Guns

CNN as a source? Really? You might as well use Mother Jones. Here is a valid source.

Read it and weep!

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-sho...ool-in-detroit Originally Posted by dante0322

So what's your point? As usual, you bounce from point to point and no one can follow what you are trying to say.

Unfortunately, YOU are a product of your environment.

Honestly, all the "Nobody's going to take my gun away and I'm protecting us from tyranny arguments" is tiresome. Nobody is talking about banning guns, but that's immediately where lots of pro gun people run to. Hard to have a dialogue with that attitude.

I'm done with this thread, but I'll leave with this.

"These are the weapons of cowards," Batman, holding rifle, The Dark Knight Returns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKz...ature=youtu.be

I believe this is relevant and thoughtful


Team Sergeant 01-29-2013 11:14
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

29 Jan 2013
Page 1 of 3

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “...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.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle - it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” - it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

Team Sergeant 01-29-2013 11:15
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 2 of 3

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “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.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”
“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: "…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States' retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.


Team Sergeant 01-29-2013 11:16
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013
Page 3 of 3


So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “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”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful "Eddie the Eagle" program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be "sold" as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

Team Sergeant 01-29-2013 11:20
1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter

1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter

We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking "Green Beret".

The letter stands for itself.

Read it and send it everywhere.

Team Sergeant

@Odikar - On Point!

@Odikar - On Point! Originally Posted by dante0322

The post is thoughtful but not very relevant because it basically calls for more guns everywhere and blame it on video games and commit more "crazy people" is not very "on point", it is the NRA's standard line for propaganda for the gun industry. We have 300 Million guns now, will 400 Million, 600 Million or maybe a Billion guns finally end the gun violence? I really doubt it. All these people and the NRA are arguing for is to be left alone to manfacture/traffic/enjoy their guns and basically who cares about the violence. BTW, I do own guns and like and enjoy them, but I sure don't "love" my guns. IMHO, anyone who loves an inanimate object that is designed and used for killing has something broken inside or is clueless.

The Constitution is our document and in a historical context it is an amazing and great document, but just from a Constitutional standpoint it is far from "the single greatest document in the history of mankind". The Declaration of Independence is far greater and the Constitution stepped back from the ideals of the Declaration to allow slavery, misogyny, paternalism and many other societal ills that did not live up to the lofty goals of the Declaration. As far as the 2nd Amendment goes when was the last time that private arms in service to a militia (yes, the 2nd Amendment does mention militias explicitly) were used for "providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression."? In fact, private arms were used for purposes of insurrection in the Civil War so there are probably more examples of the reverse since the War of Independence than what the 2nd Amendment was intended for.

Fact it that a whole hell of a lot of gun violence and deaths are committed by formerly "good guys" who become the NRA's and 2nd Amendment's "bad guys" at that moment. Just like assault weapons and rifles (not assault rifles) a very small percentage of these acts are committed by crazy people. In fact mentally ill people are several times more likely to be the victims of gun violence than the perpetrators.

About the only things this diatribe did get right is that this is a few facts on assault weapons vs. assault rifles and that this is complex societal problem or set of problems. In fact there are probably at least three or four significant problems:

1. Horrific Gun Massacres (what finally brought the issue to the fore)
2. Ongoing Gun deaths/violence (what kills the most)
3. Cultures that glorify gun violence and other violence
4. Extremely easy access to guns by unstable or mentally ill people.

No single law will solve all the above. No law, especially if we grandfather in all the 300 Million or so existing guns, of any sort (short of confiscation of all the guns we can find which isn't too practical) is going to have a large impact immediately. I do honestly believe that far too much easy access to guns is responsible for a fair amount of these deaths and the violence so just getting everybody to lock up their guns and ammo could probably significantly cut the deaths down. An assault weapons ban will probably have some small impact on #1 and less on #2 (since it is mostly due to pistols) and the same with banning large capacity magazines. Universal background check will start to have some impact on #2 and #4 but will take a while to start to have a large impact if it ever does (that would depend on who effectively it is done). Background checks for ammo could also eventually have a significant impact since it not only takes a "bad guy" and a gun to kill someone, but a bullet too. In fact, in some ways I kinda like Chris Rock's idea of bullet control with a $5000 bullet so no innocent bystanders get hit. I think whatever ideas we try will be enhanced by a coordinated gun, magazine and ammo buy back program. Finally, restrictions in laws that limit our ability to buy unwanted guns back or gather and analyze data about the problem as a public health issue are just plain stupid and evil (yes evil because it limits our ability to understand a problem that results in death so it won't limit profits).

