make all of us safer.

Those of you who are clinging to this idea that there should be no regulations on the ownership of firearms are tearing the country apart, even threatening to destroy it. It's despicable and very, very sad.

What you call "sane regulations" is infringement. Also, the milita is called by the state, and what is expected is THE PEOPLE to show up, armed and ready to serve. Just because the states choose not to call up the unorganized milita does not remove the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

And your regulations will make law abiding person safer, because criminals will continue to ignore them. Some of your more idiotic regulations, like trigger locks and keeping a weapon unloaded in the home actually put people MORE at risk, just for obeying the law.

A "well regulated militia," not a bunch of folks just showing up with their guns. We have a well regulated militia: the National Guard. No one is taking away your right to bear arms; some sane regulations on who owns them and what they own is proposed. That is all. It is thoroughly reasonable, and to refuse to accept them goes against what the majority of citizens want.

 

[Esmeralda]

Your side is the one trying to pass gun bans that go against the will of a majority of the people of this nation. IF the majority wanted more gun control, it would a simple matter to get it. The fact is the majority of people DO NOT want it, polls aside. Outside of metro areas gun control is a LOSING position for members of both parties.

Show me where we are "destroying" our country.

THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY want more restrictions on gun ownership. All the polls show this. We are not going against the will of 'the people,' you are.

Rights are not subject to the whim of the majority. (also, Polls, lol). The best you can get is that 92% people what "universal background checks" which falls under the poll catagory of "it sounds good So I will say yes even though I have no idea what it entails"

The only people pushing for new restrictions on guns are progressive politicans, and the machines that keep them in office. Look outside the major metros and you will find most people are just fine with the current gun laws we have, or even think the current ones are too restrictive.

The only place to pass a new gun ban was New York, in the dead of night without full review. It will be challenged in the courts, and alot of legislators from upstate will be losing thier jobs next election cycle.

"The only people pushing for new restrictions on guns are progressive politicans, and the machines that keep them in office." LOL This very thread is about a group of women, mothers, who want more gun control. Not politicians. Not a political machine. You know, we are willing to be flexible. You aren't. What does that say about you?

 

[martybegan]

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

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.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

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.

Your interpretaton is not supported by the language of the Constitution. The language of the constitution makes it clear that the bearing of arms is to be part of a well-regulated Militia. As well, no one is trying to 'infringe' on your right to have a gun; what is being proposed are some sane regulations in having them, sane and reasonable regulations that will make all of us safer.

Those of you who are clinging to this idea that there should be no regulations on the ownership of firearms are tearing the country apart, even threatening to destroy it. It's despicable and very, very sad.

What you call "sane regulations" is infringement. Also, the milita is called by the state, and what is expected is THE PEOPLE to show up, armed and ready to serve. Just because the states choose not to call up the unorganized milita does not remove the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

And your regulations will make law abiding person safer, because criminals will continue to ignore them. Some of your more idiotic regulations, like trigger locks and keeping a weapon unloaded in the home actually put people MORE at risk, just for obeying the law.

A "well regulated militia," not a bunch of folks just showing up with their guns. We have a well regulated militia: the National Guard. No one is taking away your right to bear arms; some sane regulations on who owns them and what they own is proposed. That is all. It is thoroughly reasonable, and to refuse to accept them goes against what the majority of citizens want.

The national guard is the organized milita, not the unorganized milita, which is the citizens of the state. The national guard is also partially federal, and thus not the milita per se. This still does nothing to remove the fact that the right to arms is given to the PEOPLE not the MILITA.

You keep talking about "the majority." Again, rights are not subject to the majority. A majority of southerners earlier in the past century thought Jim Crow laws were just GREAT. That did not make the laws consitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As long as the pro-gun people continue to cling to this issue they way they are, and to threaten to fight over it, by force (all the firearms and ammunition they have collected), what you are doing is literally tearing the country apart and destroying it. It is despicable. The majority of Americans want more gun control. The majority of Americans want more gun control. You are destroying your own country with this stance you've taken. Sad and despicable.

Your appeal to emption proves you know you cannot back your claims/positions w/ anything substantive. Your capitulation is accepted.

I did not capitulate

The moment you reverted to an appeal to emotion/popularity and abandoned any attempt to substantively back your claims, you capitulated.
Outside of whining and crying, you have nothing to support your positions.

I appealed to reason

An appeal to reason requires substantive support for the positions you take.
You have supplied none, and you can supply none.

You may now tuck your tail and run.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You know, we are willing to be flexible.

