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.
Militias? Say, is that one goofball in Michigan still active with his militia? I remember Rush and others touting him in the 1990s. He sort of looked like Bud Grant.
No! Lolololol
Not militias. Hahahahahah...
I meant the smaller open carry and concealed carry and gun rights organizations.
In VA we have VCDL, the Virginia Citizens Defense League (not a militia, just many private citizens and many lawyers) which has been VERY successful in getting silly gun laws thrown out.
Every state has these groups. You know multicultural, highly educated groups of grass roots activists.
In Chicago they kill one another and I don't see any protection there as the innocents are gunned down. Of course the culture of music has glorified guns, mistreating women, and disrespect of authority. And I don't see Obama speaking against it. Obama could have done so much more.
The problem with conservatives is summed up right with this post. You advocate respect for authority when that same authority seeks to rob you of rights you hold dear. Not to mention you don't exactly respect Obama or the democrat run administration (nor should you).
All that being said, Obama is powerless to do anything about Chicago short of sending more police there.
"Shall not be infringed."
The Feds have no authority in the matter.
I'm a gun-lover. I grew up around guns and own several guns. I have and use a Handgun Carry Permit. I support the right for teachers to be armed in primary schools. The concept of a "gun free zone" where only criminals possess guns is utterly ridiculous; Mississippi and Utah have good laws related to this. I don't personally own any guns that will be affected by the proposed ban, but many of my friends and relatives do. I oppose the ban.
Using the ultra right wing (aka, RWNJ) argument of "Shall not be infringed", anyone and everyone should have the right to own any sort of military weapon. A criminally insane sociopath can break out of an asylum and be legally entitled to go to a gun show and purchase a couple of fully automatic M16A1s, a few cases of armor piercing ammo, a box of grenades, and an RPG. No background check, because there should be no such thing as a background check. He could even tell the dealer that he's planning on using these weapons to immediately go to the police station and kill as many cops as he can, the dealer would still have no restrictions on selling the weapons.
If you truly believe that "shall not be infringed" means ANY law restricting military arms is unconstitutional, then ANY military weapon should be available for private purchase for any US citizen. Fully-automatic machine guns. Grenades. Abrams tanks. Fully armed fighter jets. Nuclear tipped missiles.
On the other hand, if you believe the US Government has the right to pass laws that prevent Muslim extremists (who are US citizens) from acquiring the weapons necessary for killing masses of other US citizens, then you agree that "shall not be infringed" allows for the passing of laws restricting ownership under certain circumstances. Now it's just a matter of establishing how much restriction is best for the majority of the population.
People say that the existing gun laws should be enforced. That's what I'm saying. The NRA and gun manufacturers supported background checks. LaPiere is even on record as supporting universal background checks. This was put into law, but people found loopholes. I'm saying close the loopholes.
LaPierre needs to go away. He's not helping. He's changed his stance (on the record) so many times even the Libs have lost count. The best way to refute any stance he takes is simply to go back and find where he has taken the exact opposite stance in the past and use his own testimony against him.
Things NEED to change. If gun owners want to protect their right to own guns, they HAVE to take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't safely handle them. This means universal background checks, and it means removing state and federal hurdles which keeps the names of some mentally incompetent and dangerous individuals off the list.
LaPierre has done yeomans work over the years, and is a big reason why gun-rights have been protected (even advanced in some ways), while other individual rights get steamrolled. Just look at how the ACLU gets steamrolled on things like the Patriot Act. By contrast the NRA fights for gun rights and more often than not wins.
Universal background checks are a bit of a red herring. Remember that Adam Lanza tried to buy a gun, was rejected, yet was able to get his hands on a gun anyway. So if you had UBC, and even removal of the 'hurdles' you mention it would not have made a damn bit of difference.
You are focusing on the gun, when you need to be focusing on the drug (SSRI). We need a change in how these meds are handled, and in the monitoring of people who are on them. Maybe they need to be institutionalized and in a controlled environment where they can't get their hands on a gun, knife, or axe. I don't know the exact answer, but it needs to be studied. What I do know is that your proposal is not the answer.
The problem with conservatives is summed up right with this post. You advocate respect for authority when that same authority seeks to rob you of rights you hold dear. Not to mention you don't exactly respect Obama or the democrat run administration (nor should you).
All that being said, Obama is powerless to do anything about Chicago short of sending more police there.
I disagree but that is another subject for another time.
LaPierre has done yeomans work over the years, and is a big reason why gun-rights have been protected (even advanced in some ways), while other individual rights get steamrolled. Just look at how the ACLU gets steamrolled on things like the Patriot Act. By contrast the NRA fights for gun rights and more often than not wins.
Universal background checks are a bit of a red herring. Remember that Adam Lanza tried to buy a gun, was rejected, yet was able to get his hands on a gun anyway. So if you had UBC, and even removal of the 'hurdles' you mention it would not have made a damn bit of difference.
You are focusing on the gun, when you need to be focusing on the drug (SSRI). We need a change in how these meds are handled, and in the monitoring of people who are on them. Maybe they need to be institutionalized and in a controlled environment where they can't get their hands on a gun, knife, or axe. I don't know the exact answer, but it needs to be studied. What I do know is that your proposal is not the answer.
SCOTUS has already stated rights are not "unlimited" and most people agree.
The disagreement comes from scope.
The federal government has no business or authority setting up a universal check system.
This kind of authority belongs to the states. If every state agrees to work together and implement a universal system then fine.
Its like the stupid Gun Free School Zones. I can carry a gun in a school zone in my state despite the federal law.
The idea I think is that the President would be subject to sensitive decision making so if the family was threatened in the heat of a crucial global decision which was required right away, there is an issue with the obvious. Just like money, a kidnapper trying to raise money and kidnapping wouldn't target an every day earner and look for deep pockets. So the Rifle guy is out of his tree on this one I'm afraid and it seems clear .
Anyway my opinion is that without background checks....a position denies reasonable access to the very often heard idea that movies and games, records are responsible for creating quacks IOW...so then if true, your telling us an idea for the cause - and then denying access to resolve by refusing background checks. So these arguements need to be prepared properly.
I'm sure everyone knows or has known someone that should not have the notion available to walk into a store and buy one of those machine guns. I'm thinking of someone I know right now who will be coming into some money. Those machine guns are good looking and impressive craftsmanship. Theres just no way some people should escape background check....theres too many violent alcoholics in this world.
I don't see what the issue is with rounds...or the weapon. A maniac will just improvise and whatever, or torch a place...but this part of it I think needs to be thought out
...The movies and gore stuff has got to go, or its all just a waste of time. Would someone take a handful of the very aggressive stuff and show at an institution...no. Problem is once this stuff is out in communication thats exactly what is happening because there would be more out, then in...There would be a full house of quacks by the end of the showing, in every major city.
Last edited by stargazzer; 02-03-2013 at 10:51 AM..
So what? I see nothing wrong with what he said, and Wallace is being disingenuous, pretending not to understand the issue. We treat our elite like royalty. Their kids are no more special than civilian kids. Wallace is trying to say "yes they are special". No they are not. No children should be targets of political gamesmanship, and that is what we have here. They are using kids for political gain. NRA is just responding to the outcry by coming up with a solution that should appease those concerns.
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.
