Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Anonymous Responds To Obama gun control policy....

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 21, 2013, 3:59 p.m. EST by livingston9 (-154)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKWQQUOc_TI

If even Anonymous gets this issue and knows that supporting the 2nd Amendment is the right thing to do why can't OWS and it's Forum of supporters connect the dots also?

If the 2nd falls,so shall the 1st.

170 Comments

170 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Connect this dot.

US Constitution Article 1, 15, Congress has the power - To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Bang!

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Will then Obama and FrankenFeinstein give back our rifles and handguns they confiscate to fulfill this Article??

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

If you join the National Guard, you can get fully automatic weapons too. All kinds of explosive shit.

Oh, and you'll be obligated to protect the government if they invoke this Article.

The 2nd Amendment is not meant to assist in you in fighting against the government. It's meant to secure and protect it.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Bonus - with joining now - you guard the nation - by not being in the nation to handle disasters and such - nope - now you have the opportunity to be sent to foreign lands to secure resources - better yet not for country but for corpoRATion. Uncle Fossil Fuel wants you.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

That's not the way Washington explained it.

[-] -3 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

The 2nd amendment simply assures each citizen that they have the tools necessary to defend their life, family or porperty from aggression , whether from an individual of a govt. ALSO , "I ask Sir, what is a militia? It is the whole people.To disarm the people is the best and most effective was to enslave them" spoken by George Mason, co-author of the 2nd amendment during the Virginia convention to ratify the Constitution in 1788.

[+] -4 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

"The 2nd Amendment is not meant to assist in you in fighting against the government. It's meant to secure and protect it."

Thanks for demonstrating just how much you really understand.

LOL, extremely entertaining.

[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Anonymous is an anonymous group, anyone can post a video and claim it is "Anonymous". Some people who do so are actually involved with the group, and can carry out actions.

This video is rather silly, and makes no real claims of action. So what Is the point, gun-totters and arms-pusher shills? Are you making any claim to action, or just spouting more founding fathers constitution nonsense? The rich plantation-running slave-owners where an interesting bit of history, but have little relevance today. You want the army to over throw the president? Really? Do you see that as likely?

A "well regulated militia", is what the words you like to point at (yet seemingly not read) say. This was about the perpetuation of slavery, and the defense of the country, when written. It is not a law from god, or some higher being, just some words, that once applied to a civil society,. not this one, one from history.

Get a grip.

[-] -3 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

"founding fathers constitution nonsense?"

You must not be an American Patriot. That would explain everything.

[-] 6 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Nationalism is a mental illness. It is fail-based and lie enforced and totally destructive.

"nationalism is an aid to capitalist control of nature and people regardless of its origin. Nationalism thus provides a form through which "Every oppressed population can become a nation, a photographic negative of the oppressor nation" and that "There's no earthly reason for the descendants of the persecuted to remain persecuted when nationalism offers them the prospect of becoming persecutors. Near and distant relatives of victims can become a racist nation-state; they can themselves herd other people into concentration camps, push other people around at will, perpetrate genocidal war against them, procure preliminary capital by expropriating them." - Fredy Perlman, The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism

a good read, give it a try. Respond to the "well regulated militia" part of the document you cling to,. or do not respond.

[-] -2 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

"well regulated militia" Yeah? It is what it is. The American people are the "militia".

These concepts are apparently lost on you since your point of reference doesn't include an understanding or acceptance of the idea of national pride and patriotism.

If you are an American by birth I suggest you relinquish your citizenship and find happiness some place that embraces anarchism,poverty and despotism. Those are concepts that are more inline with your ideology.

Haiti will most likely be your first stop.

[-] 5 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Wow, the same tired "patriotic" line, "if you don't agree with my rhetoric, then leave MY Amerrrrica!!!" How creative of you,. deep thinker you?

The point is that constitution is outdated. A real democracy is governed by the living.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Why are you not so keen on this amendment it came right after the second?

What about the 18th amendment? Support that one?

or is it only the gun pushers that you are happy to shill for?

[-] -3 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Bashing America is easy and spouting leftist anti-Constitutional propaganda is hip. Got any new tricks up your tattered sleeve?

"The point is that constitution is outdated. A real democracy is governed by the living."

This statement is extremely illustrative of your anti-American dementia. The Constitution is the only thing that gives you the right to sound like a fool on this forum and this country is a representative republic.

Grow the fuck up and learn about the truth of this country before you decide to destroy it.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

They have been taught that America( capitalism , the Constitution, American exceptionalism )is bad.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Whose been taught that, Sweet Pea? Do tell.

[-] -2 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

Being taught at most universties, which are liberal in ideology.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

How are we defining liberal today? Did you attend a liberal college?

[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

lol, these liberal haters are hilarious,. the school I went to was 90% about corporate indoctrination, and perpetuating the status quo,. (with a single interesting prof per term if you where lucky) they hate what the right-wing hate radio tells them,. and since they never been to collage, they just take it on faith (like everything they take) that these nasty 'institutions of higher learning' must be hot beads of anti-american pinko-fagdom,. friggin' hilarious. Do they not realize that these places are corporate funded and operated?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I went to a school that was labeled as liberal. It sure as hell was not. You get two choices. Fall in love with the professor (in a non sexual way) or fall in love with the material.