No you aren't. You will not compromise at all.
You also have nothing to offer the pro-gun side, so you give them no reason to compromise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As long as the pro-gun people continue to cling to this issue they way they are, and to threaten to fight over it, by force (all the firearms and ammunition they have collected), what you are doing is literally tearing the country apart and destroying it. It is despicable. The majority of Americans want more gun control. The majority of Americans want more gun control. You are destroying your own country with this stance you've taken. Sad and despicable.

Your side is the one trying to pass gun bans that go against the will of a majority of the people of this nation. IF the majority wanted more gun control, it would a simple matter to get it. The fact is the majority of people DO NOT want it, polls aside. Outside of metro areas gun control is a LOSING position for members of both parties.
Show me where we are "destroying" our country.

THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY want more restrictions on gun ownership.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to popularity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one is taking away your right to bear arms;

Everything you want is an infringement upon the right, as previously noted.
The right shall not be infringed.

 

[Circe]

This very thread is about a group of women, mothers, who want more gun control. Not politicians. Not a political machine. You know, we are willing to be flexible. You aren't. What does that say about you?

What it says to me is that they are going to lose a lot more than they think they are.

The gun stockpilers have dug in; they have sided with the mass murderers, which is an incredibly impolitic thing to have done, but we see it constantly on these forums. It's a remarkably unattractive posture to have taken. They should have found some way to be on the side of the good guys! But they didn't; they keep saying that a few mass murders of first graders here and there, hey, no biggie.

They will be LUCKY if all that gets banned is assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. This level of public disgust in Australia and Britain resulted in a total ban on ALL firearms. 100%. If there's a 35-little-kid kill with the usual AR-15 in April and 41 people shot at a high school graduation in June, there could be big changes happen to gun ownership in these United States. The other side is not defending gun ownership: they fulminate, they threaten, they insult. But that's not going to work if these killings go on.

I do not think they realize how much trouble they are in.

 

[martybegan]

This very thread is about a group of women, mothers, who want more gun control. Not politicians. Not a political machine. You know, we are willing to be flexible. You aren't. What does that say about you?

What it says to me is that they are going to lose a lot more than they think they are.

The gun stockpilers have dug in; they have sided with the mass murderers, which is an incredibly impolitic thing to have done, but we see it constantly on these forums. It's a remarkably unattractive posture to have taken. They should have found some way to be on the side of the good guys! But they didn't; they keep saying that a few mass murders of first graders here and there, hey, no biggie.

They will be LUCKY if all that gets banned is assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. This level of public disgust in Australia and Britain resulted in a total ban on ALL firearms. 100%. If there's a 35-little-kid kill with the usual AR-15 in April and 41 people shot at a high school graduation in June, there could be big changes happen to gun ownership in these United States. The other side is not defending gun ownership: they fulminate, they threaten, they insult. But that's not going to work if these killings go on.

I do not think they realize how much trouble they are in.

So basically you are hoping for a few more massacres to push your political agenda?

And equating a law abiding owner of a semi automatic rifle with some massacre nutter as well as vowing to ban every gun they own is not "fulminating, threatening, and insulting"?

 

[M14 Shooter]

This very thread is about a group of women, mothers, who want more gun control. Not politicians. Not a political machine. You know, we are willing to be flexible. You aren't. What does that say about you?

What it says to me is that they are going to lose a lot more than they think they are.

The gun stockpilers have dug in; they have sided with the mass murderers, which is an incredibly impolitic thing to have done, but we see it constantly on these forums. It's a remarkably unattractive posture to have taken. They should have found some way to be on the side of the good guys! But they didn't; they keep saying that a few mass murders of first graders here and there, hey, no biggie.

They will be LUCKY if all that gets banned is assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. This level of public disgust in Australia and Britain resulted in a total ban on ALL firearms. 100%. If there's a 35-little-kid kill with the usual AR-15 in April and 41 people shot at a high school graduation in June, there could be big changes happen to gun ownership in these United States. The other side is not defending gun ownership: they fulminate, they threaten, they insult. But that's not going to work if these killings go on.

I do not think they realize how much trouble they are in.

More slander. Reported.

 

[Circe]

This very thread is about a group of women, mothers, who want more gun control. Not politicians. Not a political machine. You know, we are willing to be flexible. You aren't. What does that say about you?

What it says to me is that they are going to lose a lot more than they think they are.

The gun stockpilers have dug in; they have sided with the mass murderers, which is an incredibly impolitic thing to have done, but we see it constantly on these forums. It's a remarkably unattractive posture to have taken. They should have found some way to be on the side of the good guys! But they didn't; they keep saying that a few mass murders of first graders here and there, hey, no biggie.

They will be LUCKY if all that gets banned is assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. This level of public disgust in Australia and Britain resulted in a total ban on ALL firearms. 100%. If there's a 35-little-kid kill with the usual AR-15 in April and 41 people shot at a high school graduation in June, there could be big changes happen to gun ownership in these United States. The other side is not defending gun ownership: they fulminate, they threaten, they insult. But that's not going to work if these killings go on.

