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.
The Conn. shooter tried to buy a gun earlier in the week or the week before and was DENIED!!
The laws do work!
Did you forget that the shooting happened in a gun free zone and broke something like 41 laws??
The laws work? He got his guns from his mother, who apparently couldn't be bothered with her own son's mental health, and bought them anyway and even taught the boy how to use them,. Which, of course, makes one question her mental health as well. And speaking of gun free zones, residents had been complaining about all the gun fire in the countryside for nearly two years, some of it apparently automatic fire. So much for your gun free zone. Didn't actually work did it?
As long as there is no outright ban on all guns, then the consitution has not be violated. Just as you can't threaten to kill someone or yell fire in a theater.
So, you spend hours typing a bunch of stuff that gets shot down in 2 sentences. I don't see it as a constitutional infringement to ban semi autos or detachable magazines. As long as you can buy a bolt action rifle and a shotgun, I see no violation of the constitution. Gun fetishists can cry over it all they want, even go ahead and make threats. This is exactly how the law makers should handle this situation.
Your slippery, superficial grasp of logic and reason does not defeat my points in any way shape or form, whatsoever. It is only this surface level reasoning skill clearly demonstrated here that leads you to believe such silliness.
The oft used "You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater" is typical of a liberal who would likely have trouble defeating my dog in a game of checkers, and doesn't require two whole sentences to defeat, but only seven single syllable, simple words ... and let me type them slooowly .... "If there is a fire you can!".
Now this is more complex, and might truly be a waste of time, not for fear of being shot down, but just an exercise of casting pearls ....
The law, as written in the constitution's 2nd Amendment, guarantees your right to own and carry firearms, just as the 1st Amendment guarantees you freedom of speech. The assumed prohibition on yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is not a prohibition on the speech itself, or your physical ability to yell fire, but on the inflicting of harm should one do so without reason, causing unnecessary panic. But if there is a real fire, then you most certainly can yell fire, and probably should. A law forbidding the actual statement "Fire", even in the case of a real fire, would be rather self defeating and not in the best interests of public health.
Analogous to that, the carrying of a firearm is not a violation of the law (constitutionally)... but inflicting unjustified injury or death with it by discharging that weapon is against the law ... just as would be true using any other method of inflicting injury or death. So, discharging that weapon in a "crowded movie theater" without reason, would be similar in spirit to yelling fire without reason ... but just as you SHOULD yell fire in the event of a real fire ... so too should you be allowed to draw your weapon and shoot a maniac like the one that shot all those people in the Aurora CO movie theater, before he had a chance to kill several innocent victims.
The banning of such weapons in movie theaters is similar to placing a physical gag on everyone entering a movie theater to prevent them from yelling fire, and would do so, even in the event that a real fire broke out. I contend that in the event of a real fire, most sane people would probably think was a very reasonable thing to do, to warn fellow movie goers. You seem to want to say .... shush .. we must not warn them!
The oft used "You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater" is typical of a liberal who would likely have trouble defeating my dog in a game of checkers, and doesn't require two whole sentences to defeat, but only seven single syllable, simple words ... and let me type them slooowly .... "If there is a fire you can!".
Now this is more complex, and might truly be a waste of time, not for fear of being shot down, but just an exercise of casting pearls ....
The law, as written in the constitution's 2nd Amendment, guarantees your right to own and carry firearms, just as the 1st Amendment guarantees you freedom of speech. The assumed prohibition on yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is not a prohibition on the speech itself, or your physical ability to yell fire, but on the inflicting of harm should one do so without reason, causing unnecessary panic. But if there is a real fire, then you most certainly can yell fire, and probably should. A law forbidding the actual statement "Fire", even in the case of a real fire, would be rather self defeating and not in the best interests of public health.
Get it?
Yes, I get it. You're trying to be argumentative. That example is used over and over, and you know what it means. Just in case I'm assuming a little too much here, it means that if there is no fire, and you yell "fire" and cause a panic, you can be held accountable.
Yes, I get it. You're trying to be argumentative. That example is used over and over, and you know what it means. Just in case I'm assuming a little too much here, it means that if there is no fire, and you yell "fire" and cause a panic, you can be held accountable.
Get it?
I stated that pretty clearly .... how'd you miss it? And yes, I know that example is used over and over ... ad nauseam and volume of use adds no more intellectual value than it had the first time it was ever used .. which was zero.