It was known to have the third toughest education program in the US. For secondary education you would be working two different programs in two different departments plus working to acquire the license. That was recently destroyed. An entire field was destroyed. So, all of the work, all of the money in loans and all of the time invested went up in smoke. Thanks, corporate owned conservative shills. This was a public school.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

There are some liberal schools out there the new school for example. Very cool place.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Me thinkest it is on a magical mystery tour. Not likely you will get a coherent response.

[-] 1 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

"Me thinkest it is on a magical mystery tour"

Is that your idea of coherent?

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

did you have a problem understanding?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Not anything with depth. That's for sure.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

How deep can a mirage of water be?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Good point.

[-] 3 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

That is not anonymous. That is some libertarian hack job hijacking the anonymous name. FAIL.

[-] -2 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Proof? Please tell me how you came to this conclusion?

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Well for one you can tell because of the kind of sites carrying this video. They are all libertarian youtube pages not an anarchist page among them that is a red flag right there. For two you can tell because of the kind of rhetoric espoused and simplistic arguments involved. Anonymous is not nor will it ever be a libertarian organization. In addition it is highly doubtful that the kind of dumbed down simplistic logic involved in this argument would ever be used by the highly intelluctualized members of anonymous. It is however highly representative of the libertarian mindset as a whole. Overall I would say you have got to be fucking kidding me trying to feed people who know their head from their ass libertarian drivel like this and call it anonymous.

[-] 3 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

Gun owners sat quiet while the Supreme Court decided an election, Bush basically tore up the Constitution, nearly collapsed the world economy and then sold out the American lower and middle class with a pre-Obama promise to cover the top. How am I to honestly believe that gun owners need their crowd killers to rise up against tyranny when history has them down as a bunch of pansies?

[-] -2 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Focus. The discussion is about this dumb ass video, not Bush. I’m a gun owner, including owning an AR and an AK. I’m strongly opposed to any new gun regulations. Even I see how stupid this video is. So much drama.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Focus? He just destroyed your argument stfu asshole.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Care to explain?

[-] 5 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

And i quote "Gun owners sat quiet while the Supreme Court decided an election, Bush basically tore up the Constitution, nearly collapsed the world economy and then sold out the American lower and middle class with a pre-Obama promise to cover the top. How am I to honestly believe that gun owners need their crowd killers to rise up against tyranny when history has them down as a bunch of pansies?" You have been destroyed.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

LOl, that is an epic argument. Good one.

Yeah,I sometimes wounder if there is a positive correlation between scared little wussies and gun ownership. I mean when you stop and think about it, it should be so obvious. it seems that they're scared of every thing. They're scared of slipping or slopping into tyranny, they're scared of thieves, gang bangers and all the other little inconveniences that are sensationalized in our media.

I believe ( tongue and cheek) if shit ever did get real, the gun hoarders would be the first ones to barricade themselves in their homes, and we'd never see hide nor hair of them again. I do jest; after all, I know how sensitive the gun enthusiasts get.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

you already know that is exactly what will happen. these guys think that a hillbilly army is going to stop a battle hardened military force unlike any the world has ever known with intelligence and weapon systems beyond compare. these guys are a bunch of pussies where were they this whole time??? now lets be honest this all has to do with the president being black. flat out.

[-] -3 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Focus. Were talking about guns. Try confascating guns and see how far you get.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Ha ha ha you fake ass tough guys kill me. I am going to laugh my ass off when an 18 year old soldier sticks his boot up your ass.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

New York Post article. Assault-rifle owners statewide are organizing a mass boycott of Gov. Cuomo’s new law mandating they register their weapons, daring officials to “come and take it away,”

The Post has learned. Gun-range owners and gun-rights advocates are encouraging hundreds of thousands of owners to defy the law, saying it’d be the largest act of civil disobedience in state history.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hit_us_with_your_best_shot_andy_5rxZg0gYBJJhkLBtiTPMfJ

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I'm not registering anything; come and get it muthafucker.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

The 18 year old soldier will be on my side. I may not be 18 again, but I am armed; and 85 million other Americans are also.

Talk trash all you want. You're still not getting our guns..

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

The 18 year old will follow orders.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

For what it’s worth, At one point in my life I was an 18 year old soldier. I have seen war up close and personal. The military will not turn on citizens. Even if they did they couldn’t win against several million armed citizens.

War is no longer fought across a battlefield with two armies facing each other; where the best man wins. It’s now guerrilla warfare. Hit and run, disappear into the crowd. Great armies have often lost to lesser armies. A couple hundred thousand soldiers cannot beat several million citizens with small arms. Tanks, howitzers, drones are whatever is not enough. The only way they could win is to kill everyone and let god sort it out. I don’t see that happening.

Me thinks you have no military experience.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

you underestimate our battle hardened military at your own peril. they have been conducting counter insurgency for the last 5 years. they have the peak of military and intelligence technology. i don't think you quite fully comprehend the situation. you think you and the rest of these fucking lardasses are going to take on a platoon of these guys armed to the teeth with air support and armored support? as well as whatever kind of advanced technology they feel like wheeling out to test. yeah good luck with the resistance bigjoe.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

You underestimate the ability of an American sportsman/ hunter. And you underestimate by far our ability to transform an incident into a public statement.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Those fucking pussies are not doing shit because they have not done shit. Now they are worried about freedom and liberty??? What a crock of shit.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Has it ever occurred to you that they are simply law abiding citizens with a general abhorrence of violence?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

What occurred to me is they have bought into fear instead of love.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

This is a pointless discussion. However, your lack of the military knowledge is astounding. I think you watch too many Hollywood war movies.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Statistically speaking the chances that you are smarter than me are around one in 1,000 so I highly doubt you know more about the military than me. Oh, by the way I come from a military family my father is a retired chief.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Anything that is regurgitated forth from the mouth of a clueless Drone such as yourself is to be laughed at and ignored.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Laugh your way to the fema camp.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Are really suggesting the use of FEMA camps to detain your neighbors?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

the gun toting crazies? absolutely. lets round up all the conservatives and libertarians and gas them!!! ha can you not sense the sarcasm?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I can sense the need to bear arms - you ARE the reason.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Well if you were the 1% you should feel that way.