Honestly, I don't want to infringe on law abiding citizen's rights to use guns to hunt, target practice or defend themselves but I know that short of confiscating all the guns we are not too likely to significantly reduce the gun deaths. I also know we must now attempt to do something and the smarter we do it the better. Some rights, perceived or real, may be limited, but rights are never unlimited and guns right now are infringing on the most basic of all rights, the right to life. How can anyone say they believe in a "right to life" when they won't even attempt to find a way to reduce gun deaths (I guess they believe that guns play absolutely no part in any gun deaths, but how self serving is that?). I have mixed feelings about confiscating guns because I have some sentimental attachment to the guns I inherited from family members, but I know I never felt safer than when I lived in London in the 80's where there were few if any guns and even the police didn't carry them. I don't know what the solution is or the solutions are, but they won't be easy and likely won't be intuitive.

Let me leave you all with one other thought. In England and Europe, Tylenol is sold under the name Paracetamol, and that’s used for huge numbers of overdoses, which often aren’t lethal but leave the people with kidney damage and often of dialysis for the rest of their lives. Now in drugstores you can't find anything larger than a container of maybe twenty or twenty-five pills in those foil sheets where you have to punch then out one at a time. They started doing that about five years ago, and restrict the numbers and put them in plastic blisters. If you are determined to overdose on Tylenol all you have to do is go to six drugstores, buy packets in each of them, tear them all out and take them, right? It has, however, significantly cut down the number of attempts not to mention overdose deaths and the serious overdoses that result in kidney damage. Now, very few people died of an acetaminophen overdose and they didn't outlaw acetaminophen. Maybe we can find something similar for gun violence? I sure hope so, but I know it is immoral not to try.

@austxjr - it is apparent that you either did not read odikir's post or have comprehension issues.

In addition, the majority of people who have committed murder with firearms are liberals!

Jared Loughrer - shot member of congress - liberal
Chris Doner - currently a manhunt is underway for this former cop who has killed in CA - liberal
Floyd Carkins - attempts to shoot and kill christians - liberal.

Gun Control works so well that Chicago has the highest murder rates and the toughest gun control laws.

The purpose of the second Amendment was to ensure that citizens of this country right to bears arms would NOT be infringed. During the colonization of this country the British attempted to disarm the colonials.

http://www.backwoodshome.com/article...eira119lw.html

As it is obvious that you are an Obama supporter so it would conclude that you are ok with Obama providing due process to terrorists but killing American's without due process.

Your hypothesis is flawed. No matter how much gun control you have - it will not stop criminals only law abiding citizens.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

More facts
http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/0...wisted-outcome

Your hypothesis "Some rights, perceived or real, may be limited, but rights are never unlimited and guns right now are infringing on the most basic of all rights, the right to life." is flawed - you are making it seem that gun crimes have gone up when in fact they have gone down. You CANNOT provide any factual data to support that it has.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/gu...gun-ownership/

If you want to resolve the Gun Issues first you need to get rid of OBAMA - he needs to not be President anymore (thank God he can't run again!). Dr. Carson is more fit to hold the office than Obama! Then you need to eliminate gun free zones!

The problem is Gun Free Zones - PERIOD!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ZEbyDee8A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwrgvqlc8DA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPCmefD7Lio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaQsbdXQuZI

[QUOTE=dante0322;1052331252The problem is Gun Free Zones - PERIOD!
[/QUOTE]

You mean like fort hood?

In addition, the majority of people who have committed murder with firearms are liberals! Originally Posted by dante0322

Just that statment alone when there are thousands of gun homicides each year shows clearly that you have an agenda and there is no point paying much attention to you.

The purpose of the second Amendment was to ensure that citizens of this country right to bears arms would NOT be infringed. During the colonization of this country the British attempted to disarm the colonials. Originally Posted by dante0322

So you say, but you must be much smarter than the lawyers and scholars who have been debating it's rather fuzzy meaning for a couple hundred years. Riddle me this, why did they mention militia in the beginning of the amendment if you are so brilliant?

As it is obvious that you are an Obama supporter so it would conclude that you are ok with Obama providing due process to terrorists but killing American's without due process. Originally Posted by dante0322

Assume makes and ass out of you an me. You mostly.

Your hypothesis "Some rights, perceived or real, may be limited, but rights are never unlimited and guns right now are infringing on the most basic of all rights, the right to life." is flawed Originally Posted by dante0322

Your comprehension is flawed. Free speech is limited... you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. The 2nd Amendment is already limited as you can't own "arms" like fully automatic weapons or very large caliber weapons, artilliery, missles, shoulder held anti-aircraft weapons or nukes. Even the right to life is limited as the state executes people and others have the right to defend themselves with deadly force if they feel their life is threatened. All rights are limited when they are extended to the point that they infringe on someone else's right. Get a clue.

Try and show you aren't an idiot and name a right that doesn't have some limitation.

Our overall rates of violence are similar to Australia, Canada and Western Europe. Where the U.S. stands out is in the homicide rate. "That's a weapon effect. It's not clear that guns cause violence, but it's absolutely clear that they change the outcome,"

Yes, the rate of gun murder is at its lowest point in 30 years. 3.6 per 100,000 people in 2010. The high point was 7 in the early 90's. Non-fatal gun injuries from assaults were up last year for the third straight year, and that rate is the highest since 2008.