The same would be true of yelling "BOMB" instead of fire. Or ... "He's got a gun!!!" to freak out all the liberals.
The bottom line is ... and maybe you'll get it this time is ... you are not gagged upon entering a movie theater, which would physically prevent you from warning other movie goers in case a real fire broke out ... and you shouldn't be physically disarmed upon entering that theater in case a real need for that firearm protection should happen, as has been the case in the past.
Just as you may not yell fire when there is no fire ... you may not discharge a firearm without just cause. Disarming is akin to physically gagging, only worse, when a maniac enters a side door and begins spraying the unarmed and defenseless crowd with bullets, and they are left with no means to stop the mass murderer.
This really is a simple concept. The carrying of a gun by a law abiding citizen is not a threat to you ... it actually adds a layer of safety and protection against potential criminals, and could save your damned life or the lives of your children watching a freaking movie in a movie theater. Great lord in heaven, quit being so thick!!!
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 12-21-2012 at 09:11 AM..
The laws work? He got his guns from his mother, who apparently couldn't be bothered with her own son's mental health, and bought them anyway and even taught the boy how to use them,. Which, of course, makes one question her mental health as well. And speaking of gun free zones, residents had been complaining about all the gun fire in the countryside for nearly two years, some of it apparently automatic fire. So much for your gun free zone. Didn't actually work did it?
and that is exactly the point
there is already laws and regulations
adding more laws and regulation on top of the ones already in place will NOT make a difference
As long as there is no outright ban on all guns, then the consitution has not be violated. Just as you can't threaten to kill someone or yell fire in a theater.
So, you spend hours typing a bunch of stuff that gets shot down in 2 sentences. I don't see it as a constitutional infringement to ban semi autos or detachable magazines. As long as you can buy a bolt action rifle and a shotgun, I see no violation of the constitution. Gun fetishists can cry over it all they want, even go ahead and make threats. This is exactly how the law makers should handle this situation.
very few people are talking about a total ban......but
""The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.""" James Madison, father of the constitution
the 2nd amendment is very specific...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE shall not be INFRINGED
""""That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."""-- James Madison
the 2nd amendment is very specific...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE shall not be INFRINGED
yes there ARE EXCEPTIONS:
yes if convicted of a crime you would lose that right..just like a felon loses the right to vote
yes if you are COMMITTED to an institution because you are a danger to society you would lose that right....as the gun man in CT SHOULD have been...but because liberals say that institutions are 'in-humane', we have a major problem of people with mental illness walking right next to us
""" the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed""""
keep= own
bear= carry
the right of the PEOPLE to own and carry arms shall not be infringed
the point is that you could BAN all guns COMPLETELY, and it wont stop something like this
it wont stop criminals and gangs from having guns...especially the ALREADY SEVERELY REGULATED assault FULL automatic gins like an UZI
thinks about this
Cocaine is COMPLETELY ILLEGAL.....competely BANNED.......even in the smallest amounts....yet we have a severe cocaine dealing problem
every year our agencies SIEZE over 150,000 KILOGRAMS of cocaine a year...and that is only about 1% of what is smuggled into the USA yearly.
1.5 million United States residents use cocaine at least once per month -a number that has remained relatively unchanged over the past decade, even though it is completely illegal, and their is a so-called "war on drugs"
New York and Delaware were the two states with the highest percentage of cocaine treatment admissions to hospitals and rehab facilities. For New York, that number was 212 admissions per 100,000 residents aged 12 or older.
banning guns will do NOTHING to prevent what happened..it will only BOLDEN the gangs and crooks because they will be the ones with the guns
BANNING GUNS gets more COPS and innocent civilians KILLED
very few people are talking about a total ban......but
""The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.""" James Madison, father of the constitution
the 2nd amendment is very specific...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE shall not be INFRINGED
""""That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."""-- James Madison
Apparently we have real danger of public injury from individuals, eh? Madison must have been a communist Obamao supporter.
And we've had a standing army for how long?
Sounds like gun nuts are strick interpretationalist when it comes to their little toys, not about anything else that hasn't been strictly interpreted in 100 years or so.
Face it guys, you like your power, your guns make you feel "big" and you don't want to give them up, so you'll find anything you can to justify your possession of as many or as dangerous a weapon as you can get away with. Can't we just be honest about what this whole debate is about?
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.
A law forbidding the actual statement "Fire", even in the case of a real fire, would be rather self defeating and not in the best interests of public health.
