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.
I don't see an issue with legal private ownership of semi-automatic military 'looking' firearms. They are just firearms. The 2nd A, in my opinion, does grant us that right.
I take offense to the lax rules governing the purchase and transfer of firearms, and the ease of the background checks. In my opinion it is just too easy to buy and own a firearm. I'd love to see the states get more involved with the background checks. I don't *need* to buy a gun immediately- I can wait. I plan my life well enough that I don't have to have immediate gratification if that means that a thorough background check is accomplished. I would love to all sales go through this process. I don't think we can do an instant background check on 'crazy'.
There was a guy in WV that was trying to buy a gun at a local sporting goods store. The store clerk obviously sensed the guy was agitated about something, so they refused the sale. The guy goes to Walmart, buys a gun, then goes and kills his wife/girlfriend. He had not committed a felony yet according to NICS, but the local authorities knew that there had been multiple calls from his partner telling them he wanted to kill/hurt her. A local check might have prevented that.
As it stands today I can sell anyone of my firearms to anybody I want to in Montana. I could sell my AR-15 to Charles Manson if I wanted to- no liability on me. That's not right. I think it should be a felony to sell a firearm to a criminal or excluded individual.
I don't want to take away 2nd A rights, but as for me, personally, I think I could forgo 'instant gratification' with regards to buying or selling a firearm if that meant we could stop a fraction of the bad transfers that shouldn't be taking place in the first place.
...although it's way past allowing as they are already war ready armed. They will be complelty responsible for our next civil war, they are aching for it and they need to be disarmed. ....
You are losing any attempt at a rational discussion with the above statement. You entered the realm of tin-foil hat territory.
You are losing any attempt at a rational discussion with the above statement. You entered the realm of tin-foil hat territory.
You have never heard of these militias in Idaho, Montana, Utah? Where have you been? I live behind security gates in a quiet retirement community, so I'm not worried, but the ARMAGETTON crowd is very busy arming themselves. Have you checked the stats on gun sales in the last two decades? Those weapons are not kept in studio apartments in Manhattan.
This tragedy is only one of a thousand! If it wouldn't have changed this tragedy, shall we pick out several more that would have been prevented? Many, many examples can be found. Not to mention the killings every 16 minutes across the nation. Yes the NRA is responsible, I think it was 7 years ago that slight wording changes were made to the amendment, feel free to look it up. I think it was actually posted on threads in this site if I am correct. We had common sense bans on assault weapons that the NRA single handed, paid off the right wingers politicians, to repeal. You are protecting billionaires, war-mongers, skin heads and other racist, that find arms profits more important than American lives of all ages. So I consider people with your thinking as toothless wonders regardless of their education and/or salary, and yes beneath me. I said I didn't think these mass shooters have ever been in a voting booth in their lives, they are too ego-centric.
How to respond to someone who does not have a clue, but I will try
How is the NRA responsible ? You do know more people are killed by drunk drivers than guns, which by the way, a gun is incapiable of killing, it takes a human to operate it, same as it take a human to drive a car. More people are killed by medical mistakes. Do you know more people are killed in chicago every weekend than are killed in a so called mass shooting, and that it happens in a area that has the strictest gun control laws in the nation ?
I would like to know what words were changed in the 2nd, considering it has not changed since it was ratified in 1787.
What is a "assault" weapon ? Assault is a action, but if you are using the more modern issue, civilians cannot own a "assault" weapon, which is a select fire rifle, ie, a machine gun, unless they are willing to spent $10,000 or more, get finger printed and a FBI background check. The AR-15 you see on the store shelves is no different than any other semi auto rifle, and they are less powerful than the average deer rifle.
As far as the "common sense" bans you talked about, did NOTHING to lower crime rates(look up the FBI stats if you don't believe me), since criminals prefer pistols to rifles, and what is common sense to you, is a infringement to others. How about we apply "common sense" rules to the 1st Amendment, You will no longer be able to have a computer that can type more than 10 words per minute, no one needs to type faster than that, all computers, cell phones, must be registered and owners must pass a background check, since we all know how dangerous words can be. What is funny is you mention skin heads and so on, when the largest group that use firearms to commit crime are minorities. Should we say that GM is more concerned with profit when a drunk uses one of their products to wipe out a family ? Shouldn't GM make sure that the person buying their car is a safe driver ?
