Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
reepicheep

Bipartisan gun control measures rejected in senate

Recommended Posts

Funny how the bloody NRA used to support expanded checks back in 1999. Australia and the UK passed gun control laws in the 90s and clearly, both are fascist states where citizens are oppressed.

 

http://www.politifac...elmingly-suppo/

http://www.salon.com...rt_gun_control/

Yeah let's not kid ourselves the UK is kind of a nanny state.

 

And by “kind of” I mean “it's still a pretty hardcore nanny state in spite of efforts by the Tories to undo the damage.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how the bloody NRA used to support expanded checks back in 1999. Australia and the UK passed gun control laws in the 90s and clearly, both are fascist states where citizens are oppressed.

 

http://www.politifac...elmingly-suppo/

http://www.salon.com...rt_gun_control/

Yeah let's not kid ourselves the UK is kind of a nanny state.

 

And by “kind of” I mean “it's still a pretty hardcore nanny state in spite of efforts by the Tories to undo the damage.”

It's all relative. Relative to, say, North Korea, the Netherlands has an incredible amount of freedom. Relative to the US, we have less freedom. Not to say that GB isn't a nanny state (never heard it had been called that before), but it's difficult to compare the US with any European country in that regard. After all, European governments do far more meddling and are used to it, when Americans clearly think about it differently. I'd rather live in a nanny state than the US in that regard. And that's not a jab at the US, it's just how I've been brought up. That's not to say that I don't think I'm right (:P) but it's that I'm predisposed to it. At least, that's what I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is I live in NJ and the gun laws are among the strictest in the States. Even Airsoft guns using CO² are banned without a license. I think THAT is crazy, and it's an example of how there are two extremes.

Of course, where I live there are still a lot of gun crimes; just about every night I can hear gunshots across the train tracks, and there was even an attempted black market gun deal on my street. Without every car being searched coming across state borders, there's barely any chance of stopping interstate gun smuggling.

Just about all my opinions on this subject are barely-informed assumptions, however. I'm not looking for this comment to inspire a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on any side of this issue, I just wanted to throw my own experiences in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how the bloody NRA used to support expanded checks back in 1999. Australia and the UK passed gun control laws in the 90s and clearly, both are fascist states where citizens are oppressed.

 

http://www.politifac...elmingly-suppo/

http://www.salon.com...rt_gun_control/

Yeah let's not kid ourselves the UK is kind of a nanny state.

 

And by “kind of” I mean “it's still a pretty hardcore nanny state in spite of efforts by the Tories to undo the damage.”

 

I absolutely agree. Though that doesn't count as an argument against stricter gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was editing my post while you were posting- I made a few additions. :P

 

If we were talking about expanding our rights I might agree with the "flexibility" concept.

But we are not talking about expanding rights. We are not even talking about righting past wrongs.

We are talking about restricting an existing, historically affirmed right. I think that we should consider

doing so very carefully and slowly. Two centuries of beliefs and practices - that were based entirely

on the constitution - cannot be erased simply because some of us change our minds. Changing the

meaning or redefining the original intent of the Bill of Rights should be done only through the

process of amending the constitution.

 

We should not allow our government to take the easy way out. Nor should we allow a handful

of justices, who sometimes appear to be driven by an ideological agenda rather than by

constitutional objectivity, to have too much influence in this decision. The Bill of Rights

deserves due process and this is best met through the constitutional amendment process,

involving as many citizens as possible.

 

The right to bear arms is a time honored American tradition. Whatever the original intent,

in practice, the belief that it is as much a constitutional duty as exercising the right to vote

is part of our culture. Rather than ignore our heritage and dismiss a long held right that many

think is out of date, we should put the constitutional process in motion and update our rights

in a fair and decent way.

 

Do no let our government take the easy way out. Do not let others make this decision for us.

Do not trade an essential liberty for some temporary safety. Defend the whole Bill of Rights.

To so easily dismiss one of the rights that the Bill of Rights guarantees us while supporting

the other rights that it gives us is misguided.

Edited by Gantowisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you mind just typing your paragraphs normally? It's a little bit jarring >.<

 

Just some responses to things I thought stood out:

Do not let others make this decision for us.

But isn't that what a government is for? You elect somebody so that they'll make the decisions for you.

Do not trade an essential liberty for some temporary safety. Defend the whole Bill of Rights.

I'm not sure why you shouldn't look at each amendment separately. How is freedom of speech comparable to, say, the right to refuse quartering? I'm not saying they're not important, I just don't see why you can't look at each one individually and judge them based on their merits.

The right to bear arms is a time honored American tradition.

