Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you seriously believe the US constitution applies to non-US citizens?  

    It limits what the US government can do to people, including non-US citizens.  The Courts have debated how far the Constitution goes in protecting non-US citizens living in the US or under the control of the US government, but (until recently under some terrorism legistlation) the constitution was seen, for instance, as guaranteeing citizens and non-citizens alike the right to trial if accused of a crime by the US or a state government. 

    They felt the general terms for people were adequate since it was established in the title that the document was in reference to US citizens.

    No, there's no "title" that establishes this and the preamble reads "We the people."  The word "citizen" is used only certain situations (usually to define eligibility for office).  The bill of rights uses the word "people" almost exclusively.  

     It's not the planet earth constitution.

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    That's an interesting take.  Maybe you should take a class in government.  Did you ever notice that the US does not posess a police force to go around protecting the first ammendment rights of North Koreans, or we don't run around forcing speedy trials in other countries?  This is not debated.  It reads, "We the people of the United States."  Who do you think the people of the United States are? 

    [/QUOTE]

    You miss the force of law applicable to non US citizens: It applies to their legal status on US soil and to the legal status when interactions include US citizens, entities, government, etc. For example, it is illegal for a US citizen or company to bribe an official of and in another country. For example, non US citizens are subject to our laws when here but also receive the same protections of the Constitution such as due process.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you seriously believe the US constitution applies to non-US citizens?  

    It limits what the US government can do to people, including non-US citizens.  The Courts have debated how far the Constitution goes in protecting non-US citizens living in the US or under the control of the US government, but (until recently under some terrorism legistlation) the constitution was seen, for instance, as guaranteeing citizens and non-citizens alike the right to trial if accused of a crime by the US or a state government. 

    They felt the general terms for people were adequate since it was established in the title that the document was in reference to US citizens.

    No, there's no "title" that establishes this and the preamble reads "We the people."  The word "citizen" is used only certain situations (usually to define eligibility for office).  The bill of rights uses the word "people" almost exclusively.  

     It's not the planet earth constitution.

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    That's an interesting take.  Maybe you should take a class in government.  Did you ever notice that the US does not posess a police force to go around protecting the first ammendment rights of North Koreans, or we don't run around forcing speedy trials in other countries?  This is not debated.  It reads, "We the people of the United States."  Who do you think the people of the United States are? 

    [/QUOTE]

    But a North Korean citizen arrested in the US for violating US law still has a right to trial by jury. The Constitution guarantees them that right.  (This is not controversial by the way as anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of the law knows.) Maybe it's you who needs the class in government?   

    [/QUOTE]

    So an illegal alien can go buy a gun and vote since they have the rights of the US Constitution right?

    [/QUOTE]

    No because voting laws are explicitly defining who is and who is not eligible to register to vote. Similarly there are explisit laws as to who is eligible to hold office.

    But here is one issue I expect most of us would like to see changed: foreign nationals,  foreign companies and even foreign governments have a means of giving money to political campaigns in this country via things like the Citizens United case that is now allowing essentially unlimited money to support politicians and parties.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    FACTS:

    1) Across the USA, there are over 20,000 gun rrstriction laws. I'm guessing that this mental  midget broke 20,500 of them. Just guessing.....

    2) Chicago and Washington DC, yes, the seat of outr cfederal gov t, have the toughest gun ownership restrictions in the country. Yet, those streets have turned into the OK Corral and High Noon on  Main Street. Why's that?

    3) Connecticut has some of the toughest gun ownership laws in the country, yet this happened with legally owned/purchased/obtained weapons. Why's that?

    4) It's clear to just about everyone that the real issue is the CULTURE of having a gun, and for what purpose. Yet, it seems that leftists want to ban guns (Tut, tut! It all STARTS with "assault rifles". Where's it end?). What causes this "culture"? All the shooters were young, male, and "gamers". Hmmmm....ban those video games like Assassin (1-15)? There is no reset button i n life. Then, we can go after those violent movies. Now, don't even begin to give me stuff about "voilating the rights of those innocent people that own these games and go to these movies". Too hypocritical.

    5) What do we do next IF all guns are confiscated or banned? Seems to me we need to apply the "Well, they're going to do it anyeway...... " theory of raising a kid (related to booze, birth cntrol, ectc) to gun wnership too. 

    6) If they run out of guns or get to over 35,000 national laws, what's next? Motor vehicles, seeing that they kill more than guns do on an annual basis? After all, the best way to protect ourselves, especially our kids, is to get rid of the instrument, right?