[-] -3 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Coming from an obvious Al Gorezeera supporter how am I to honestly believe your rather convoluted premise?

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Was this guy Glenn Beck?I think I seen him at an anti 21 gathering

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Who says OWS does not support the second amendment.Maybe you did not pass OWS 101.Nobody speaks for OWS.Yet everyone is allowed to speak.

[-] -3 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

"Who says OWS does not support the second amendment"

Just about most of the posters on this forum that's who.

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Thay speak for themselves not OWS.Again go back to your basic OWS 101 text book.It is not in the cliff notes.

[-] -2 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

If OWS supports so-called Assault rifle bans and mag bans then it doesn't really support the 2nd Amendment. That is just the way this whole thing works.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

What ? Just because someone has a different opinon on an issue unrelated to OCCUPY does not mean that it is indorsed by Occupy.I have many opinions.Lets say about the best kind of horse.I could post it,a large group of people could agree/disagree.This does not mean Occupy endorses or does not endorse it.You Know this you are just playing to a conservative ideology.As those who argue with you are playing a Liberal idology.And that Occupy does not endorse either.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

BS - being OK with the banning of high capacity clips/magazines and some types of semi-auto weapons - is not in any way shape or form anti 2nd amendment. Go hide under your bed. OH - I am sorry - was your hiding place a secret?

[-] -1 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

DKA,you must be kidding? You're saying that you're pro 2nd but,it's okay for the Government to ban specific arms and mags that are currently legal?

So you're so trusting of the Government that you believe they would never go beyond just these bans that you support right?

You trust the Government that much do you?

If we give the Government the power to ban these guns and mags it is only a matter of time and circumstance before the shotgun and revolver are next.

So you really trust the Government to not exploit the next tragedy perhaps performed with several .357 revolvers? Or perhaps a couple of 12gauge shotguns?

You really trust this Government don't you.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Anon supports Alex Jones?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I Know - Right? - wtf? I have nothing against gun ownership - but the way people are freaking out is nuts - the discussion on this forum is nothing but a distraction.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yep.

[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 1 year ago

Is that's really anonamyous?

[-] 0 points by maskedlib (0) 1 year ago

The second amendment survived the 20th Century when liberals on the Supreme Court interpreted it as a collective, not individual right. It seems odd that Anonymous would call for a bloody civil war and the death of innocents if the US starts to regulate weapons like most other European nations do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hvgwJSrfGw&feature=share&list=UU8p7Z7Ms3sv5EKvepq0vMTw

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

"Eat to live. Don't live to eat." - Benjamin Franklin

"Eat Me." - anonymous

[-] -2 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

"Eat shit"-livingston9

Sorry,couldn't resist.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You must get that a lot. Let me 2nd that notion - "Eat shit livingston9"

Do you always put yourself down? Well I suppose your being a shill and all that you may have deep seated self disgust issues.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

News article extract:

..Leftists oppose guns at a primal level because they provide a way for citizens to exercise power without going through their managerial state. Since the rise of the New Class described by James Burnham, political power in the West has not rested so much on religion or even money but on the ability to regulate behavior. ...

..What does this mean in everyday life? It means that you know, instinctively, that if the wrong person sees something you wrote, overhears a joke, misinterprets a comment, or just feels like destroying you, there’s nothing you can do about it. The tyranny of the New Class is why there are certain situations that you instinctively steer clear of, because there is no way you can win. You know the System is against you. ...

http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/01/why-liberals-hate-guns/#more-35317

[-] 0 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

"You know the System is against you. ..." As I'm sure you know that's why we have a 2nd Amendment.

Gun registration leads to confiscation which in turn leads to subjugation.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Looks like Gregory Hood is just kicking rocks.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

You may be right, Dear lady. But I for one think there is an element of just wanting to extend control over people in this gun ban talk.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Come on people, liberals don't have to be useful fools.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

but the are ( useful idiots) by being liberals.

[-] -2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I am not a rush dittohead or an anonymous dittohead


THOSE WHO CAN – DO
THOSE WHO CAN’T - RANT

1►
learn as much as you can about the numbers that show the solutions

2►
demand a plan:

http://www.youtube.com/user/maigcoalition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Za8SOVuGHs&list=UUu4Q7iE0z1Jw7yUjs56dvXA&index=1

alex jones – without his straight jacket!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

3►
WRITE CONGRESS:

find your congresspeople
house:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
senate:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm
VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006


╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬


Dear ............................:

[ _ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E_ ]

While some people may want to confiscate guns, here is a much more feasible approach. It will not solve all gun problems, but it will
reduce the number of guns
and that will reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns - and isn't THAT our real goal?

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between cars & guns.

