Why the liberals are lossing the debate about guns.

[Harry Dresden]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.

See the difference??

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

if he is blind you can....or has a seizure problem....

 

[bendog]

Actually, we have a right to freely travel between states, and like ownership of firearms, that is subject to some regulation. People under court order supervision are denied that right, unless there is some notification and ok by authorities. Parents cannot take children out of state if that frustrates a divorce/custody decree, because that denies the other parent his/her right to raise a child.

But a right per se to drive? I don't see that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Two reasons:
- They know nothing abot guns
- Their arguments/positions are based on lies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

Did you seriously just claim that driving is a "right"?

He did.
But he's a mindless troll, so there's no reason to take him seriously.

 

[kwc57]

Here's a clue dumbass. If the military works hand in hand with an oppressive govt to take away the God given, and Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights of the citizens, they become traitors to the nation and thier oaths and they are no longer OUR military, they become THEIR military and every Patriot in this nation would be honor and duty bound to fight against them even if it meant dying.

I'm sorry, jt. I understand, now. In this republic, the military is made up of heros who deserve our support...unless the Republic tells them to do something that you don't agree with, in which case, they are traitors, and deserve to be shot in the streets in the revolution.

Where you ever actually in the Military son? Doubtful or you would know the oath that we take. We don't swear an oath to uphold the government, the Republic, the country or the current admin. We take an oath uphold the US Constitution.


I, STATE YOUR NAME, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God

I underlined that one section for a reason. That section is in refrence to obeying the orders of the President and Officers above you. See UCMJ starting with article 90 I believe. It is refrence to following ONLY legal orders and any order that denies citizens of their Constitutional rights are by defintion illegal and if they obey them they are traitors.

Don't waste your breath. I had this same argument with a liberal I know who served in both the Navy and Marines. He is convinced.....even after my supplying him with the oath he took as an officer.......that he pledged allegiance to the President who signed his commissioning papers and not the constitution. He is a math professor now and one of the most educated morons I know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gun fanatic logic:

1. Obama wants to take our guns
2. In order to do this, he will have to rely on the 800,000, to 900,000 law enforcement professionls in this country
3. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country
4. Therefore, Obama will have to use the military to take away our guns
5. As a conservative, I loudly applaud our heros in the military, and support our troops in all that they do
6. Therefore, I support the military, who are the ones who will be assigned the task of taking away our guns.
7. Nobody, including the military, had better take way my guns, because I will fight for my 2nd ammendment rights by using my guns against the military, which, as a patriot, I value and respect above all else. God bless our troops.

Strawman much?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yea, it's funny how so few understand what it would actually entail to take away those 300 million guns. It ain't happening. What I find ridiculous is that so many are against simple mandatory background checks for those purchasing guns.

If you had to have a background check before you could exercise any of your other rights, you'd scream "prior restraint!" and throw a tantrum.

The entire notion of having a law to prevent someone from breaking the law is inane, at best.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips

Responsible ammo clips?

and responsible use by those that buy them.

Given how few 'assault weapons' are used to commit crime, we already have that.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

Because, in a free country, we do not require licenses to exercise our rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gun fanatic logic:

1. Obama wants to take our guns
2. In order to do this, he will have to rely on the 800,000, to 900,000 law enforcement professionls in this country
3. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country
4. Therefore, Obama will have to use the military to take away our guns
5. As a conservative, I loudly applaud our heros in the military, and support our troops in all that they do
6. Therefore, I support the military, who are the ones who will be assigned the task of taking away our guns.
7. Nobody, including the military, had better take way my guns, because I will fight for my 2nd ammendment rights by using my guns against the military, which, as a patriot, I value and respect above all else. God bless our troops.

You should huff less oven cleaner.

Really.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They aren't losing the debate.

That must be why the assault weapon ban flew through both houses and is now law....

Oh wait, your war on civil rights isn't actually going as well as you hoped....

 

[Uncensored2008]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

You've never even held a firearm, sparky.