Queen's day in the Netherlands (It'll be King's day next year :P) is also a time honored Dutch tradition but that doesn't say anything about its correctness, or truth, or anything really other than that it hasn't been changed for a long time. The age of the bill of rights doesn't make it anymore right or wrong. Euclid's Elements is still very much correct to this day, whereas astronomy has changed massively. Twenty years ago a bill like CISPA wouldn't even need to be considered. Times change. A constitutional right should be judged on its merits today, not those of two centuries ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^TImes change so change the constitution if you are going to limit existing exercised rights!!

Do not ignore the constitution instead. It's why we have the ability to AMEND it as required.

 

Issues as divisive as this one appears to be should no be decided so arbitrarily.

Put the constitutional process in motion and let it play itself out fairly.

 

ps - i try to make paragraphs but everytime i post, the format changes and sentences go all over the place.

do you know how i can avoid that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yes we will, because the only thing that makes it different is how clearly entrenched it is in people's beliefs that they should be allowed free reign over firearm use and ownership. Why should tradition be the deciding factor in a debate on safety and preventing mortality?

 

Because tyrants thrive on the excuse of safety when stripping away rights as they have for hundreds of years. They also thrive on the populace having a it can't happen to us mentality. Both exist in US politics.

 

Then why are so many people in favour of stricter controls that 'step on their rights in the name of security and false safety' [insert Phoenix Rider's polls post]

 

Because the majority will walk off the edge of a cliff if it guarantees a little protection along the way. It's one of the main reasons the US is a republic and not a direct democracy.

 

I'll agree to gun control when the police have the same restrictions as the citizenry. If I don't need an assault rifle neither do they. You don't see them giving offering to give theirs up though now do you? Hell in fact many are lobbying for off duty police exemption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yes we will, because the only thing that makes it different is how clearly entrenched it is in people's beliefs that they should be allowed free reign over firearm use and ownership. Why should tradition be the deciding factor in a debate on safety and preventing mortality?

 

Because tyrants thrive on the excuse of safety when stripping away rights as they have for hundreds of years. They also thrive on the populace having a it can't happen to us mentality. Both exist in US politics.

 

Then why are so many people in favour of stricter controls that 'step on their rights in the name of security and false safety' [insert Phoenix Rider's polls post]

 

Because the majority will walk off the edge of a cliff if it guarantees a little protection along the way. It's one of the main reasons the US is a republic and not a direct democracy.

 

Yes because Australia became a fascist state, stripped of democratic principles after their gun laws in the 90s. Again, the whole "OMG, fascism" BS. The same thing was said in Australia during the bitter debate on gun control there and yet, lo and behold, they haven't gone the way of Moa yet!

 

The US is a representative democracy. The legislative is supposed to REPRESENT the will of the people, not the angry, load and paranoid minority. It's damned better than worshipping the bloody NRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do not let others make this decision for us.

But isn't that what a government is for? You elect somebody so that they'll make the decisions for you.

No. I vote for officials who will protect my liberties, provide services, and ensure that order is maintained.

 

Which is exactly why I support universal background checks for firearm ownership :/

 

 

Who says that the Supreme Court is always objective?

Did they not rule that corporations are people and that money is speech?

Do you agree with that?

 

A well regulated militia is not a standing army of professionals.

A well regulated militia is not governed by a distant, central authority.

A well regulated militia not your state's National Guard nor is it your local police department.

 

A well regulated militia is something local that is formed by citizen volunteers.

A well regulated militia can be just one person.

 

If you want to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then you are unconstitutional.

If you pass gun control laws you are ignoring the bill of rights.

eflNWNp.gif

 

No, no, no, no, no. Just stop right there.

 

The well-regulated militia clause is wholly and completely independent of the right to bear arms. The meaning of “well-regulated militia” is the idea that the United States would maintain a standing army, but also that the people would have a right to keep and bear arms even if they were not a part of this military.

 

For context, here's the text of the amendment:

 

“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.”

 

In other words, there should be a well-regulated militia, and this militia and the government does not have the ability to strip law-abiding citizens of owning firearms.

 

TL;DR THE GOVERNMENT HAS A RIGHT TO REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS BEFORE BUYING A GUN, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO PREVENT VIOLENT CRIMINALS FROM OWNING A GUN AS PER THE US CONSTITUTION.

Edited by Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you mind just typing your paragraphs normally? It's a little bit jarring >.<

 

Just some responses to things I thought stood out:

Do not let others make this decision for us.

But isn't that what a government is for? You elect somebody so that they'll make the decisions for you.