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America with our gun disasters:


1►
all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws thus
being forced to know the law - via the test – also means the police know who you are - and you may be less likely to commit a crime or be careless storing your guns

2►
every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Annual ( fee ) back ground check to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

3►
as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

You are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours,
The owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief.

4►
every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

Knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it.

additionally -

Gun fees [ licenses fees & registration fees & fines ] should be
high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program

Penalties must be very high in money & jail time -
especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun fees should be higher for more guns & for bigger guns.

The nra will fight against this –
but will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it

But the nra may be in favor of this when the gun companies understand that gun owners
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers and
free up police "time" for real crime investigation

We WILL get higher compliance and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback.
Take a position of reducing guns, like assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles -
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.
LBJ proposed a gun plan similar to the above 4 point plan

***


Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: England.…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: France….: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides Per 100,000


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/rft-annual-trend-and-demographic-tables-2011-12.xls
The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

Is the nra & its trolls claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation?


Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

VERY IMPORTANT:
The 1994 gun "ban" did NOT ban assault weapons.
It banned the MANUFACTURE of assault weapons.

Scalia - yes that Scalia - has ruled the AR15s are NOT “protected” by Article 2
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line. That link could be between you and an bushmaster.
During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. "We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.
"Some limitations undoubtedly are permissible because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."
"So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."
The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms. The court ruled that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
Scalia pointed out that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
"My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time," he said. "They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons." Ultimately, Scalia said, any new gun restrictions will have to be weighed "very carefully"

[-] 2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Do you really think a "violent criminal" who wants a "firearm" is going to go through this process - no - He's going to rob a gun store, or break into someones house that he knows has a firearm in NY.

He may even import it from Mexico after it was exported to Mexico by ATF.

As far as "gun testing" goes - it doesn't work just as "microscripting" won't work.

How about focusing on where the real problem is - our "societal mental issues" being caused by the uses of "drugs or lack there of.".

It appears to me that what you claim as a way to "manage firearms" must make you feel "warm and fuzzy" in thinking that that is going to solve "society ills".

Well, it isn't.

[-] 1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Well said. The thing anti-gun folks won't face up to is that banning semi-auti rifles and restricting mags to 10 rounds will do nothing to reduce gun crime.

If you want to reduce gun crime then put more effort into controlling street gangs.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

How about focusing on where the real problem is - our "societal mental issues" being caused by the uses of "drugs or lack there of.".
thank you for asking
mental issues can take decades to solve - I dont trust that solution
for example, a happily married man finds out his wife is having an affair & murders her.
With the gun registered in his name it is likely he will think twice if he knows the bullet can be traced to his gun.


But obviosly YO UR opinion is as worthless as MINE.
WE HAVE THE PROOF:
Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: England.…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: France….: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides Per 100,000

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/rft-annual-trend-and-demographic-tables-2011-12.xls The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

Is the nra & its trolls claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation?

Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted. There has not been an incident in Australia since then. Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

In 1850 you could legally smoke hemp
In 1910 you could legally own an automatic machine gun
laws change - and should be changed.

[-] 1 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Why do you keep posting this everywhere? What do you expect to accomplish? You know as well as I this is a exercise in futility.

It's clear you want to regulate guns out of existance. Fine, just be more realistic. Your ideas won't happen. Get over yourself already.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

what you see as clear is a lie
but that's the best shot from an nra troll

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The sign of a small mind -
claiming YOU know hat my goals are
***.

[-] -1 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

There is no logical comparison between constitutional rights and cars. If this is how your mind thinks,I now understand why you make no sense and in fact are out in left field.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Do you believe that we have a constitutional right to have an AR15?
a grenade launcher?
a fully automatic machine gun?
100 shot magazine?


since NY made this ILLEGAL - we will see what happens in the courts.

[-] -3 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The AR-15 is a lawfully available gun and as you well know "a grenade launcher a fully automatic machine gun", are not lawfully available to the average citizen.

New York as usual has over stepped it's authority and usurped the Constitution again. This will not stand.

Why do you keep using these hackneyed and errant examples?

Have you any experience with a semi-automatic rifle? Are you experienced enough to make an informed comment?

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Why shouldn't we repeal the restrictions against fully automatic weapons? Wouldn't a grenade launcher and fully automatic weapons be helpful for a 'well regulated militia' and useful for maintaining the 'security of a free state'?

Why shouldn't a person have the same access to a fully automatic weapon as a semi-automatic?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Wow the NRA just got dangerously dehydrated - salivating over that idea.

Do it again - that may open the door for em to get medical care - needed mental health care that is.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

I know right. They've already gone off the cliff of lunacy proposing to arm teachers. I have no idea why they wouldn't continue their lunatic public relations death spiral by proposing the repeal of the fully automatic weapons restrictions.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I am waiting for them to suggest a maned machine-gun nest on every corner - you can never be too prepared ya know.

Billy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I told you one more time not doing homework and you would regret it - BOOM

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

I think that it's quite clear that following the stated intent of some of our founders, fully automatic weapons would be legal.

"“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people,” wrote Fisher Ames, a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788. "

"George Mason and others knew reflexively that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason, in particular, argued that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense – including the right to defend against a tyrannical government."

Plus "Jefferson’s famous assertion . . . that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants”". Above quotes from http://shiftfrequency.com/kurt-nimmo-second-amendment-its-not-about-hunting-its-about-tyranny/ .