I am a gun owner, and I do vote and have not missed a election since 1984, and I have used a firearm to save a live, as well as saving my own, but gun banners would rather see my neighbors son killed by feral dogs than me using my firearm to save him.
OMG, I can't believe I would bother to answer this silliness, but I'll give it a try! No one, liberal or conservative believes we can stop every gun crime in America. So lets get right past that. What gun laws were put in,place by "liberals"? Name one and when and where and what state did that happen? What year? (Crickets?) Brady background checks, the Clinton "assault weopons ban" How about all the recent gun bans put in place in Colorado ? How about all the restrictions to ownership in New Jersey and New York ? Ammo taxes in Washington, should I continue ?
Our founding fathers could not have foreseen in their wildest imaginations that armaments that are seen in today's society could even be invented! They wanted Americans to be able to form militias that protected us from government takeovers, both foreign and domestic.
They could not have foresaw the internet, telephone, telegraph, TV, Radio, does that mean the 1st does not protect them ?
Simple logic for a new country. They expected the constitution to be a living breathing document that was to be used for American society forever.
If it was a living breathing document, they would not have made it so difficult to change and the Constitution does not limits the rights of people, it is a set of rules to limit the Government.
(QUOTE)We can still get rid of that amendment should we choose to do it. todays armaments have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 2nd amendment any any shape or form. (QUOTE)
How do you arrive at that conclusion ? Does the 1st not cover the internet, computers Radio and other means of speech ? If the 2nd is taken in the way it was written, the people would have the same ARMS as the military, The Founding Fathers did not want a standing army, as they felt it was a threat to the freedom of the People. We defeated the British because we had the same arms as they did.
(QUOTE)The NRA has everything to do with mass shootings as well as assault wePons and military grade armaments flooding this country. (QUOTE)
Strange, I have never seen a NRA ad promoting mass shootings, or anything along those lines. As far as "Military" grade weapons flooding the country, all the so called weapons are semi auto, not fully automatic military arms. The average deer rifle is many time more powerful than a so called assault weapon.
(QUOTE)There is no way to stop the coming civil wars that will decimate this country in the coming years as a DIRCT RESULT of the NRA and the arms manufacturers that pay them to lobby the government and pay off the politicians. (QUOTE)
I will agree with you on this, a civil war is coming, but the cause is in the white house, which has caused more race riots and racial problems in 6 years than I have seen in the last 40+ years.
(QUOTE)It's 100 percent profit and politics. When we are not at war cause the GOP can't manage to get us into another one, (QUOTE)
We are not at war, but we will be soon, because we will have to clean up obummer mess in the middle east, if there is any chance of it.
(QUOTE)the armaments dealers need to keep making profits. Mass shootings are simply a profit making platform for the right wind demigods. (QUOTE) The "arms" makers do make a profit, that is the job of a business, do you feel bad that Apple makes a profit ? Samsung ? GM ? Microsoft ? When I sell a product or service, I sell it for more than it costs me to make it, does that mean I am evil because I made a profit on my investment ?
One of the largest parts of outdoor sports is shooting, be it trap, skeet, hunting, match shooting and so on. There are over 300 million guns the US that are not used to commit crime, and a microscopic number that are.
(QUOTE) Surely even you are capable f seeing that clearly.? Oh by the way, how do you know someone is a democrat or a republican if they didn't tell you? Or you went into the voting booth with them. Do you actually think those crazed lunatics are actually voting? Ever been to a gun show in the south? You really want those people armed! I'll put my knowledge of the constitution against yours anytime. When did Timothy mcveigh become a democrat?
Mcveigh did not use a firearm, he used a rental truck, which you can still rent, fertilizer, which you can still buy, and fuel oil, which you can still buy.
As far as putting your knowledge of the Constitution against mine, you all ready have, and you have been found to be wanting, please try again.
As far as the mass shooters, every one of them has been the child of, or a registered democrat, or a radical muslim, as to whether they voted, only they know if they have, but they did register to vote.
I have been to gun shows, and you know what, there have never been a mass shooting at a gun show. As far as the people that are there, they have the attitude of, if you don't like something, don't buy it. If you don't like guns, don't buy one.
As far as the mass shooters, every one of them has been the child of, or a registered democrat, or a radical muslim, as to whether they voted, only they know if they have, but they did register to vote.
I have been to gun shows, and you know what, there have never been a mass shooting at a gun show. As far as the people that are there, they have the attitude of, if you don't like something, don't buy it. If you don't like guns, don't buy one.