Do not trade an essential liberty for some temporary safety. Defend the whole Bill of Rights.

I'm not sure why you shouldn't look at each amendment separately. How is freedom of speech comparable to, say, the right to refuse quartering? I'm not saying they're not important, I just don't see why you can't look at each one individually and judge them based on their merits.

The right to bear arms is a time honored American tradition.

Queen's day in the Netherlands (It'll be King's day next year :P) is also a time honored Dutch tradition but that doesn't say anything about its correctness, or truth, or anything really other than that it hasn't been changed for a long time. The age of the bill of rights doesn't make it anymore right or wrong. Euclid's Elements is still very much correct to this day, whereas astronomy has changed massively. Twenty years ago a bill like CISPA wouldn't even need to be considered. Times change. A constitutional right should be judged on its merits today, not those of two centuries ago.

The merits are the same. The potential tyranny is the same. The technology surrounding our practices of our rights has advanced. Freedom of press is no longer just about books or newspapers--since most anyone can now write their own and publish it for "free". Freedom of speech is no longer just about what you can think or say--since most anyone can type messages to one another. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is not long about searches without warrants--it's also about who can point a camera into your windows and who can "search" your personal property with technology. A right to a habeas corpus has to include the right of terrorists and the like--because terrorists are people and they're being accused of crimes. This entire war on drugs and war on terror is ridiculous--because the accused aren't allowed to stand trial with a jury of their peers. We're militarizing everything, step by step, yet are as unsuccessful as ever. A new security procedure won't make us safer--not if history is to be believed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you mind just typing your paragraphs normally? It's a little bit jarring >.<

 

Just some responses to things I thought stood out:

Do not let others make this decision for us.

But isn't that what a government is for? You elect somebody so that they'll make the decisions for you.

Do not trade an essential liberty for some temporary safety. Defend the whole Bill of Rights.

I'm not sure why you shouldn't look at each amendment separately. How is freedom of speech comparable to, say, the right to refuse quartering? I'm not saying they're not important, I just don't see why you can't look at each one individually and judge them based on their merits.

The right to bear arms is a time honored American tradition.

Queen's day in the Netherlands (It'll be King's day next year :P) is also a time honored Dutch tradition but that doesn't say anything about its correctness, or truth, or anything really other than that it hasn't been changed for a long time. The age of the bill of rights doesn't make it anymore right or wrong. Euclid's Elements is still very much correct to this day, whereas astronomy has changed massively. Twenty years ago a bill like CISPA wouldn't even need to be considered. Times change. A constitutional right should be judged on its merits today, not those of two centuries ago.

The merits are the same. The potential tyranny is the same. The technology surrounding our practices of our rights has advanced. Freedom of press is no longer just about books or newspapers--since most anyone can now write their own and publish it for "free". Freedom of speech is no longer just about what you can think or say--since most anyone can type messages to one another. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is not long about searches without warrants--it's also about who can point a camera into your windows and who can "search" your personal property with technology. A right to a habeas corpus has to include the right of terrorists and the like--because terrorists are people and they're being accused of crimes. This entire war on drugs and war on terror is ridiculous--because the accused aren't allowed to stand trial with a jury of their peers. We're militarizing everything, step by step, yet are as unsuccessful as ever. A new security procedure won't make us safer--not if history is to be believed.

When the Anti-Federalists demanded a Bill of Rights from Madison, he wasn't about to throw in any measures one might call conciliatory with regard to those rights. He put in rights that would be considered universal to human dignity (both physical and political), at least for his time.

 

I don't think you can really remove any rights from the Bill of Rights, though I do think there's a few things we could stand to add to the Constitution (a mechanism for which Madison added).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the point of background checks. It wouldn't have stopped the Connecticut shooting because it was the mother's gun. To prevent that from happening, you'd have to deny people with unstable family members guns, or people with unstable close friends, or people with a Facebook friend that got angry when he was fifteen. As noted before, if somebody is bent on committing a shooting they won't try to acquire a gun legally if background checks get in their way. These types of things do cost money by the way. The only good measure that would prevent a shooting spree is limiting clip sizes, but apparently that isn't going to happen.

Edited by Shooter585

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing my point.

 

Which right it is does not matter. If you want to diminish or give up an existing right or if you want to

nullify or amend a constitutional amendment, you should do it in writing. Follow the legal process.

The 18th amendment was not repealed by a new interpretation, by a handful of justices, or by a

majority opinion. It was repealed by a constitutional amendment.

 

If you want to change any of the constitution, it should be done by amendment only.

 

We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Buying a weapon is not a crime.