However, they didn't have legions of the mentally ill roaming the streets in that time or millions of the economically tossed aside (everyone had a job, at least as farmers or farm laborers. Why do you think there are stone walls crisscrossing all of the northeast, almost all the arable land was farmed.). So nowadays no machine guns, etc. are commonsense restrictions on the 2nd A, a la no shouting fire in a theater in regard to the 1st A.

But it is clear that the intent of many of the founders was that the citizenry should be able to match government firepower. However, times and technology have changed.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Your argument seems to conclude that citizens would have an appreciable better 'match' against government firepower with semi-automatics than they would with standard handguns.

Semi automatics would make no appreciable difference to that of a handgun in matching the firepower of the government. So what good is a semi-automatic? Can it stop a tank more effectively than a handgun?

Why argue for a 'commonsense' middle ground - no to fully automatics, yes to semiautomatics - if that middle ground (semiautomatics) is an ineffective response to government firepower anyway?

Where's the upside? A semi auto with 50 rounds can put more dings in tank? What you seem to be saying is - the 'occaisonal' mass murder by semiauto weapons is an inconvenience we must tolerate, in return for the ability to put more dings in a tank. Does not compute.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

I wasn't making any suggestions at all. I was reviewing history.

You are confusing the different meanings of semiautomatic. Semi-automatic machine guns (burst fire weapons) are not legal, and shouldn't be.

However this is all moot. Attacking so-called semi-automatic assault rifles is a propaganda play. But more than that, the Sandy Hook attack was a blatant false flag designed to destroy the 2nd Amendment and lead to complete civilian disarmment.

"The Newtown School Tragedy: More than One Gunman?" http://www.voltairenet.org/article176980.html

I'm not trying to reach you, I'm trying to reach others. I'd wager that your misreading of my comment was purposeful and that you are a disinfo player.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Why shouldn't semi-automatic machine guns (burst fire weapons) be unrestricted? Or fully auto for that matter, be unrestricted? That's a legitimate question.

My understanding is that they are legal under Fed law, but heavily restricted with taxes, fees, FBI checks, lots of hoops to jump through, which makes it very prohibitive to buy/own. With various different State laws limiting ownership/buying/selling. Correct if I'm wrong.

I didn't purposefully misread your comment. I asked a question. Would the types of semiautomatic weapons currently available be effective at stopping a tank? Matching the firepower of the government? If not, what exactly is the point of these weapons? Other than a false sense of security against the potential of a government gone tyrannical.

And I proposed an assessment - the 'occaisonal' mass murder by semiauto high magazine weapons is an inconvenience we must tolerate, in return for the ability to put more dings in a tank. Agree or disagree. But that is what it seems to come down to. That's not disinfo. It's my assessment of the situation.

That it seems inconvenient for you to address this assessment, beyond the ad hominem, 'disinfo player', says more about your argument than mine.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

The reality is that you can't use legislation to halt trade of any kind. But you can relabel law abiding citizens as criminals.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 1 year ago

Dear lady. I assume you have not yet read my response to you on another thread about full-auto guns vs. semi-auto. Anyway, to answer your question about how to stop a tank. Several ways. Use a sniper to take out the machine gunner on top of the tank. Use a grenade launcher or RPG to knock the tracks off and make it immobile. Shoot it with a howitzer. Set fire to it. All kind of way to stop a tank.

I’m being facetious of course. I understand what you’re getting at. As for beating government forces. Wouldn’t be all that difficult. Also co9nsider many soldiers would desert before firing on American citizens.

[-] 0 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

I read your other response. I get your point. I was being a little facetious about the tank. But the fact remains, tanks v RPG, the government still has more firepower.

Article 1 clearly gives Congress the power to protect the government from rebellion. The government has a clear duty to protect itself.

Article 1, 15, Congress has the power - To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

2nd Amendment - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment 'militia' is the same militia as the Article 1 militia. That Congress has power over.

The idea is to protect the ideal of having a state militia. As a protection for the government. Against rebellion. Which is different than the individual right you may have to own any gun you want.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

PEople tend to take the "defend against the gov" argument as a war-type scenario.

In reality, if the gov every ordered the military into the cities, it would be similar to Iraq, where troops are on teh ground. You have to go house to house to clear them. Simply rolling through with tanks and blowing up entire blocks is not an option. Usually.

Of course this is the gov that dropped a nuke on a city. And then dropped another one. So I guess they are capable of anything.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

The 'tank' is an analogy. My point is - why would we accept the current restrictions on machine guns and fully automatic weapons if we would not accept restrictions on semi automatic weapons?

If we are going to accept the 'occasional' mass murder in return for the ability to put more dings in tanks, we might as well expand this to fully automatic weapons as well. Neither seems logical to me. But if we're going to be illogical and childish about it, we might as well be consistent in that illogic and childishness and repeal restrictions of fully automatic weapons.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Well if you want to make a big change, then outlawing handguns would be more appropriate, because thats not the occasional mass murder, its over 10k a year.

Why would you accept the upcoming restrictions on semi automatic weapons and not endorse a single loader restriction?

Many of the people who claim to be defending against the gov are the same ones that poked at us for getting arrested. Saying things like "Tea Party 0, OWS 1000+... Obviously they are mostly full of hot air.