What the **** is a "responsible ammo clip?" You don't even know what a "clip" is or where it's used. Tell us EXACTLY how a "clip" can be responsible? Does it study hard and not go to parties?

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

I haven't had anyone check me in about 16 years. I send in a check every 4 years.

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

Since you have never shot a gun in your life, you have no idea what would or would not work. Further, your attempt to frame ownership for only "getting rid of intruders" might seem clever on the hate sites like "Common Dreams," but is irrelevant to the civil rights you seek to crush.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

How the **** would you know? You wouldn't know which end of the rifle to point at the target.

You don't even know what a ******* clip is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

The only place the government has any control of motor vehicles is on public roads and highways.

I'll agree to not shoot on public roads, okay?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Anyone remotely familiar with guns does not call them "clips" unless referring to an M1 Garand. Perhaps you shoveled shit instead.

The Mosin Nagant also uses a clip.

And you have not answered the question as to how current legislation would alter the reality of tens of millions of existing hi cap mags already in circulation.

The attack on civil liberty isn't about reality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What I find interesting is that none of you have mentioned the NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/u...is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) showing that the rate of gun ownership is DOWN.
It would seem that many people have decided that they don't want/need guns in their homes. So, it would appear that the heading of this thread is somewhat fallacious.

The NY Times has zero credibility. They are just the propaganda wing of the democratic party. What they print is intended only to further the aims of the party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, we have a right to freely travel between states, and like ownership of firearms, that is subject to some regulation. People under court order supervision are denied that right, unless there is some notification and ok by authorities. Parents cannot take children out of state if that frustrates a divorce/custody decree, because that denies the other parent his/her right to raise a child.

But a right per se to drive? I don't see that.

Each of those requires specific judicial review. This is distinctly different than a law prohibiting ANYONE from taking more than one child (limit on capacity) across state lines or some of the other infringements of civil rights that the left demands.

And we already have such limits with guns. Felons are prohibited - and many judicial actions may limit said rights. BUT only after the defendant has their day in court.

 

[bendog]

Actually, we have a right to freely travel between states, and like ownership of firearms, that is subject to some regulation. People under court order supervision are denied that right, unless there is some notification and ok by authorities. Parents cannot take children out of state if that frustrates a divorce/custody decree, because that denies the other parent his/her right to raise a child.

But a right per se to drive? I don't see that.

Each of those requires specific judicial review. This is distinctly different than a law prohibiting ANYONE from taking more than one child (limit on capacity) across state lines or some of the other infringements of civil rights that the left demands.

And we already have such limits with guns. Felons are prohibited - and many judicial actions may limit said rights. BUT only after the defendant has their day in court.

Well, I'm not sure you can draw such close analogies, though of course you, or I, could devise absurd ones. Still, background checks are aimed at keeping guns away from felons, as well as persons with domestic restraining orders or certian mental health issues. There's no reason to question constitutionality of that.

We have gas taxes to build roads. There's no doubt we can tax purchase of guns and ammunition to fund firearm saftey and criminal justice programs.

We have safety regulations for cars, trains and planes. The govt cannot force us to keep all hand guns unloaded in our homes, but there's no absolute prohibition on safety measures that still allow us to defend ourselves, and conceivabley that can be magazine capacity limits. I believe the avg self defense use is less than three rounds fired. No one can make a case for 20 or 30.

Heller found ownership could be limited to types of firearms typically used for self-defense, or I presume if a state permits it, hunting. I assume the govt could prohibit manufacturing a car that can go 200 mph.

I'm not suggesting any of those regulations are absolutely great ideas. But regulations are not unconstitutional. Nor is their any requirement that they be absolutely 100% effective.

Gun ownership is declining, esp with kids who don't embrace hunting and shooting. There are going to be more Columbine/Sandy Hooks. This issue is going to go like gay marriage. The NRA should be looking at consensus that also protects the right of ownership rather than seeking to maximize sales by Ruger and Smith and Wesson and high capacity rifle mftrs.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, we have a right to freely travel between states, and like ownership of firearms, that is subject to some regulation. People under court order supervision are denied that right, unless there is some notification and ok by authorities. Parents cannot take children out of state if that frustrates a divorce/custody decree, because that denies the other parent his/her right to raise a child.