Neither is buying a cell phone, pressure cooker, nails, remote control toys, cars, etc......

Requiring background checks could mean that we may need to amend other parts of the Bill of Rights,

amendments based on the concept of presumed innocence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yes we will, because the only thing that makes it different is how clearly entrenched it is in people's beliefs that they should be allowed free reign over firearm use and ownership. Why should tradition be the deciding factor in a debate on safety and preventing mortality?

 

Because tyrants thrive on the excuse of safety when stripping away rights as they have for hundreds of years. They also thrive on the populace having a it can't happen to us mentality. Both exist in US politics.

 

Then why are so many people in favour of stricter controls that 'step on their rights in the name of security and false safety' [insert Phoenix Rider's polls post]

 

Because the majority will walk off the edge of a cliff if it guarantees a little protection along the way. It's one of the main reasons the US is a republic and not a direct democracy.

 

Yes because Australia became a fascist state, stripped of democratic principles after their gun laws in the 90s. Again, the whole "OMG, fascism" BS. The same thing was said in Australia during the bitter debate on gun control there and yet, lo and behold, they haven't gone the way of Moa yet!

 

The US is a representative democracy. The legislative is supposed to REPRESENT the will of the people, not the angry, load and paranoid minority. It's damned better than worshipping the bloody NRA.

 

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention but the civil liberties of Americans have been repeatedly trampled on since 9/11 and safety is used as a rationale every single time. They feel like they should have the ability to wiretap our phones without a warrant. Snoop through our emails. Demand records from anyone we have business with. Snoop through hundreds of homes without warrants. Slap GPS monitors on our vehicles. So on and so on.

 

So no Australia didn't turn into a facist despot, but Australia also hasn't been increasingly eroding civil liberties.

 

Not a god damn month goes by in the US where we don't hear a new story of the US government taking a massive shizzle on the constitution and our civil liberties.

 

So we'll be damned if we'll have our weapons handicapped repeatedly while police departments have arsenals of military equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are missing my point.

 

Which right it is does not matter. If you want to diminish or give up an existing right or if you want to

nullify or amend a constitutional amendment, you should do it in writing. Follow the legal process.

The 18th amendment was not repealed by a new interpretation, by a handful of justices, or by a

majority opinion. It was repealed by a constitutional amendment.

 

If you want to change any of the constitution, it should be done by amendment only.

 

We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Buying a weapon is not a crime.

Neither is buying a cell phone, pressure cooker, nails, remote control toys, cars, etc......

Requiring background checks could mean that we may need to amend other parts of the Bill of Rights,

amendments based on the concept of presumed innocence.

This has nothing to do with presumed innocence. This is checking to make sure you have not been found guilty of rights-depriving crimes by due process.

 

If someone has been convicted of armed robbery, that would trigger a negative on their background check. Should we just allow anyone who wants a gun to own one? Former armed robbers want guns too. Should we let them buy guns whenever they please?

 

The Constitution was not written for freaking anarchy. The protection of others' individual liberties (life, property ownership, and freedom to do as they like so long as they do not commit crimes) comes first. How can we defend that better through the Second Amendment? By requiring gun owners to undergo a simple background check.

 

This isn't like NSA spying shizzle where the argument “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” is irrelevant. That argument is incredibly relevant to this issue. If you haven't robbed, raped, murdered, or assaulted someone, what in the blue hell do you have to worry about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet even murderers and thieves and rapists have guns, acquired through illicit means. The massive issue that we here in NY see first hand is that the state government has started pulling CCW and pistol permits of anyone for and for anything. They are demanding someone turns in their licenses, their guns, their ammunition, & and any and all accessories. Many thousands of dollars worth lost without compensation. Sell it and you're a criminal--even having disposed of it. That is ridiculous. And for what? Because their child plays "cops and robbers"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet even murderers and thieves and rapists have guns, acquired through illicit means. The massive issue that we here in NY see first hand is that the state government has started pulling CCW and pistol permits of anyone for and for anything. They are demanding someone turns in their licenses, their guns, their ammunition, & and any and all accessories. Many thousands of dollars worth lost without compensation. Sell it and you're a criminal--even having disposed of it. That is ridiculous. And for what? Because their child plays "cops and robbers"?

So take it to the courts. That behavior is unconstitutional.

 

As far as the efficacy is concerned, of course we can't eliminate all crime down to zero. That's silly. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't limit crime where we have the option to do so without restricting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens. A NICS background check (with some modifications, such as requiring hospitals etc. to properly report mental illness to the database) is perfectly reasonable to ask of someone who is wanting to buy a lethal weapon.

