Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When guns are truly hard to get they are hard to get for everyone! That includes criminals and nutjobs. The reason why criminals and nutjobs get them so easily now is because they are freely available! Duh! Arguing that after a lockdown criminals will find a way to get them is total whitewash. They won't. Unless they make them and there won't be much of that happening.
Ok, through some twist of weirdness, the 2nd Amendment is repealed and guns are declared illegal in the US. Estimates are that there are about 300 million legally owned guns in the US currently. How many of those guns do you figure are going to be handed in to be destroyed? How would there even be enforcement?
Every time on of these mass killings happens you hear "ban guns" and i always question people what would that do? So if you ban guns being sold or produced in this country they will just smuggle them in from other countries just like they do now with the drugs. There is an obvious ban on drugs too how is that working out?
People can even manufature guns right in their own garages. Many people have metal lathes and all types of machinery to build anything. And the more laws idea is just a joke. When was the last time a criminal cared about a law? Our prison system is packed because of criminals who cared about laws. You can make a law or ban something it will never stop a criminal. It may put them away after they create havoc but another criminal just takes his place. Criminals are just like roaches they can't be stopped.
Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done about these mass murders. When you have 250+ million people in the country you are going to get some bad apples it's just the way it is.
I personally don't own a gun but if i decide to get one for protection i don't want that right taken away. Only allowing the criminals to have the guns is the dumbest idea. And when seconds count the police are minutes away. Lets just say guns magically went away criminals will just find another weapon to use. Right on this forum i read the topic about the guy in the supermarket getting his neck cut by some nut with a box cutter he was randomly targeted.
What would you do when someone is slashing at you with a box cutter? Tell him to wait while you call the police? Get another box cutter to equal the playing field? Or own a gun for protection and shoot the threat?
Well i know some would say "just tase him or pepper spray him because he was just having a bad day you don't need to kill him"
Good point my friend.......and to add to that......
No one wants to talk about it from a practical standpoint. We now have over 300,000,000 guns in the hands of private owners...that we know about.....we can't seem to round up 11,000,000 illegal workers sucking us dry financially, what makes you think you can round up 300,000,000 guns.
It's simply not practical. The genie is out of the bottle. It's literally impossible to stop it. So you say, end "assault rifle" sales. Okay, let's look at that folks.....anyone can buy a Ruger 10/22, buy high-capacity magazines, and start pumping hyper-velocity .22LR rounds out of it....cheaper, and at the muzzle, carries roughly the same energy as a .22 magnum....trust me, it would open you up, real, real good....anyway, in the case of Orlando, that was CLOSE range.....if he had taken say, this weapon, it would have been equally deadly...in fact, one could reasonably argue that it would be easier as a .22LR has almost zero recoil...anyone that has shot an AK-47 knows they kick exponentially more and aren't all that entirely accurate...couple that with the fact that 10 magazines of 25 round .22LR capacity takes about 2/3 the space in a bag. And get this, Ruger now makes it in a take-down 2-piece version...comes with it's own backpack although Mateen the terrorist would be smart to put a decal over the Ruger decal???? You get the point.....insult to injury....the ammo is cheaper, the gun is cheaper and easier to conceal and it can spit the rounds out as fast, or faster.....a novice could be effective with 20 minutes of training and practice...can't say that about "assault rifles".......summary? Shaddup.....eliminating assault rifles will simply kill jobs....the terrorist have a plethora of "sensible" weapons to choose from that are EQUALLY effective and will kill relatively as quick......dumb argument/idea....banning assault rifles will do NOTHING to stop the killing....it's an idiot's argument....
Lest we forget, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in less than a second....33 were children....the top 6 US shooting sprees in the LAST 25 YEARS COMBINED didn't kill as many...INCLUDING ORLANDO....again, banning weapons is a DUMB argument.....you would be better to watch out for those assembling fertilizer and rental trucks and vests than you would banning "assault rifles"....
Do they kill? You bet. But, then again, so does any gun...some just a bit quicker.. but NONE as quick as a bomb????
Turns out, bombs are relatively cheap to make. I'd say ask Timothy McVeigh but, fortunately, he's not available for comments at the moment...he's dead. And mercifully so.....
So, what have we learned? Banning guns is a joke. It might make some feel better, sure, but stop bad people from killing good/innocent people??? ROFLMAO!!!!!!