But a right per se to drive? I don't see that.

Each of those requires specific judicial review. This is distinctly different than a law prohibiting ANYONE from taking more than one child (limit on capacity) across state lines or some of the other infringements of civil rights that the left demands.

And we already have such limits with guns. Felons are prohibited - and many judicial actions may limit said rights. BUT only after the defendant has their day in court.

Well, I'm not sure you can draw such close analogies, though of course you, or I, could devise absurd ones. Still, background checks are aimed at keeping guns away from felons, as well as persons with domestic restraining orders or certian mental health issues. There's no reason to question constitutionality of that.

There is - it is a form of prior restraint, where you cannot exercise your right until the state determines that your proposed exercise does not violate the law.

We have gas taxes to build roads. There's no doubt we can tax purchase of guns and ammunition to fund firearm saftey and criminal justice programs.

Any taxation that restricts the exercise of the right tkeep and bear arms is every bit as unconstitutional as a poll tax or a tax on people going to church, regardless of purpose.

We have safety regulations for cars, trains and planes. The govt cannot force us to keep all hand guns unloaded in our homes, but there's no absolute prohibition on safety measures that still allow us to defend ourselves, and conceivabley that can be magazine capacity limits. I believe the avg self defense use is less than three rounds fired. No one can make a case for 20 or 30.

Except that these magazines are standard equipment for the very best examples of the sort of weapons protected by the 2nd, and so to ban thse magazines infringes the right every bit as much as banning the guns themselves.

Heller found ownership could be limited to types of firearms typically used for self-defense...

No...
Heller found that the right protected firearms suitable for traditionally lawful purposes[, such as self-defense within the home. "Self defense in the home" is an example of these traditionally lawfull uses; its inclusion does not exclude other such legal purposes.

But regulations are not unconstitutional.

Clearly, some are.

Nor is their any requirement that they be absolutely 100% effective.

If restriction is ineffective, there's no way to argue that there's even a rational basis for it, much less that it is the least restrictive means through which to affect a compelling state interest.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, I'm not sure you can draw such close analogies, though of course you, or I, could devise absurd ones.

It wasn't my analogy, it was yours. And it works in this case because the left is claiming that limiting the scope or capacity of civil rights is no an infringement. Thus the logic that limiting the capacity of people to a single child somehow doesn't violate their right to interstate travel.

Still, background checks are aimed at keeping guns away from felons, as well as persons with domestic restraining orders or certian mental health issues. There's no reason to question constitutionality of that.

We have been doing background checks for 30 years. Connecticut has some of the most stringent laws in the nation, which did nothing to stop or even slow the determined killer.

We have gas taxes to build roads. There's no doubt we can tax purchase of guns and ammunition to fund firearm saftey and criminal justice programs.

Questionable. Taxing speech and voting have been deemed unconstitutional. The taxing of exercise of civil rights. In legal terms, there is no difference between taxing ammunition and a poll tax. Both are intended to infringe the exercise of constitutional rights. Granted, another Elena Kagan on the court and we have no civil rights - but with 5 constitutionalists, I can't see your poll tax passing muster.

We have safety regulations for cars, trains and planes. The govt cannot force us to keep all hand guns unloaded in our homes, but there's no absolute prohibition on safety measures that still allow us to defend ourselves, and conceivabley that can be magazine capacity limits. I believe the avg self defense use is less than three rounds fired. No one can make a case for 20 or 30.

Cars are no specified in the constitution as to not be infringed. The idiocy of concentrating of capacity is a ruse to stir up the low intellect that defines the left. 3 10 round magazines are just as effective as a 30 round. The intent of Feinstein and the Obama left is to crush civil rights. The idea that limiting magazine size will stop the insane is as stupid as the idea that limiting cars to a 3 gallon tank will stop drunk driving.

