Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-11-2013, 02:45 PM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,864,298 times
Reputation: 7982

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post


I don't wish to fight the government. I simply want to maintain the rights those that did fight the government acknowledged that we all should have.
To what point? As I wrote earlier, owning a handgun or a rifle won't protect an individual from an army or even a police force. So, according to you, the Tsarnaev brothers were in their right to have grenades and bombs? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds as if that's what you're saying.

I don't want anyone in the government tracking my internet activity or phone calls. I don't like any invasion of privacy. However, people can't have it both ways. On the one hand, I hear people complaining that "the FBI sure dropped the ball," referring to the Boston Marathon attacks. But the same people are upset that government agencies like the NSA are tracking cell phone data.

Before someone tells me this is off-topic, I want to tie in what I just wrote to owning weapons. I do not believe, at least at this writing, that our government is trying to take away our right to own guns. Any reasonable person knows that if you own a pistol, shotgun, rifle and are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about. The police are not going to knock on your door to confiscate your weapons. However, to those of you who think banning certain military style assault weapons or high capacity magazines is stomping on our 2nd Amendment, please tell me where it should stop? Chemical warfare?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2013, 02:46 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 18,997,876 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Excellent news for lefties!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2013, 02:54 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,972,306 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
To what point? As I wrote earlier, owning a handgun or a rifle won't protect an individual from an army or even a police force. So, according to you, the Tsarnaev brothers were in their right to have grenades and bombs? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds as if that's what you're saying.
Again, the people of Afghanistan have held off both the American and Soviet armies.

Quote:
I don't want anyone in the government tracking my internet activity or phone calls. I don't like any invasion of privacy. However, people can't have it both ways. On the one hand, I hear people complaining that "the FBI sure dropped the ball," referring to the Boston Marathon attacks. But the same people are upset that government agencies like the NSA are tracking cell phone data.
According to intelligence agencies in other countries the government ignored the warnings they were gave about these two. Few will argue that the government can't track Russian citizens in this country. It might not be wise to allow those that you have been warned about become citizens also.

Quote:
Before someone tells me this is off-topic, I want to tie in what I just wrote to owning weapons. I do not believe, at least at this writing, that our government is trying to take away our right to own guns. Any reasonable person knows that if you own a pistol, shotgun, rifle and are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about. The police are not going to knock on your door to confiscate your weapons. However, to those of you who think banning certain military style assault weapons or high capacity magazines is stomping on our 2nd Amendment, please tell me where it should stop? Chemical warfare?
The only reason the government hasn't been able to take our guns is because of the 2nd. Some places have tried and the SCOTUS has told them they can't. Politicians have said they would if they could only get the votes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2013, 03:16 PM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,864,298 times
Reputation: 7982
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
The only reason the government hasn't been able to take our guns is because of the 2nd. Some places have tried and the SCOTUS has told them they can't. Politicians have said they would if they could only get the votes.
Please show me. This is the latest update I can find. What state is trying to take away all guns from responsible citizens? It's possible I missed something.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/02/what-are-the-states-doing-about-gun-control/]What are the states doing about gun control? (UPDATED)[/url]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2013, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,856,624 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
The 2nd amendment doesn't "apply" to the people, it "applies" to the government "...shall not be infringed."

The 2nd amendment did not apply to (restrict) states until 2010 when Chicago v. McDonald was decided.

McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bill of rights did not start getting incorporated until after the 14th amendment was passed, and only then was it done on a case by case basis.
Ah, I think I see what you're saying. You're saying the 2nd restricted the Fed Gov from infringing on second amendment rights, but not the states..... gotcha....

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
Citations, please.

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2013, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,856,624 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
To what point? As I wrote earlier, owning a handgun
or a rifle won't protect an individual from an army or even a police
force.
And I explained to you how you were wrong.


Quote:
Before someone tells me this is off-topic, I want to tie in what I just wrote to
owning weapons. I do not believe, at least at this writing, that our government
is trying to take away our right to own guns.
Maybe not as a collective, no. But don't doubt for a second there are politicians who would like nothing better.

Quote:
However, to those of you who think banning certain military style
assault weapons or high capacity magazines is stomping on our 2nd Amendment
Can you tell me what it is that makes these weapons "military style assault weapons".... what qualifies these rifles as such? Do they function like those carried by our soldiers in the military? Are they any more lethal than conventional firearms? If they were banned, would there still be firearms that function in EXACTLY the same manner as those that were banned available for legal purchase in the civilian market?