Im not a gun guy, but my belief is that you give politicians an inch, and they take a mile. With the things they have been passing, and the amount of people they are bombing regardless of who says what, and their focus on destrog the currency, we may be heading towards a real shitstorm.

The world is shrinking. And we are destroying ourselves. All that power lust from our gov is going to come back to haunt us.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

A ban on "assault weapons" would include a ban on semiauto pistols; it doesn't matter, it's never going to happen.

[-] 0 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

I'm not sure how 'outlawing handguns' would work out. Reasonable right of self defense and all. Personally, I would be for it. But I don't know how to get there from here.

I think the 2nd Amendment is mostly redundant. I think it is there mostly to protect government. Otherwise Congress would not have power over the militia. To protect itself. In order to put down rebellion and insurrection. This is very clear in Article 1, 15. If there were to be any rebellion the main duty the government has is the duty to protect itself. It doesn't matter if the rebellion is the result of tyranny, and totally justified. The government would still have the duty to act according to Article 1,15. This is not some new power grab. It's Article 1. There is a reason that it is there. Not because they expected tyranny someday. The opposite. They expected a successful democracy and wanted to protect it. If they had thought that people might someday have to violently take back control of government from some sort of tyranny, they could have very easily left the state militia under the control of the state.

That is not to say that the right to own a gun does not otherwise exist. As a general freedom, for purposes of a reasonable level of self protection or defense.

[-] -3 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Your analogy is wrong. You are ignoring the fact that people use AR-15's,AK-47's for personal defense,hunting and sporting.

You are trying to construct a faulty premise of "the ability to put more dings in tanks" as a potential scenario and trying to suck somebody into arguing that premise as if it's real.

You're not furthering your understanding of this issue,only trying to confuse everyone else on the issue.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'Your analogy is wrong' - no it is not. I was directly addressing the comment and quotes provided.

'You are trying to construct a faulty premise' - I was addressing the quotes. Clearly referencing the potentially taking up arms against the government ie: 'of bearing arms, of changing the government'. I gave an analogy that directly addresses those quotes.

Hunting, sporting, personal self defense - you're changing the subject. The previous comment didn't mention those things. I wasn't ignoring it. I didn't address those things, because it wasn't part of the comment.

If you want to change the subject, just say so. There are other rifles and guns that can be used for hunting, sport or personal self defense. The AR-15 and AK-47 were designed for military use on the battlefield in order to lay ground fire for troops.

The idea that you may 'prefer' to use an AR-15 for hunting, for example, is not a valid argument. One might 'prefer' to hunt with a Bazooka. That doesn't mean it's appropriate or necessary.

I have never, ever, heard of a serious hunter that needed and AR or AK weapon, designed for military use, in order to hunt. I have never, ever, heard of a serious hunter that needed more than 10 rounds of ammunition. These may be preferences. But a preference does not equate to a need, as it relates to the desire to hunt. Because lack of these things does not preclude you from hunting. You are still free to hunt. So is the guy that prefers a Bazooka for hunting. Just like the guy that prefers a Bazooka, you too, can get an appropriate hunting rifle.

'You're not furthering your understanding of this issue' - so tell me something relevant. Rather than wrongly criticize my comments.

'only trying to confuse everyone else on the issue' - exactly what part is confusing? I think I've been pretty clear. What part is confusing?

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

You're bouncing... your logic goes one way and then the other; it's a false argument - we want our clips to defend against the multiple attackers that are fully armed with whatever is available, legally or otherwise. The home break-in is a perfect example and it happens regularly in New York.

Hunting is another matter entirely - these are two separate issues that require different tools.

[+] -4 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Please take the time to learn more of the technical side of semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic handguns.

You are trying to converse on a subject that is over your head for now. If you feel so strongly against the 2nd Amendment and the rights of citizens to own certain weapons please at least try to understand the topic better. Maybe if you did this you might actually come to a better understanding.

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'take the time to learn more of the technical side' - I know that weapons and ammunitions designed for the military, are unnecessary for the average citizen. But sure. There's always room to learn more. Tell me what you think is relevant.

If you feel so strongly for the 2nd Amendment, tell me why you think the 1934 Firearms Act is illegitimate and should be repealed? The burden is on you to explain why these restrictions are unconstitutional. You might start with explaining why US v Miller is wrong.

I'm not strongly against the 2nd Amendment. I'm strongly for viewing the 2nd Amendment in a rational way, in now time.

I think you have an irrational attachment to military explosives.

[+] -5 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

"I know that weapons and ammunitions designed for the military, are unnecessary for the average citizen."

And where did you pick up that little gem of ignorance?

No,you want to debate what has already been debated and decided on years ago.

Will you be so open to debating Constitutional rights when the 1st Amendment is on the chopping block?

Most likely not.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

It is well known that the AR-15 and AK-47 capabilities, called by whatever name, for instance, were designed for military use.

If you believe they are 'necessary' for civilians - explain why.

You agreed that 1934 Firearms Act should be repealed. You opened it up to debate by saying it should be repealed. Not I. The burden is still on you.

'1st Amendment' - you're changing the subject. But if you want to discuss the 1st Amendment, you'll have to be more specific.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Yes you are right.Now that we have computers freedom of the press is so outdated.And expressing an opinion is also outdated.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

I not sure I understand your comment. I'm not saying that either the first or the second amendment are outdated.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

No but that is the implication we are given for people control aka gun control.Media and some politicians say that the second amendment was not ment for semi automatics.ie todays fire arms.That line could be carried over to all our so called freedoms.The press they could say was only about print.As we all know the computer is really our only source of non corporate influenced media.This being the case we are starting to see the corporate owned goverment trying to supress that also.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Gotcha.

