Finally an Issue I can march the streets with the Tea baggers side by side.

[Rhinox]

ITT: Comparing Bill of Rights amendments is somehow not a legitimate point when discussing Constitutional Law?

EDIT: Also: "Please tell me I'm wrong in reading you just said Big Government label only applies to conservative values when it comes to bans like Pro-choice legislation and not to ban on Liberal values like gun control?"

Where in his post did he mention anything remotely conservative?

Seconded on the "you're wrong".

Are you or any other gun owner part of a well regulated militia?

[Rhinox]

I had to vote "GunsGunsGunsblahblah", not because that's how I feel but because it's the closest thing to my position. I am a firearm enthusiast, as most of you know by now. I do not see this as an usurpation of state's rights, because this ruling empowers the people.

Responsible gun ownership is not a crime, nor should it ever be legislated as such.

I've said this before, and it usually falls on deaf ears(except jmcgarrell, he knows his shit), but historically it has been a tactic of totalitarian governments to disarm the people they rule. For a recent example in history, you need look no further than our cousins in Britain. The country doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to us. Our right to keep weapons is the final check and balance. Neither the Federal nor State or local governments have the right to disarm responsible citizens, I'm sorry. I'll never concede this point, period.

I will agree to the following: State governments have the right to deny any weapon to any person meeting any of the following criteria: Persons convicted of violent crime(s), persons having served or been sentenced to over one year in a Federal prison, persons deemed unstable enough by a licensed psychiatrist to responsibly own a weapon, foreign nationals and prisoners. I'm sure there are other instances that belong on this list, but this is all I can come up with at the moment. Denying these people weapons is reasonably within the interests of public safety. Outright bans are not. Outright bans are in the interest of making the public docile, toothless and malleable.

OT:

Just curious are you okay with the government assassinating Americans?

[Sylvrdragon]

I usually don't touch political threads and whatnot, but I'm one of those who just can't look away when someone shouts that the sky is falling.

Explain to me how a ruling that prevents the banning of something = Big Government? They are saying "The Government can not, and will not take this away from you."

Maybe I just don't know what "Big Government" means.

This is what I wrote. I didn't say a single thing about gun control or pro-choice or liberal or conservative. I was merely trying to confirm that "Big Government" refers to a government that regulates many things. I gave no examples and I took no sides.

You immediately started making assumptions and accusations from absolutely nowhere.

It seems to me that you assumed:

1) I am against Gun Control
2) I'm a "Conservative"
3) I'm pro-life


Nowhere, in anything that I wrote, do I infer any of the above in the slightest. Nor am I taking any sides in THIS post.

I'm not discussing politics. I'm discussing your fallacious methods of rhetoric.

[Gregorio]

Are you or any other gun owner part of a well regulated militia?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"the people", not "the Militia". The phrase shows up a lot in the Constitution. But I guess you know better than the majority of every Supreme Court bench in the history of the country. And the issue has come up plenty of times.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Please tell me I'm wrong in reading you just said Big Government label only applies to conservative values when it comes to bans like Pro-choice legislation and not to ban on Liberal values like gun control?

You can't be this stupid.

How does taking away govt. power translate into favoring this ruling means someone believes in big govt?

[Rhinox]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"the people", not "the Militia". But I guess you know better than the majority of every Supreme Court bench in the history of the country. And the issue has come up plenty of times.

So militia in this sentence is just a throw away word right? They just tossed in Militia similar to how Rudy Gulliani randomly mentions 9/11

It couldn't be that the second amendment was based on the Pennsylvania constitution which goes into further detail. It grants the right to bear arms with the understanding that the US shouldn't have a standing army in a time of peace.

But you know were always getting invading and stuff Red Dawn style on an almost daily basis.

[Rhinox]

How does taking away govt. power translate into favoring this ruling means someone believes in big govt?

uh this isn't about federal gun bans swampy.

This is local laws and federal government now infringing on states' rights and the hypocrisy thereof

[Cadsuane]

I had to vote "GunsGunsGunsblahblah", not because that's how I feel but because it's the closest thing to my position. I am a firearm enthusiast, as most of you know by now. I do not see this as an usurpation of state's rights, because this ruling empowers the people.

Responsible gun ownership is not a crime, nor should it ever be legislated as such.

I've said this before, and it usually falls on deaf ears(except jmcgarrell, he knows his shit), but historically it has been a tactic of totalitarian governments to disarm the people they rule. For a recent example in history, you need look no further than our cousins in Britain. The country doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to us. Our right to keep weapons is the final check and balance. Neither the Federal nor State or local governments have the right to disarm responsible citizens, I'm sorry. I'll never concede this point, period.