The plain fact is that all crime has been going down for the last 20 years and almost no one has a very good explanation except recently I saw an interesting and persuasive article on Mother Jones that linked crime to tetra-ethyl lead. It made good sense as we know the terrible effects of lead on the brain. It showed correlation and didn't conclusively prove causation, but was thought provoking. More research needs to be done on that front.

Bottom line is we still have the highest homicide rate of all the advanced countries and gun suicides are up. Still want to do nothing about it because you love your guns dante?

Austxjr,

wherever Dante is from, his village is missing its idiot. This is the second discussion in which I remember Dante providing input (discussion on George Zimmerman being the other one) and he has been remarkably consistent in both. Liberals are to blame for everything negative and more guns on the street will reduce crime to zero.

@SpeedRacerXXX - The King of IDIOTS! Go to school. Get an education and learn how to read and improve your comprehension skills..

Legislating this problem WILL NOT solve it as it has been attempted by Feinstein and has been PROVEN NOT TO WORK. It has been proven that Gun Free Zones don't work!

So you either
1) Can't read
2) Have no common sense
3) Don't give a shit and want to just remove all guns
4) Are a liberal which means logic, reasoning, common sense do not exist to you.
5) All of the above.

I choose number 5. Sux getting your ass handed to you.

And YES - Liberals are the problem.

And with regards to Zimmerman - he was in his right to shoot that potential gang banger / drug dealer.

History Lesson on Gun Control!
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/0...-we-need-guns/

Austxjr,

wherever Dante is from, his village is missing its idiot. This is the second discussion in which I remember Dante providing input (discussion on George Zimmerman being the other one) and he has been remarkably consistent in both. Liberals are to blame for everything negative and more guns on the street will reduce crime to zero. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

@AusTxJr - Time to be schooled!

Your statement - Just that statment alone when there are thousands of gun homicides each year shows clearly that you have an agenda and there is no point paying much attention to you.

But yet you do!

Your statement - So you say, but you must be much smarter than the lawyers and scholars who have been debating it's rather fuzzy meaning for a couple hundred years. Riddle me this, why did they mention militia in the beginning of the amendment if you are so brilliant?

Incorrect! It is not FUZZY at all. Your response is liberal bullshit!

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. - Hmm some scholars already did. See what happens when you read!

The militia statement is called a prefactory clause. And remember it was written by our founding fathers who were Anti-Federalists. If you did any reading or research you would know, as everyone else with a brain knows, that they were concerned that the federal government would disarm the people.

Your statement - Assume makes and ass out of you an me. You mostly.

I did not use the word assume so your the ass. And I know for sure your the ass because you voted for a communist!

And the next part is sooooo perfect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dante0322
Your hypothesis "Some rights, perceived or real, may be limited, but rights are never unlimited and guns right now are infringing on the most basic of all rights, the right to life." is flawed

Your comprehension is flawed. Free speech is limited..


You SELECTIVELY used a portion of what I said. Typical liberal bullshit. Just like NBC edited George Zimmerman's 911 phone call you selectively used a portion to try to make your straw man's point and your response does NOT respond to my statement.

And I know for sure that you did not read any of the references that I posted as they all debunk your point of view along with SpeedRacerXXX.

1994 Assault ban did not work
http://ivn.us/2012/07/23/doj-study-f...ns-ban-worked/

Gun Free Zones are the issue - that is why the Auror Colorado theater was picked
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...-free-zone.htm

I think you and SpeedRacerXXX should both move to Cuba or Venezuela. You will both be happy with their laws and oppression!

CLASS IS OVER!

Now if this subject doesn't get the juices flowing nothing will.

I blame Bush.

@SpeedRacerXXX - The King of IDIOTS! Go to school. Get an education and learn how to read and improve your comprehension skills..

Legislating this problem WILL NOT solve it as it has been attempted by Feinstein and has been PROVEN NOT TO WORK. It has been proven that Gun Free Zones don't work!

So you either
1) Can't read
2) Have no common sense
3) Don't give a shit and want to just remove all guns
4) Are a liberal which means logic, reasoning, common sense do not exist to you.
5) All of the above.

I choose number 5. Sux getting your ass handed to you.

And YES - Liberals are the problem.

And with regards to Zimmerman - he was in his right to shoot that potential gang banger / drug dealer.

History Lesson on Gun Control!
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/0...-we-need-guns/ Originally Posted by dante0322

Thank you. You just proved my point.

Let's dial the personal vitriol back and stick to your own reasons and rationale for your POV. It has nothing to do with villages, or missing idiots, etc. If you can't debate like civil human beings, I am gojng to issue you each assualt rifles with several 30 round magazines, turn you loose in an enclosure guarded by an electrified fence and let you go at it. Wouldn;t that be interesting!

Oh wait!! I forgot to add that there would be no ammo in the magazines.

Sheesh!

Spacemtn
AustinModStaff