    A gun lying there all by itself does NOT kill anyone. Only irresponsible people (to themselves, their families, or to mankind in general) are using guns as weapons against humanity. Why's that? Find out the cause and fix it. No need to punish the innocent gun owner or the legal purchaser. Why punish the entire school of kids because Littel Johnny, Jimmy, or Sally (equal opportunity, ya know) decided to knowingly break a school rule and bring a water pistol to school?

    Now, for the record, I am NOT a gun owner. It just seems strange that leftists cried that the Patriot Act punishes and took rights away from the innocent Americans NOT involved in terrorism, and whine aboiut intrusive airport searches as a violation of someone'[s rights. Yet, they seem perfectly OK with violating some folks rights over more "feel good" legislation proposals.  

    [/QUOTE]

    First of all your label of "leftist" or "liberal" etc:

    (1) attempting to use labels as a way to denigrate is the language of bigotry. That is thought and reason are abandoned to the positions of "us" and "those idiots" or "those evil people".

    (2) there is not a monolithic set of positions held by those whose positions are generally to the "left" of center

    (3) and this is a key point - EVERY RIGHT YOU HAVE limits the rights of others and visa versa. For example, your right to free speach does not give you the right to slander and defame (there are legal concepts here which establish what is slander and what is protected speach). Similarly your freedom to own, carry and use a firearm has its limitations because of the rights of others. So all rights have limitations. The interesting, often emotionally charged issues occur when one person's rights conflict with other people's rights. THe simple result is that there is no absolute right and so we must find reasonable, ethical places to draw the lines. 

    With guns this is not a left v right issue though simplistic journalists report it as such.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But I've never said that.  You claimed that the restrictions on the various "due process" amendments only affected foreign terrorists. I made two points in reply:

    1. That some of those restrictions do affect US citizens (and I gave the example of the National Defense Authorization Act)

    And

    2. That some of those due process Constitutional protections also apply to non-US citizens when accused of crimes by the US or a US state

    Both of these things are true.  You've gone off on some odd tangent about the Constitution not being applicable in China.  Yeah, of course.  But that wasn't what I was saying. 

    The broader question I'm asking is "If you are so worried about infringements on second amendment rights are you also equally worried about the infringements on fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendment rights that result from anti-terrorism laws?"  If, however, you're so concerned about freedom and liberty, then anti-terrorism laws must really get you angry.  If you don't care too much about loss of a right to jury trial and only care about the loss of the right to carry a Glock, then I can't take you seriously as someone who really cares about liberty.  What you care about then is guns. So which is it?  Are you concerned about infringements on all these amendments, or just the second? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

     Man, your last paragraph is spot on. WELL SAID. And I do not mean that as aimed at any person but at those who are, for one reason or another, not consistent in their thinking and the resulting positions they take.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    Funny, a point that nobody seems to have spoken about.  The second amendment wasn't made to protect the rights of hunters or sport shooters.  It was created because some politician could enact martial law, call himself emperor and create their own little dictatorship.

    Sound unlikely..?  Consider that the first thing Hitler did in pre-war Germany was take away the guns from the populace.

    The big question isn't how did this guy obtain a rifle, handgun and body armor, rather how did this stuff end up in a home where a schizophrenic lived.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I love all these people who insist the Second amendment gives them "the right to keep and bear arms" without restriction. The Supreme Court could bust the second amendment wide open by simply pointing out that restrictions against firearm ownership were in place since day 1. When the Constitution became law of the land in 1789, it did not recind the laws on the books that prohibited slaves from owning firearms. Funny how the NRA yahoos never mention that fact..

    [/QUOTE]

    OK, let's go bust the gun owning slaves in the country. What? No more slaves? Hmmmm......

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slakrking's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    you can carry this to other extremes,

    People drink, they drive they kill people ...

    I choose not to drink, should I because I don't drink have the right to deny you that right? Outside of war and disease, I feel alcohol and drugs are the cause of more deaths than guns, I could be wrong.

    You can't legislate an individual into complying with accepted behavior, if someone wants to commit a crime, they will, the gun is the means, not the cause.