Wow that old BS was pretty much found to be absurd make believe. Are the ultra right wing alternate universe DJ's still spinning that stuff? Instead of spinning nonsense, maybe they should try talking about the problem that really does persist in our society?
The idea that recent mass shooters are mostly registered Democrats is a myth
1. Nidal Hasan (the Ft. Hood shooter) lived in either Virginia (his state of residence prior to being sent to Ft. Hood) or Texas, neither of which has partisan registration. Therefore the claim that he was a "registered Democrat" is false. I do not know if he voted or how he voted, but I do know that unless he was registered in a state in which he did not reside, that the claim that he is a registered Democrat is FALSE.
2. Since Virginia does not have partisan registration there is also no way to tell whether Seung-Hui Cho was a Democrat, but again because there is no partisan registration in the state we can say that the claim that he is a registered Democrat is FALSE.
3. The allegation that James Holmes was registered Democrat was based on a Breitbart blogger Joel B. Pollack, who found voter registration records for a DIFFERENT James Holmes who was about the same age. Alex Jones’ Infowars and other right-wing websites then dutifully repeated the lie without verifying it. It was later determined that the Colorado Theater Shooter James Holmes was NOT registered to vote, as evidenced by this retraction: {Newly-released information on the suspect’s birthdate (which, as indicated in our initial report, was a slight mismatch), combined with new details Breitbart News has obtained about the suspect’s likely addresses, together suggest that the suspect may, in fact, not have been registered to vote.}. However, most of right-wing media continued to promote the lie without printing Breitbart sites retraction. The claim that James Holmes was a registered Democrat is FALSE.
You have never heard of these militias in Idaho, Montana, Utah? Where have you been? I live behind security gates in a quiet retirement community, so I'm not worried, but the ARMAGETTON crowd is very busy arming themselves. Have you checked the stats on gun sales in the last two decades? Those weapons are not kept in studio apartments in Manhattan.
I think the chances of them rising up into some sort of organized civil war is about as likely as the zombie apocalypse. The vast majority can't manage much except walking in the woods playing pretend soldier, drinking beer from the back up pickup trucks, and plinking at beer cans.
No, your thoughts of some new great civil war overtaking the country are silly and extreme nonsense.
The problem is that Obama is a rubber stamp that answers to his owners, not the American people. So he uses executive orders to force legislation whether its wanted or not. There should be safeguards against this but the entire government seems to be answering to somebody else and both parties are working together and are getting harder to distinguish left or right.
Ugh. It's been six years of people screaming that Obama is gonna take our guns, and six years of Obama doing absolutely nothing to take your guns. In fact gun rights have expanded under Obama. You can now carry your guns in national parks, for example, a right that Ronald Reagan (of all people) took away from you!
Yes Obama speaks a lot about trying to reduce gun violence thru new/stronger legislation (unfortunately usually after a bunch of kids have just been killed by a crazy guy with a gun), but other than briefly trying to reinstate the ban on assault rifles (which he quickly abandoned) he hasn't done anything to limit gun rights.
Tell that to people in New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Colorado.
Is there a good reason why certain .22 handguns are not legal in these states?
I watched Obama deliver yet another address from his podium about a mass shooting this time at the college in Oregon.
There was something in his tone and eye that has me a bit nervous. He has another year in office and he could whip out his executive action poison pen and start attacking gun rights.
He is not a fan of the second amendment and I think this might be the time that he chooses to go after it. It would be a huge uphill battle to amend or ban guns but he could do damage to what many of us see as heritage.
Guns in the hands of good brave men with freedom in their hearts is what made America great.
The trouble with a liberal politician is he doesn't make the distinction between a legal law abiding gun owner and a criminal. Of course it is much easier to make new laws that inhibit the law abiding but it is not so easy to shut down the criminals who use guns even though there are so many laws already on the books.
Criminals by definition do not obey the law.
I am nervous that Obama is "gunning" for the rights of law abiding citizen gun owners and that is really scary because what they don't realize is that without the Second amendment we wouldn't have the First.
Obama may be just arrogant enough to believe that the Second Amendment can be negated by an Executive Order. Heaven forbid he should try to stay in office beyond the end of his term because of some manufactured emergency. Can you imagine the Sh**storm if Hilary is the President elect and on the big day in January 2017 Obama refuses to leave office? Even Hilary MIGHT change her views on the importance of the Second Amendment if that should happen.
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.