If you can't answer ALL of these questions, then you have no business pushing for a ban on something you know absolutely nothing about. Of course you can't answer any of these questions, because if you could, you would know the "Assault Weapons Ban" was nothing more than a hoax, a play on words designed to deceive the public at large and take advantage of the majorities confusion over the differences between Military issue firearms and those available to the civilian market, and you wouldn't be pushing for it.


Quote:
please tell me where it should stop?
The supreme Court gives some insight to this. They have ruled that the 2nd amendment protects any weapon that is; commonly owned amongst the American people and used for lawful purposes such as target shooting, sports matches, and self defense, and does not function in a unusually dangerous way, which we already covered above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2013, 03:55 PM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,864,298 times
Reputation: 7982
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
According to intelligence agencies in other countries the government ignored the warnings they were gave about these two. Few will argue that the government can't track Russian citizens in this country. It might not be wise to allow those that you have been warned about become citizens also.

Oh, you won't get an argument from me that warnings were ignored. It happens all the time. There were several warnings before the 9/11 attacks.

I was only saying that people get upset when the government peeks into our lives but get more upset when they don't. I might have my head in the sand, but I honestly do not believe that people are listening to a phone call between my sister and me or reading my emails. As I've already written, I have Googled some words like AK-47 and MQ-9 Reaper, so maybe one day I'll get a call or a visit (I doubt it) or an agency will check out my contacts and travel activity. But I wouldn't be arrested or detained IMHO. I would explain I was posting and wanted to make sure I had the correct spelling or description, etc. Now, let's say I was a terrorist or just a madwoman who wanted to destroy the world or go on a shooting rampage. Wouldn't it be better if, before I purchased weapons and made plans to attack a school or a library, someone intercepted my plan?

I am not defending the government, but simply throwing out ideas, since I do not understand why anyone needs a high powered assault rifle or a drum that can shoot 100 rounds in seconds. Believe me, I don't like government intervention, but also think sensible gun laws aren't about big government, just about common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2013, 04:05 PM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,864,298 times
Reputation: 7982
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
Excellent news for lefties!
People like you never cease to amaze me. Hateful posters are actually laughing about a tragedy and joking about finding joy in the murder of innocent people. Has your distaste for opposing political views grown so much that you have no compassion in your heart?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2013, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
9,282 posts, read 6,721,268 times
Reputation: 1531
[quote=zombocom;29966482]
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover View Post

Y'know, the 2nd amendment didn't even apply to the states until 2010. so it's a bit hard to say that the purpose of the bill of rights is to limit government tyranny, it was only intended to limit the federal government.
you are right, it did not it applied to We the people.

you are aware if the federal government cant do something the states can not do it all well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2013, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,856,624 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post



I was only saying that people get upset when the government peeks into our
lives but get more upset when they don't. I might have my head in the sand, but
I honestly do not believe that people are listening to a phone call between my
sister and me or reading my emails. As I've already written, I
have Googled some words like AK-47 and MQ-9 Reaper, so maybe
one day I'll get a call or a visit (I doubt it) or an agency will check out my
contacts and travel activity. But I wouldn't be arrested or detained IMHO. I
would explain I was posting and wanted to make sure I had the correct spelling
or description, etc. Now, let's say I was a terrorist or just a madwoman who
wanted to destroy the world or go on a shooting rampage. Wouldn't it be better
if, before I purchased weapons and made plans to attack a school or a library,
someone intercepted my plan?
I sure hope this isn't where you get your information about the guns you would like to see banned. You see, when you google AK-47, you might pull up a page that talks about the automatic version of the gun, instead of the semi-automatic civilian version. Did you know there was a difference? I bet not.

Quote:
I am not defending the government, but simply throwing out ideas, since
I do not understand why anyone needs a high powered assault rifle or a drum that
can shoot 100 rounds in seconds. Believe me, I don't like government
intervention, but also think sensible gun laws aren't about big government, just
about common sense.
First and foremost, we don't NEED to have a NEED..... the second amendment doesn't require that we have a specific NEED.

Secondly, can you tell me what it is about these rifles that make them "high powered" or "assault rifles"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top