    [/QUOTE]

    Drunk driving is illegal and over the past two decades much has been done to reduce the incidence of drunk driving.  The efforts have worked.  Yes, drunk driving continues, but it's less of a problem than it was.  This attitude that "bad people will do bad things and there's nothing that can be done about it" is just wrong. Yeah, killers will try to kill.  Reducing their access to arms, however, makes it harder for them to succeed.  Sure, some will succeed despite the restrictions.  But mass killings like we saw in Newtown would be much more unlikely if boys with emotional problems didn't have easy access to high-capacity weapons and the ammunition required to use them.  

    This on changes to the rate of drunk driving from an insurance industry source . . . .

     

    Alcohol-impaired driving has become less prevalent but remains a major problem. In 2007, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) undertook a national roadside breath survey in which data were collected during weekend nights. Patterned after 1996, 1986 and 1973 surveys, the 2007 survey found that 2.2 percent of drivers had BACs at or above 0.08 percent. This compares with 4.3 percent in 1996, 5.4 percent in 1986 and 7.5 percent in 1973. 7 According to NHTSA, the percentage of drivers with any detectable alcohol in their systems declined almost as much from 1973 to 2007 as the percentage of drivers with BACs at or above 0.08 percent.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Could it POSSIBLY be that the country's (at least MOST of it) has woken up and started putting teeth to laws involving DUI's? Including serious financial (via insurance costs) and legal penalties (spending serious time looking at bars instead of visiting them)? Why not do the same with EXISTING gun laws (@ 20,000+) currently on the books. Give perps hard time for long times. No reason they can tack a FULL 10 years (via federal mandate) on top of any crime involving a gun, including just illegally possessiing one, which IS a crime all by itself. 5 years for armed robbery instantly goes to 15 year, FULL time served. Time off for good behavior? FUGHEDABOUDIT! This was blown when the crime was committed.

    Plus, we've already tried the Grand Experiment.... it was called Prohibition. It created a bigger problem than it resolved. Booze was selling faster and at higher prices (underground), while more folks were getting killed in gang related violence. Think that a large underground gun sale business won't pop up if guns of ANY type are banned?  If you want any kind of gun, you can get it, but you'll pay through the nose for it. How's that going to stop the problem? 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ban all gun sales tomorrow.  Who F'ing cares.  There are all ready 100's of millions of guns in private hands.  Everyone who wanted a gun should already has a gun.  I have 3.........I'm good.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ Basically!

    I dont get these Nuts who are scared of guns being banned. If you are an enthusiast, paranoid, whatever, Im sure you already own guns and how many do you need? If you are worried about someone coming to take them, then I say you are one Cowardly Gun Owner. I may not have all the answers but I have yet to find a situation where any civilian needs an Rifle holding 30 rounds in their house. I know the answer is NOT to strap up school teachers like they are about to do in S.C. because not EVERYONE is fit to own a gun, and most southern states DONT require a safety course to own. and WHY did 150 folks line up outside the middleboro GUn shop to buy..... ASSUALT RIFLES yesterday! DUDE SOLD OUT! He said some got 2. Yea, thats the spirit,. Lets ALL get Assult Rifles now! Im bout to seriously get the Frick outta here if this keeps up.

     

    http://www.enterprisenews.com/photos/x1926900657/Firearms-sales-soar-in-Middleboro-after-presidents-remarks

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Funny, a point that nobody seems to have spoken about.  The second amendment wasn't made to protect the rights of hunters or sport shooters.  It was created because some politician could enact martial law, call himself emperor and create their own little dictatorship.

    Sound unlikely..?  Consider that the first thing Hitler did in pre-war Germany was take away the guns from the populace.

    The big question isn't how did this guy obtain a rifle, handgun and body armor, rather how did this stuff end up in a home where a schizophrenic lived.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    THANK YOU! someone who knows something...mother has to take some blame

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    I don't know what I find more ironic... that a Jests fan has the stones to be hanging around here considering what a sorry joke their team is, or that he is now the moderator of the Patriot's forum.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't know what I find more ironic... that a Jests fan has the stones to be hanging around here considering what a sorry joke their team is, or that he is now the moderator of the Patriot's forum.

    [/QUOTE]


    He is gonna wear himself out soon. Let em' be...I personally am not paying any attention to him. Must be a miserable life I tell ya!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Runer. Show Runer's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    Let's blame the inanimate object and not the person.

     

    The war on drugs works... no drugs in this country... the war on "assault weapons
    " will work just the same.... criminals and phsycos will still get them and we will just press on....

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    (1) attempting to use labels as a way to denigrate is the language of bigotry.

    [/QUOTE]


    Somebody who labels another a "liberal" or a "conservative" is a bigot?