I will agree to the following: State governments have the right to deny any weapon to any person meeting any of the following criteria: Persons convicted of violent crime(s), persons having served or been sentenced to over one year in a Federal prison, persons deemed unstable enough by a licensed psychiatrist to responsibly own a weapon, foreign nationals and prisoners. I'm sure there are other instances that belong on this list, but this is all I can come up with at the moment. Denying these people weapons is reasonably within the interests of public safety. Outright bans are not. Outright bans are in the interest of making the public docile, toothless and malleable.

Yeah, give us an example of how gun rights and in particular, an armed populace, have been an active element of the political process so much so that it has appreciably altered legislature just by the threat of armed revolt.

Oh, that's right! Western states that have gun rights are virtually indistinguishable on the authoritarian/liberal spectrum from those that don't have them! In fact the biggest difference between them is the rate of violent crime. So you're full of shit!

Seriously, dumbest canned argument ever, and the world would be better off without Locke and his horse shit (though it's doubtful most gun rights advocates people even know who Locke was). People want to be able to defend their home, so they want guns. Better question: Why is there an everpresent threat against households that people feel that they need firearms to defend themselves? Eliminate that threat, no one will give a shit about guns. Well, everyone except emasculated gun enthusiasts anyway.

[Rhinox]

Yeah, give us an example of how gun rights and in particular, an armed populace, been an active element of the political process so much so that it has appreciably altered legislature just by the threat of armed revolt.

Oh, that's right! Western states that have gun rights are virtually indistinguishable on the authoritarian/liberal spectrum from those that don't have them! In fact the biggest difference between them is the rate of violent crime. So you're full of shit!

Seriously, dumbest canned argument ever, and the world would be better off without Locke and his horse shit. People want to be able to defend their home, so they want guns. Better question: Why is there an everpresent threat against households that people feel that they need firearms to defend themselves? Eliminate that threat, no one will give a shit about guns. Well, everyone except gun emasculated gun enthusiasts anyway.

Whats funny is I wouldn't be oppossed to homeowners being allowed to own firearms but these guys jerk off to the wild west fantasies and the dream of being able to wear a gun on their hip everywhere. Even 10 year old soccer league games.

[Cadsuane]

Whats funny is I wouldn't be oppossed to homeowners being allowed to own firearms but these guys jerk off to the wild west fantasies and the dream of being able to wear a gun on their hip everywhere. Even 10 year old soccer league games.

Well, me neither technically. I just don't think it should be a right.

[Rhinox]

The Irony?




She killed her husband before she killed herself.

[Korietsu]

Yeah, give us an example of how gun rights and in particular, an armed populace, have been an active element of the political process so much so that it has appreciably altered legislature just by the threat of armed revolt.

Oh, that's right! Western states that have gun rights are virtually indistinguishable on the authoritarian/liberal spectrum from those that don't have them! In fact the biggest difference between them is the rate of violent crime. So you're full of shit!

Seriously, dumbest canned argument ever, and the world would be better off without Locke and his horse shit (though it's doubtful most gun rights advocates people even know who Locke was). People want to be able to defend their home, so they want guns. Better question: Why is there an everpresent threat against households that people feel that they need firearms to defend themselves? Eliminate that threat, no one will give a shit about guns. Well, everyone except emasculated gun enthusiasts anyway.

Easy solution. Everyone convicted of murder is executed except in the case of self defense, period. But that would be cruel and unusual, because we believe people get second chances. We start executing people who fail to use turn signals, run red lights, get caught drunk driving, and speeding. At this point we might as well lock everyone in padded rooms and feed them with sporks.

If an insane motherfucker wants to do something insane hell do it, and then we make laws barring people from defending themselves from the insane, isn't that insane?

EDIT: I'm also going to throw out there that open carry is fucking retarded for the average citizen. Cops/Mil only for open carry.

[Sylvrdragon]

The Irony?




She killed her husband before she killed herself.

Ironic, yes.

But

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Do not succumb!

[Selamis]

I see nothing wrong with Chicago being allowed to purchase hand guns legally, all it means is that in the instance someone's house is broken into in the middle of the night, that family has a chance to defend itself. People have just been getting them from the suberbs anyway and then sneaking them into the city for decades.

Our Constitution says we can own guns, who is one mayor to say that we can't? (Mind you, I think Daley is a boss, and a legitimate mobster, and a badass. Who else can stay mayor for 20 years and get away with doing whatever he wants with no ramifications?) Yes I know the policy was put into effect before Richard Daley, but he could have overturned it any time.