I do not think they realize how much trouble they are in.

So basically you are hoping for a few more massacres to push your political agenda?

And equating a law abiding owner of a semi automatic rifle with some massacre nutter as well as vowing to ban every gun they own is not "fulminating, threatening, and insulting"?

Not at all, obviously. I am trying to figure out what is going on. And it has been VERY interesting to analyze this situation. You folks are standing on a tipping point, and I don't think you realize it.

This stance most of you stockpilers have adopted is that there is nothing going on! There's no problem! We look at this posture you have adopted and our mouths just fall open. Of COURSE there's a problem!!! Migod!!

You know what this is like? This is exactly what happened with the torture fans. Bush and Rumsfeld somehow had the thought that turning Americans into torturers was a GOOD idea. And so a lot of rightwingers fearlessly lined up behind them and started cheering, "Hooray for torture! Hooray for torturers!"

Quite a lot of sound and fury later, guess what actually happened? Americans turned into DEMOCRATS. And elected OBAMA. Or if we didn't do that a lot of us left the Republican Party in total disgust and became Independents, as I did, and wouldn't even vote for Republicans anymore. Because torture is a bridge too far for decent Americans, you know?

Same deal with people stockpiling assault rifles that end up killing lots and lots of little kids and shoppers and movie goers all at once. Now THAT is supposed to be the new bright idea for rightwingers, like the torture games.

No. Just.......no. I'm not cooperating with that.

 

[martybegan]

What it says to me is that they are going to lose a lot more than they think they are.

The gun stockpilers have dug in; they have sided with the mass murderers, which is an incredibly impolitic thing to have done, but we see it constantly on these forums. It's a remarkably unattractive posture to have taken. They should have found some way to be on the side of the good guys! But they didn't; they keep saying that a few mass murders of first graders here and there, hey, no biggie.

They will be LUCKY if all that gets banned is assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. This level of public disgust in Australia and Britain resulted in a total ban on ALL firearms. 100%. If there's a 35-little-kid kill with the usual AR-15 in April and 41 people shot at a high school graduation in June, there could be big changes happen to gun ownership in these United States. The other side is not defending gun ownership: they fulminate, they threaten, they insult. But that's not going to work if these killings go on.

I do not think they realize how much trouble they are in.

So basically you are hoping for a few more massacres to push your political agenda?

And equating a law abiding owner of a semi automatic rifle with some massacre nutter as well as vowing to ban every gun they own is not "fulminating, threatening, and insulting"?

Not at all, obviously. I am trying to figure out what is going on. And it has been VERY interesting to analyze this situation. You folks are standing on a tipping point, and I don't think you realize it.

This stance most of you stockpilers have adopted is that there is nothing going on! There's no problem! We look at this posture you have adopted and our mouths just fall open. Of COURSE there's a problem!!! Migod!!

You know what this is like? This is exactly what happened with the torture fans. Bush and Rumsfeld somehow had the thought that turning Americans into torturers was a GOOD idea. And so a lot of rightwingers fearlessly lined up behind them and started cheering, "Hooray for torture! Hooray for torturers!"

Quite a lot of sound and fury later, guess what actually happened? Americans turned into DEMOCRATS. And elected OBAMA. Or if we didn't do that a lot of us left the Republican Party in total disgust and became Independents, as I did, and wouldn't even vote for Republicans anymore. Because torture is a bridge too far for decent Americans, you know?

Same deal with people stockpiling assault rifles that end up killing lots and lots of little kids and shoppers and movie goers all at once. Now THAT is supposed to be the new bright idea for rightwingers, like the torture games.

No. Just.......no. I'm not cooperating with that.

You do know I don't even own a gun, right? What I support is my ability to buy firearms such as semi automatic rifles, and handguns, and shotguns, scary accessories or not.

You also just rambled from gun control into "torture" (polices btw, Obama continues, I guess its OK when a democrat does it)

Also considering one can only really fire one semi automatic rifle at a time, what the hell does "stockpiling" have to do with this anyway?

 

[Circe]

You do know I don't even own a gun, right? What I support is my ability to buy firearms such as semi automatic rifles, and handguns, and shotguns, scary accessories or not.

You also just rambled from gun control into "torture" (polices btw, Obama continues, I guess its OK when a democrat does it)

Also considering one can only really fire one semi automatic rifle at a time, what the hell does "stockpiling" have to do with this anyway?

I don't know what you own or don't own.

Well, if you want to call this conversation "rambling" on my part, I guess it's over.

I was pretty interested in it, myself, but perhaps you'd rather talk to other people now.