    Seems like your general knowledge is right in line with your football knowledge.

    The irony is pretty hilarious here. You decry someone labeling another with a well known and accepted political term by labeling them with a term used to connote a despicable and hateful person. It is a very hypocritical, but typical, liberal tactic.

    What you just did is 1000000 times worse than calling a liberal a liberal.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from krismk. Show krismk's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    I want more PEDs, more weapons, bigger TVs, bigger trucks, 500 sports channels, a humidor the size of a container ship, a backyard fire pit that can smelt iron, and a good dog....

    I promise to be good.

     

    Thank you, Santa!

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I have yet to find a situation where any civilian needs an Rifle holding 30 rounds in their house

    [/QUOTE]

    Nobody said it was a need. It is a right.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     Similarly your freedom to own, carry and use a firearm has its limitations because of the rights of others.

    [/QUOTE]


    What "right of others" imposes a limit on a person's right to keep and bear arms?

    This ought to be good.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     Similarly your freedom to own, carry and use a firearm has its limitations because of the rights of others.

    [/QUOTE]


    What "right of others" imposes a limit on a person's right to keep and bear arms?

    This ought to be good.

    [/QUOTE]


    Babe, your last few remarks reflect the worst of what you have to offer, not the best. I say this because rather than consider the pros and cons of a train of thought you insult.

    I am not inclined to get into a pissing contest on issues here but a short back and forth is reasonable. So without going into some long list I will respond to your request to illustrate something you think is non existent: we currently have laws against carrying guns on planes. THis is to safeguard the right of preserving the peace and secuding the safety of passengers. Another example is illustrated in an event you possibly made some remark on: Plaxico Burress carrying a loaded gun into a bar (I am sure we all remember that!). Do you think that the law that sent him to jail was just passed for giggles? Or was there a reason?

    Babe, we can have different opinions and weigh elements of an issue differently. But to fall back to your (old?) tendancies to forgo discussion and go to insult and demeaning remarks is a reflection on you, not on the person you are addressing.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     Similarly your freedom to own, carry and use a firearm has its limitations because of the rights of others.

    [/QUOTE]


    What "right of others" imposes a limit on a person's right to keep and bear arms?

    This ought to be good.

    [/QUOTE]


    Babe, your last few remarks reflect the worst of what you have to offer, not the best. I say this because rather than consider the pros and cons of a train of thought you insult.

    I am not inclined to get into a pissing contest on issues here but a short back and forth is reasonable. So without going into some long list I will respond to your request to illustrate something you think is non existent: we currently have laws against carrying guns on planes. THis is to safeguard the right of preserving the peace and secuding the safety of passengers. Another example is illustrated in an event you possibly made some remark on: Plaxico Burress carrying a loaded gun into a bar (I am sure we all remember that!). Do you think that the law that sent him to jail was just passed for giggles? Or was there a reason?

    Babe, we can have different opinions and weigh elements of an issue differently. But to fall back to your (old?) tendancies to forgo discussion and go to insult and demeaning remarks is a reflection on you, not on the person you are addressing.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually, your football knowledge is pretty good. Thought somebody else had posted that to which I replied with the wise crack. Retracted. I extend my apologies.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    People want laws to restrict gun possession. They already have laws against drug possession. And it's so hard to get drugs unless, I don't know.... you want them?

    LMAO

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe, we can have different opinions and weigh elements of an issue differently. But to fall back to your (old?) tendancies to forgo discussion and go to insult and demeaning remarks is a reflection on you, not on the person you are addressing.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you feel associating a person who uses a common term which describes a political affiliation with something as hateful as bigotry is being "the good guy"? It isn't. It's simply a subliminal insult, and rather far more nasty than anything I have ever said to anybody (and underhanded as well).

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     we currently have laws against carrying guns on planes. THis is to safeguard the right of preserving the peace and secuding the safety of passengers. Another example is illustrated in an event you possibly made some remark on: Plaxico Burress carrying a loaded gun into a bar (I am sure we all remember that!).

    [/QUOTE]



    Exactly what "rights of others" are you citing in these cases?

    The state has the authority to place reasonable safety restrictions in public places. That's not about the "rights of others".

    If persons were to be allowed to carry guns on a plane, what "right" of theirs would be violated?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    “We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year,” adds Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a public policy expert at the University of California-Los Angeles. “We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as two-and-a-half or three million. We don’t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it’s not a trivial number.”

     

Share