Heller found ownership could be limited to types of firearms typically used for self-defense, or I presume if a state permits it, hunting. I assume the govt could prohibit manufacturing a car that can go 200 mph.

It amazes me that the hate sites have taken to mis-quoting Heller. It's as if Soros said "Damn, we got creamed in our war against civil rights by Heller, I know, let's pretend it was a win..."

Heller is to the gun grabbers as Brown V. BoE is to the KKK - you lost the entire pot.

{ (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. }

Utterly destroys your position.

The court clarified the snippet that you posted from the hate sites;

{ The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. }

In no way does Heller support the goal of the left to reduce or remove civil rights - it does exactly the opposite. In the attempt to restrict rights, you have misstated what the court ruled. In fact, you may NOT restrict weapons that are "common use for lawful purposes." The AR15 style with a 30 round magazine is the single most common firearm in the nation. On it's face, the attempts by the anti-liberty left are unconstitutional.

I'm not suggesting any of those regulations are absolutely great ideas. But regulations are not unconstitutional. Nor is their any requirement that they be absolutely 100% effective.

Heller ruled them unconstitutional.

Gun ownership is declining, esp with kids who don't embrace hunting and shooting.

False.

That the propaganda arm of the Khmer Rouge democrats makes the claim in no way supports the thesis. Gun ownership is at an all time high, and increasing at record levels, as the nation gears up for civil war (that I pray will not occur.)

The FBI substantiates that gun ownership is at record highs.

Record number of Americans buying guns, new FBI figures show | World news | guardian.co.uk

There are going to be more Columbine/Sandy Hooks. This issue is going to go like gay marriage. The NRA should be looking at consensus that also protects the right of ownership rather than seeking to maximize sales by Ruger and Smith and Wesson and high capacity rifle mftrs.

Humans kill - it is a sad fact of our species. If you were to win your war against civil rights, then the next Adam Lanzing will just use a gasoline bomb or rig the propane tank like the Columbine kids were going to do.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The issue was a mega loser from that start, their attack on the 2nd Amendment made me undergo a dramatic ideological shift. I should thank them though, it wouldn't have happened without them.

From his very same thread:

First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I'm not black.

Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I'm not gay.

Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I'm an atheist.

When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I'm a legal immigrant.

Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.

Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I'd done nothing wrong. So when they come to put you on the train, you can ******* choke and die.

~~~

Or you can commit seppuku with a chainsaw. I really don't care anymore. This is the end of my support for any liberal cause, because liberals have become anything but.

AMFs.

UPDATE: A friend of mine observes that he voted for legalized pot and gay marriage in his state, and now those same activists, with time and resources freed up, are attacking his right to keep and bear arms.

No, it really doesn't make sense to help them, they will only stab you in the back. They're not "liberals" and they don't want "liberty." They want liberty for them, but not for you.

 

[t_polkow]

Liberals are losing the argument because they don't understand people's desire to arm themselves for defense in a world of modern dangers. There are a lot of similarities between the war on guns and the war on drugs. People will get them regardless of how much regulation is involved.

Well you are correct...liberals think they pass a law and it works perfectly....

Perhaps the most strange is that we rarely talk about the fact that for many "men" a gun is a penis extension This manifests itself in many ways. But the entire irrational need to have a gun in the U.S. is, in large part, tied to the insecurity and uneasiness that many men have with their own masculinity. And so they need images and materials that help to bring masculinity to them. And guns are one major way they think to do this. With this illogical thinking, a gun is, in their mind, a sure prescription to virility. They show some distinct psychological irrationality in equating guns to the physical, the sexual, and to virility.

When we deal with gun-nuts in America, we are forced to take part in this thinking. And we are hesitant to point out the sexual inadequacies and mistaken masculine prowess that guns try to soothe. We are forced, by the very nature of the intimate ramifications of this gun mentality, to be civilized and not bring it up. Therefore we surrender some of the best points of argument to the people who give mistaken identity to what guns are, what they are not, and what they represent.