No, it won't work and debating it only proves the idiocy of some. This simply comparison above proves the point.....There are lots and lots of .22 rifles laying around....shooting rounds one at a time? Not so effective, shooting 25 in about 5-7 seconds? Effective...and most have high-capacity after-market mags available....even Marlin's 795's can be outfitted with 25 round magazines...heck, the 10/22 can be outfitted with 75 round drum magazines!!!! These are but two, simple examples....stop future sales of magazines? They tried that....all it did was drive sales and prices for magazines sky high but, the consumption never stopped. Every time you put a limit on any of them or the components, you simply drive up the price on the supply (almost endless) up....it accomplishes NOTHING for what the laws were aimed at doing....people will continue to buy privately.....after Barrack's attempt to limit purchases in 2010 give or take, costs have come down with the exception of .22 LR ammo (and even that has cooled off quite a bit) and people have STOCKED THE F UP.....so now, the supply has almost caught up....guns are now back at reasonable prices and thanks to the Democrats choice in President's, Mexico and the Phillipines are now some of the biggest suppliers of ammo in the US.....congratulations...you just helped their economies at the expense of some of ours although our ammo manufacturers are doing pretty well based on stocking up demand....but, that will subside and THEN it will hurt US jobs.....good news for Mexico and the Phillipines...oh, and by the way, their ammo goes "bang" too so not much slack anticipated for wanton murderers in the future......
Psychological treatment for the sick, overt surveillance of those under suspicion, harsh invasive search techniques and a society that really, really wants safety and voila, you might make a dent in it....banning guns is fools gold. You only embolden the criminal (Look at Chicago and NY and CA....some of THE toughest gun laws and they kill each other routinely) and make the innocent more vulnerable. Period.
If you want to stop the killing of 50 people, start with Chicago/Chiraq....they kill 40-50 A MONTH and have been for years....that's like an Orlando shootout....monthly.....and nooooo one talks about it......and nooooo liberal will ever dare debate the topic. But, hey, what do I know, google it....google the deaths in Chicago for 2015/2016.....note the amount of shootings WEEKLY....if you care so much about Orlando, why don't you care about Chicago? Again, it's been going on for years????? The fact this was a gay bar doesn't change things....murder is well, murder? They don't have to wear tight shorts to be tragic, do they? In chicago, kids are routinely caught in the cross-fire....true, this d-bag did it for philosophical reasons but, that argument falls fallow on the survivors of those murdered in Chicago and other cities....doesn't it? Dead is well, dead. Doesn't matter if it was Mateen or Bootsy, it's tragic. And the world for the most part, ignores the horrific death toll in Chicago...even it's favorite homie, the president.....nice huh?
Want to save lives? Start with Chicago....want to show you care? Start with Chicago.....want to try and see what a ban on assault rifles will do, start with Chicago? Those are the FACTS people. Read and digest the FACTS and you will see that the political efforts to win votes would be better served stopping ISIS than stopping the manufacture and distribution of "assault rifles"....it's the politicians current cause de celeb....or words to that effect.....it gets YOU to vote for THEM but it does NOTHING to stop the killing....
Get it? Good.....
Last edited by Caleb Longstreet; 06-17-2016 at 05:06 PM..
The AR an AK were never banned. The 94 gun ban or crime bill only banned things like pistol grip and flash hider bayonet lug ect. This is because to ban ARs or AKs work no different than the Remington 7400 and all other semi autos. So from the Browning shot gun to the Ruger 1022 would all have to be banned if you ban the AR. This is where liberals never get it.
Ok, through some twist of weirdness, the 2nd Amendment is repealed and guns are declared illegal in the US. Estimates are that there are about 300 million legally owned guns in the US currently. How many of those guns do you figure are going to be handed in to be destroyed? How would there even be enforcement?
Depending upon if it was repealed by states ratifying an amendment or from 9 justices enforcing their will upon others. I would put a low figure of 50%. Unless a recent event like the Rodney King riots or Hurricane Katrina had occurred in the same news or election cycle
Depending upon if it was repealed by states ratifying an amendment or from 9 justices enforcing their will upon others. I would put a low figure of 50%. Unless a recent event like the Rodney King riots or Hurricane Katrina had occurred in the same news or election cycle
50%? Wow, I think that's awfully generous, but let's go with it.
That still leaves about 150 million guns floating around the US, with no real method of enforcement.
I'd say the "bad guys" wouldn't have any issue at all finding munitions.
Lets' ban fertilizer, knives, cars, people with arrests for assault. Typical knee-jerk reaction. It's like banning cars when there is a DUI or issuing licenses for knives, and background checks for pressure cookers.
It's bad people with warped ideologies and mentally-ill that kill -- not instruments. You ban guns and the bad guys will use chemical weapons and explosives.
Lastly, how about we lock up all men since men commit 95% of all crime and men represent most gangsters, terrorists, and also start all the wars. Be sensible.
The FBI had this guy but let him go because of political correctness. If he were a white Christian, they would have tracked him 24/7.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltergulick
1st) As has been mentioned quite a bit in numerous threads.
While we were never meant to be a theocracy, we certainly were a country that was founded on the very idea that "we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights".
You are referencing the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration was to declare a separation from Britain, the Constitution was to declare on what basis the USA was to be founded, it's governing structure, and how its laws were to be determined. No reference to any creator or deity in it.