 

If it's a gun grab you're afraid of, though, you're already well past the point of being reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in Kentucky... (if only his sister had a gun to defend herself)

 

So we'll be damned if we'll have our weapons handicapped repeatedly while police departments have arsenals of military equipment.

So a patriot - aiming for the well-being of the country - would like law enforcement as defenceless as possible...isn't it borderline schizophrenia? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So we'll be damned if we'll have our weapons handicapped repeatedly while police departments have arsenals of military equipment.

So a patriot - aiming for the well-being of the country - would like law enforcement as defenceless as possible...isn't it borderline schizophrenia? :unsure:

 

Meanwhile, in Kentucky... (if only his sister had a gun to defend herself)

 

I see nothing wrong with a child being allowed to use a rifle under parental supervision. This obviously wasn't the case. Should we ban them because some people are irresponsible? How about knives? I'm sure plenty of children have killed themselves or another with those too.

 

How does not having military grade equipment equal being defenseless as possible? Did we really need dozens of military grade humvees, armored gunner trucks, and 1000's of military geared officers to chase down 2 teenagers? I mean at that point call the national guard.

 

Did we really need to fire like this into a boat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjzwphcj0OM

Edited by Emo Nemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see nothing wrong with a child being allowed to use a rifle under parental supervision. This obviously wasn't the case. Should we ban them because some people are irresponsible? How about knives? I'm sure plenty of children have killed themselves or another with those too.

Two things: why in the world would you ever let children play with something that can kill somebody? There is absolutely no reason to. Second thing, why would you let children play with knives? Both are absolutely irresponsible. I can not think of a conceivable reason why children would ever need to touch either of those things before they won't hurt anybody accidentally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does not having military grade equipment equal being defenseless as possible? Did we really need dozens of military grade humvees, armored gunner trucks, and 1000's of military geared officers to chase down 2 teenagers? I mean at that point call the national guard.

 

Did we really need to fire like this into a boat?

 

This is relevant to the topic...how?

 

Competitive shooting, hunting, archery, knife throwing... These all used to be pretty popular sports, and in many areas of the US they still are. What you've brought up starts getting into other discussions as well (teens driving, drinking, playing contact sports, etc)

 

I dunno, my dad taught me to shoot, his dad taught him to shoot, and so on... I'm planning on keeping that tradition going. My guns will be locked in a gun safe. We will go to a firing range to shoot. I dunno, I don't understand the shock

 

It's one thing to get your kid into the family tradition. It's another thing to trust a 5 year old with a machine that can kill. Geez, many kids that age can't even be trusted with sharp kitchen knives. The parents are/were idiots and are the byproduct of a gun-crazy culture that glorifies the damn things rather than treating them with respect and caution.

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see nothing wrong with a child being allowed to use a rifle under parental supervision. This obviously wasn't the case. Should we ban them because some people are irresponsible? How about knives? I'm sure plenty of children have killed themselves or another with those too.

Two things: why in the world would you ever let children play with something that can kill somebody? There is absolutely no reason to. Second thing, why would you let children play with knives? Both are absolutely irresponsible. I can not think of a conceivable reason why children would ever need to touch either of those things before they won't hurt anybody accidentally.

Competitive shooting, hunting, archery, knife throwing... These all used to be pretty popular sports, and in many areas of the US they still are. What you've brought up starts getting into other discussions as well (teens driving, drinking, playing contact sports, etc)

 

I dunno, my dad taught me to shoot, his dad taught him to shoot, and so on... I'm planning on keeping that tradition going. My guns will be locked in a gun safe. We will go to a firing range to shoot. I dunno, I don't understand the shock

Sure, I get that you might want to go shooting with your teen son but your teen son is also likely somebody that won't accidentally kill somebody. I took his meaning of child to be an actual non-teen child. I wouldn't mind my dad taking me to a shooting range. It'd be hilarious if anything because he has never touched a gun before (neither have I, but that's beside the point :P). But a shooting range is a relatively safe and controlled environment. I'm not quite sure what the benefit would be of people under 18/21 owning guns, similar to teens drinking, driving, drinking and driving, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is relevant to the topic...how?

 

Because the 2nd amendment is a last resort defense against a tyrannical state. When the state seemingly handicaps its populace while making itself more powerful in comparison you can quickly see how this becomes a problem.

 

The 2nd amendment wasn't put in there purely so hunters had an effective way to kill deer.

Edited by Emo Nemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primary schools used to have rifle ranges and shooting classes back in the 19th century.

 

What a glorious time that was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.