[-] -3 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

You'll get no argument from me but the Government would offer you one.

You also are making the same hackneyed and errant examples in hopes of somehow drawing a comparison between a semi-automatic and fully automatic,as if they are the same thing and should be treated as such.

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Be the change you want to see. It's just a law. Laws change all the time. Work to get repealed the restrictions on fully auto weapons. File a lawsuit. Contact the NRA. The NRA could lobby to lift the restrictions on fully auto weapons. I'm sure they would be happy to work on that if they thought there was enough support. Help to be the change you want to see.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Hey BC..."Be the change you wish to see in the world," Gandhi. That is one of my daughter's...who lived in India for 9-10 months... sign off on her texts, and she works toward that goal all the time as do my other two daughters who all in their own ways...walk the talk..and strive to make this a better world. I guess they rebelled against me, eh? ;-)

~*Odin

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Hi doll! Not at all. 'she works toward that goal all the time as do my other two daughters' - I don't think that happened by accident. One maybe. But not all three. I suspect you had a little something to do with it.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Thanks, ....as did my ex, showing that 'time' does indeed heal all wounds.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Just because it is legal does not mean it is constitutionally protected
Fully automatic machine guns ARE legal.
I am experienced enough to cite SCOTUS justice Scalia

Scalia - yes that Scalia - has ruled the AR15s are NOT “protected” by Article 2
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line. That link could be between you and an bushmaster.
During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. "We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.
"Some limitations undoubtedly are permissible because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."
"So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."
The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms. The court ruled that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
Scalia pointed out that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
"My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time," he said. "They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons." Ultimately, Scalia said, any new gun restrictions will have to be weighed "very carefully"

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

The problem with your argument is that hand held rocket launchers, in colonial vernacular, do not fit the definition of "arms" - the Constitution grants only the right to bear "arms" - a rocket launcher would be considered "artillery."

Beyond that which lies outside the definition of arms, there can be no restriction, no limits, whatsoever - an AR in any configuration is an "arm" and all citizens have a right to bear that arm.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

so you disagree with justice scalia?
where did you get your legal training?
is a hand held bazooka "arms"?
how about a fully automatic machine gun? seen any at walmatrt lately?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

A bazooka would be considered artillery; a "machine" gun would be considered artillery - auto and semi-auto rifles legally fall within the definition of "arms." But there is so much inconsistent philosophy here - protest government; ban arms... protest criminality; penalize the law abiding. This is the problem with Americans - they are crazy, inconsistent, emotionally impulsive, irrational beings. Thank God such lesser beings were not in power three hundred years ago, or the Internet, as the extension of free speech, would not exist.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

so - what you are saying
auto and semi-auto rifles legally fall within the definition of "arms."
therefore legally, the law can define "arms"
therefore legally, the law can define "arms" to NOT include semi-automatic weapons - legally, by the law


sounds like a good idea, but I prefer license & register & insure ALL guns & owners

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Rifles, muskets, pistols, swords, knives, tomahawks - of any form - would all be considered "arms" in colonial vernacular.

I am not applying for any license; I am not registering any firearms; and I am sure as hell not purchasing another mandated by law insurance plan from these corporatocracy. And I don't have to, do you want to know why? Because I was born an American with a right to bear arms that will allow me to live my life in any way I please and defend that lifestyle to the death. If it is truly the intent of this government to subjugate law abiding people - to murder law abiding people - as those who pay the taxes that grant this government life, then I say "bring it." Because quite obviously it is time to have a serious discussion about the limits of American government.

You cannot micromanage the behavior of people through legislation as force-law and call this freedom; we are but steps away, under the Obama administration, from calling this a dictatorial government.

[-] -1 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Scalia has a right to his opinion,I disagree with it much like I did with Roberts the traitor. There are already regulations and restrictions on these "hand-held rocket launchers",fully auto machine guns,bazooka's etc..

What you are arguing for and using Scalia's words to try to bolster your point is even further gun regulations and restrictions that goes beyond what is already in place.

What I'm saying and a majority of Americans believe is that anymore regulations and restrictions will push our Constitutional rights to bear arms into being "infringed" upon. We are at the point that any further regulation beyond this point will be the first step in the direction of complete banning of private gun ownership and confiscation of private guns.

While you might very well celebrate this type of complete ban,know this,it will mark the beginning of the end of this free republic.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"While you might very well celebrate this type of complete ban"
where did I say that?


Why is Roberts a traitor?


"What I'm saying and a majority of Americans believe is that anymore regulations and restrictions will push our Constitutional rights to bear arms into being "infringed" upon."
check your numbers:
WASHINGTON, Jan 17 (Reuters) - About three-quarters of Americans surveyed support proposals to ban the sale of automatic weapons, ban high-capacity ammunition clips and expand background checks on all gun buyers, according to an online Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday. Those proposals were at the heart of President Barack Obama's package of recommendations to Congress on Wednesday designed to curb gun violence after last month's elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 20 children and six adults. Obama's plan has drawn heavy opposition from gun-rights advocates, led by the National Rifle Association, and faces a tough battle for approval in the coming months in a divided and fiercely partisan Congress. The reinstatement of a ban on assault weapons, which was approved in 1994 but expired 10 years later when Congress failed to renew it, is seen as the toughest sell to lawmakers, even though the poll found broad public support for it. The poll, mostly taken before Obama released his recommendations, found 74 percent of Americans favor a ban on assault weapons, with 26 percent opposed. A ban on high-capacity ammunition clips was backed by 74 percent, and 26 percent were opposed. The poll also found 86 percent favor expanded background checks of all gun buyers, including sales at gun shows and between private parties, with 14 percent opposed. A proposal to place armed guards in schools, which has been backed by the NRA, was favored by 72 percent with 28 percent opposed.