Quote:
Furthermore, to all the detractors, that is why still to this day we swear on the Bible when we are giving testimony.
Only Christians may chose to do so. Courts will accept an affirmation in place of swearing on a bible. It is not a requirement, only an option.
Quote:
That is why the congress opens each session with prayer.
You are correct, however that practice is currently the subject of a lawsuit as a violation of the Establishment Clause. It will be interesting to see how that ends up.
Quote:
That is why Bible verses may be found engraved on many federal government buildings throughout DC.
That is correct. Along with saying on the Supreme Court from Confucius and Solon.
Quote:
To try and pretend like all of that doesn't give us pretty good insight as to what the founders thought of religion and that the "separation of church and state" was meant to keep the gov't. out of the church and certainly not the way it has been morphed today.
Of course the Treaty of Tripoli specifically states that in Article 11 that "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;...". That treaty was passed unanimously by Congress. Many of the founders have made similar statements.
Quote:
2nd) Interpreting something and amending it is two different things. What has been the practice of the SCOTUS lately is REdefining the constitution rather than the gov't. using the proper procedure of proposing a new amendment that suits their agenda, and letting the states ratify it or not.
Again, the founders in the Constitution specifically wanted the Supreme Court to be the final arbitrator of what the Constitution said and meant. If the Congress and the States feel strongly that SCOTUS erred, your amending formula can be used. The checks and balances are there, and that is the genius of the US Constitution. I wish Canada's was so constructed.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by mishigas73
......
Let me put it to you this way. I have yet to hear exactly how it is determined who gets put on this "no fly" list. I have gotten the feeling though that there's no notice sent out to the person. No ability for them to say "wait, you have the wrong person". Heck, I don't even think that they use people's social security numbers- which leads to quite a few misidentifications of people with the same name.
That is the worst part of the 'no fly' list, that there is no appeal. It is not a unique law though; I as a Canadian can be restricted from entering the US by any border agent for any reason for up to 5 years, and there is no appeal. No appeal to a supervisor, or through the courts. I don't agree with those types of laws. We have similar ones in Canada where a suspected terrorist can be held indefinitely in prison, with no right to court.
Quote:
I do NOT support terrorists having guns. What I do support, however, is the obligation of the government to prove their case before taking away a fundamental individual right which is written plain as day into our Constitution.
FBI, you think I'm a terrorist? Prove it. In a court of law.
I feel this way the same as I feel with any other right guaranteed by the Constitution. I am a big fan of due process, in all areas, not just the ones that are most expedient, or "feel good".
I basically agree with you, except I don't have an issue under certain circumstances that suspects are held awaiting trial or a hearing. There has to be some due process, as well as a mechanism to protect the public. Greater minds than me will have to decide where that balance lies.
That is the worst part of the 'no fly' list, that there is no appeal. It is not a unique law though; I as a Canadian can be restricted from entering the US by any border agent for any reason for up to 5 years, and there is no appeal. No appeal to a supervisor, or through the courts. I don't agree with those types of laws. We have similar ones in Canada where a suspected terrorist can be held indefinitely in prison, with no right to court.
Border rules are entirely different. You can be banned from entering a country because the border guard is having a bad day. It's not only the US, by any means.
That is, however, very different from the US depriving its citizens of fundamental rights.
You are referencing the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration was to declare a separation from Britain, the Constitution was to declare on what basis the USA was to be founded, it's governing structure, and how its laws were to be determined. No reference to any creator or deity in it.
Only Christians may chose to do so. Courts will accept an affirmation in place of swearing on a bible. It is not a requirement, only an option.
That is a recent development. Well relatively speaking. Until the 1960s it was mandatory. About the same time they removed God from school.
You are correct, however that practice is currently the subject of a lawsuit as a violation of the Establishment Clause. It will be interesting to see how that ends up.
That is correct. Along with saying on the Supreme Court from Confucius and Solon.
Of course the Treaty of Tripoli specifically states that in Article 11 that "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;...". That treaty was passed unanimously by Congress. Many of the founders have made similar statements.
Again, the founders in the Constitution specifically wanted the Supreme Court to be the final arbitrator of what the Constitution said and meant. If the Congress and the States feel strongly that SCOTUS erred, your amending formula can be used. The checks and balances are there, and that is the genius of the US Constitution. I wish Canada's was so constructed.
I thank you for a thoughtful and civil rebuttal.
Uncommon on these forums!
I had to rep you on that alone!
I will only say that IMO it is laughable to think that the SCOTUS can declare something to be a violation of the separation clause when clearly the very people who wrote it did not think it was, as is evidenced by the fact that it was practiced since the establishment of our country.
How can people not see how ridiculous that notion is?
Praying before opening a session of congress is a violation of the separation clause? Yet the people who actually wrote the separation clause prayed before opening their own sessions??/
Simply ridiculous!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