Nothing to see here, move along. The ban on guns in Chicago city limits only hurt people who legally wanted to buy them, criminals and gangsters sill walked along the southside, and cabrini green daily packing heat.

[Cadsuane]

Easy solution. Everyone convicted of murder is executed except in the case of self defense, period. But that would be cruel and unusual, because we believe people get second chances. We start executing people who fail to use turn signals, run red lights, get caught drunk driving, and speeding. At this point we might as well lock everyone in padded rooms and feed them with sporks.

If an insane motherfucker wants to do something insane hell do it, and then we make laws barring people from defending themselves from the insane, isn't that insane?

EDIT: I'm also going to throw out there that open carry is fucking retarded for the average citizen. Cops/Mil only for open carry.

There's ways to solve underlying social issues besides executing everyone involved. When I said "eliminate that threat", I meant eliminate the underlying social causes of crime. Like, maybe, easily procured firearms for one, or illicit narcotics maybe, or a poor education or social services system, or limited community awareness of mental illness and lack of care facilities. These solutions are more compassionate, more intelligent, and more effective than arbitrary murder.

[Rhinox]

Ironic, yes.

But

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Do not succumb!

How cute.

Is that the meme Gun rights advocates are using these days? because the same can be said about you.

[Gethsemane]

So okay. They basically ruled that all Americans have the right to bear arms and you are.... against this? What the fuck? Someone should use their ban for donating money on your dumb ass if this is the case. Hope you are trolling. And I own a gun myself for personal protection in my home. I feel sorry for the dumb motherfucker that comes crawling through my window. Tea baggers are just fucking Independent wannabe, Republican ideal stupid uneducated pieces of shit that bash on Democrats. If you aren't trolling. Suck my fat hairy nuts and get the fuck out of my country.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I also have the right to carry permit. You can occasionally find me packing at the library, supermarket, Wal-mart; wherever really. I don't hide it. It's quite visible. I'll show you mine if you show me yours kind of thing. I think everyone should have to go through mental evaluation among a lot of other tests to be able to carry though personally. It's kind of lax when getting the right to carry permit. I was a little surprised.

In an article I read a week ago, a woman was running down the highway from her boyfriend trying to get a passerby to help or give her a ride to get away from him. No one helped her. They all drove off. Is this the kind of America you want? Oh, she died. Boyfriend killed her. Not one person attempted to help her. Fucking pussies.

[Demosthenes11]

constitution needs to be amended, otherwise a flat out ban on firearms will never be legal.

Comparing this to anything is retarded. The NY law breaks the supreme laws of the land. This isn't an argument of why guns should be legal or why not, and not whether the amendment is good or bad. The argument is: should local/state governments be able to supersede the US constitution? The answer must always be no or else there is no law.

[Egon]

Since I'm the only real Tea Party member on these forums, I'll give our opinion on the matter.

The 10th amendment talks about laws that are NOT in the constitution. Guns ARE in the constitution. Therefore this does not fall under 10th.

We like guns, and want more of em.

If you are trolling, then I got trolled.

[Rhinox]

I believe that an American is one who believes in their country and would do anything to protect it, their family, their friends and its citizens. The moment that you do not feel this way about the United States anymore you are no longer a citizen and are a threat to society as we know it. If you do not want to be in this country get the fuck out.

The deadliest disease in the United States right now is all these uneducated people participating in all these political debates, conventions, etc. Most of these tea bag douchebags shit on the very constitution that they try to stick up for because most of them are uneducated fucking rednecks. Now before you circle jerks jump on my case have you actually went to those rallies and stood among those people? Jerry Springer on Capital Hill.

Education should be the major focus of this country right now because it's going downhill at an alarming rate and in 50 years from now, I fear for our children and our grandchildren. Stop being a Sheep. Stick up for your beliefs and not others. Be a god damn wolf and get shit done.

I believe anyone that doesn't believe in the United States should just leave the country, better yet just move to Texas. That state wanted to try succeeding from the US anyways, maybe it will happen. Then we can put up a border fence between us and stupidity. Debates and threads like this are really fucking stupid. Get off your fat ass and go to school. Educate yourself. Do your own research. How many people have actually read the constitution? Bill of rights? Declaration of Independence? "Oh I read it when I was in 5th grade." Get the fuck out of here and let the educated people handle the government.

And I voted 'Yes'. Clearly people like that gave up being American a long time ago.

You're not allowed to voice your opinion on this matter