[-] 0 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Roberts knows Obamacare was unconstitutional,he was going to vote it down but then for whatever unknown reasons (bribery perhaps,threats?) struggled to make that fucked up ruling that would enable it. He's a Conservative traitor and a traitor to his vow to uphold the Constitution.

"ban the sale of automatic weapons"

They are already pretty much banned to the ordinary citizen.

You are one of the,if not the most vocal opponent to private gun ownership on this Forum.

You don't fully understand the repercussions of any further regulation. I've already explained this situation,either you're ignoring and cherry picking my post's or,like I said are for a complete ban of private gun ownership.

You may think this is just fear mongering but be assured it is not.

If you enjoy your 1st Amendment,then you must support your 2nd Amendment fully and without any further regulation.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

your last sentence is too much for the libs to understand.

[-] -2 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Yes,that is real tragedy here.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

there are libs that think the 1st amendment ( the free speech part) goes too far. the libs do not like or tolerate dissent, unless they're doing the dissenting.

[-] -2 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Exactly right. It's the old "Do as I say not as I do" edict.

The lefty Drones that populate this forum are craving to be conquered and ruled by a hip and cool Despot Tyrant that can offer a cradle to grave security blanket.

A free market,nation,people and Constitution get in the way of that subjugation destination.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Lemme see, you come over here with multiple IDs and then cry. Nice job.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Piss n Moan that's all the shills do - ever - it is all they got - they have no contact with reality - or they would quit shilling and support OWS.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

No doubt.

[-] -2 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Skin that smokewagon and see what happens.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Let's roll.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Wow, dude, you crack me up. Do you realize a good portion of your arguments in the last few hours have been nothing more than childish bullying tactics? Instead of arguing soundly, you revert to unmeaningful name calling. It is almost as if you are trying to guilt people out of believing the way that they do. Anyone who disagrees with you is un American, naive, ill educated and needs to move.

You know just because your choice of rhetoric worked in high school, does not mean it will work in political discourse. FYI.

There is a Nietzsche quote floating around here that you should really think about.

[-] -3 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

You're not into reading full post's apparently. Drive by gleaner?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

See, you got a little pet name for anyone who hinders your hubris. I was just being helpful.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

idiot

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

and your approach to gun violence?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

lol - good one.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yeah. I couldn't help it.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The tension the suspense - aAHhahahahahahahaahaaha

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

The knowing that it isn't coming and if it does come it will be so far off the mark it isn't funny.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yeah I guess that is why I only found the tension and suspense in the music. {:-])

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

He/she is probably sitting on the other side of the screen, saying: I would've gotten away with it, too- if it hadn't been for those rascally kids.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

lol screwby screwby do

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yep. I didn't even like that show. I just like that one line.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34900) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

lol - GF - you radical you - always going/getting to the heart of the matter.

[-] -2 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

"Gun violence" is a fact of life even in countries with complete gun bans just as any other physical violence is again,a fact of life.

You can not legislate human behavior. Murder is already against the law,regardless of the tool used to commit it.

We live in a free country and with Free Will you must expect and defend against those that would seek to commit these kind of offenses.

Gun free zones don't work,it's a fact. Only fostering and enabling the positive perception of guns for personal defense will make more people willing to take that responsibility. After all,isn't this what any sane human being should do?

The media and mostly Democrats that continue this negative stereotype and narrative of owning and shooting guns in personal defense,hunting or for sport needs to change.

We as a nation should promote guns as a positive force for good when used for personal defense,hunting and sport. When owned and operated by people who are already background checked and finger printed before purchase,as they are now.

These laws are already in place. No more regulation of guns is necessary.

Defend children in schools with armed/trained persons just as we use them for banks,courts,politicians and everything else. This is THE weak link in this whole problem.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Specifically, why is American gun death number 40 times higher than in England?

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Because we have failed to teach virtue. We failed because there is too much diversity.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

we failed because everyone is not the same

[-] 0 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

You do know there's a difference in population size and culture between the US and England right?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

yes - and we benefit from having the nra & kochs & alec & stand your ground

[-] 0 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Putting your obvious sarcasm aside,I would agree the NRA is a both a benefit and a blessing to this country.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

gee - I did not mean to be so obvious
I just like my smith & wesson dividend check

[-] -2 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

“Throughout history, authoritarian governments have used gun violence as an excuse to take people’s firearms and control their population,” said Anonymous.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Along with swords,Bows,Bagpipes,dancing,etc

[-] 0 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

"I ask Sir, what is a militia? it is the whole people.To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them". G. Mason. co-author of the 2nd amendment, during the virginia convention to ratify the constitution, 1788

[-] -1 points by livingston9 (-154) 1 year ago

Amen,great post.

[-] 0 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

the 2nd amendment is easy to understand.