44 replies to this topic

[Uncle Sam]

Quote

Gun control has become one of the preeminent battles of 2013. During a press conference last month, in which he was surrounded by children, President Obama urged Congress to ban “assault” (automatic) weapons, limit magazines to 10 bullets, and introduce universal background checks for all firearm buyers. And last night, Mr. Obama again called for this regulation in his State of the Union address. Naming those affected by gun violence, he asserted to a cheering, standing crowd: "They deserve a vote."

Across the country, Americans are debating the effectiveness of Obama's gun-control proposals. Commentators on the left argue that automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines aren’t necessary for home defense or hunting. On the right, the president’s critics say limiting guns won’t end violence and point out that no matter what laws Congress passes, criminals will still find ways to be well armed. The proposed legislation, they contend, simply would put law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage.

Continue...

Finally a news reporter might be wising up to the corruptions and eroding of our constitutional rights by the government. This government is trying to find every loophole they can to bypass the constitution rights we are promised, even going as far as trying to force their representation of the constitution on us.

Edited by Uncle Sam, 13 February 2013 - 06:16 PM.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Only those affected by gun violence "deserve a vote" on this issue. I guess the rest of us can shut up.

[Clyde the Glyde]

The fact that Obama is still showcasing and lining the isles of his SOTU address with gun violence victims to capture every tear-jerking emotional sympathy response, proves to me that passing new legislation is not going as easily as he thought it would be.

[hatecraft]

But...but...the children!

[Uncle Sam]

hatecraft, on 13 February 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

But...but...the children!

I love children, I want to be there for them. But we got to also look towards the children's futures. By placing armed guards at schools, it quickly intimates the deranges shooters because they know there will be resistance. People who are looking for large numbers of kills will look towards places that are gun-free zones, where they know they will get high body counts with little resistance. If the politicians placed gun-free zones at government installations, I would gladly vote for that, so they know what it feels like to be defenseless and powerless to stop someone. They are hypocrites on the highest level, thinking us citizens don't deserve to protect ourselves from criminals who force their will or themselves upon us.

Edited by Uncle Sam, 13 February 2013 - 07:19 PM.

[Sweetpumper]

I hate children.

[Tiggs]

Your title doesn't particularly specify, but I'm guessing that your question is whether or not Congress has the ability to regulate the category of weapons available to the general public.

The answer to that, according to current Supreme Court Judge Scalia's 2008 written opinion on District of Columbia et al. v. Heller is a definite "yes".  Any "Dangerous or Unusual" weapon can be restricted.

You can read a lightweight summary version here, or tackle the more heavyweight primary source, here.

[hatecraft]

I was being sarcastic Uncle Sam.

[Uncle Sam]

Tiggs, on 13 February 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

Your title doesn't particularly specify, but I'm guessing that your question is whether or not Congress has the ability to regulate the category of weapons available to the general public.

The answer to that, according to current Supreme Court Judge Scalia's 2008 written opinion on District of Columbia et al. v. Heller is a definite "yes".  Any "Dangerous or Unusual" weapon can be restricted.

You can read a lightweight summary version here, or tackle the more heavyweight primary source, here.

I used the exact title of the news article unless... they changed within 30 minutes of me posting this.

hatecraft, on 13 February 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

I was being sarcastic Uncle Sam.

Sorry... Sarcastic doesn't translate well through the internet and text.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Tiggs, on 13 February 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

Your title doesn't particularly specify, but I'm guessing that your question is whether or not Congress has the ability to regulate the category of weapons available to the general public.

The answer to that, according to current Supreme Court Judge Scalia's 2008 written opinion on District of Columbia et al. v. Heller is a definite "yes".  Any "Dangerous or Unusual" weapon can be restricted.

You can read a lightweight summary version here, or tackle the more heavyweight primary source, here.

Can you name a gun or any weapon that isn't considered dangerous?

[Bama13]

Tiggs, on 13 February 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

Your title doesn't particularly specify, but I'm guessing that your question is whether or not Congress has the ability to regulate the category of weapons available to the general public.

The answer to that, according to current Supreme Court Judge Scalia's 2008 written opinion on District of Columbia et al. v. Heller is a definite "yes".  Any "Dangerous or Unusual" weapon can be restricted.

You can read a lightweight summary version here, or tackle the more heavyweight primary source, here.

Aren't all weapons, by defination, dangerous?

According to Merriam-Websters Online:
1: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy

[Tiggs]

Bama13, on 13 February 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Aren't all weapons, by defination, dangerous?

According to Merriam-Websters Online:
1: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy

Sure.

However - it's being used in this particular instance as part of a phrase in quotation marks, which generally means that it's referring to something different from it's common definition - and in this case - it's referring to instances of prior case law.

[Tiggs]

Uncle Sam, on 13 February 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

I used the exact title of the news article unless... they changed within 30 minutes of me posting this.

Indeed you did - in which case - The title which you've copied doesn't particularly specify,..etc.

[Uncle Sam]

Tiggs, on 13 February 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

[size=4]

Sure.

However - it's being used in this particular instance as part of a phrase in quotation marks, which generally means that it's referring to something different from it's common definition - and in this case - it's referring to instances of prior case law.

What they mean is stuff like Rockets, Explosives, Tanks, 50 Caliber Mini-guns, and other weapons of war are banned by the government. Civilian uses are Rifles, Pistols, Shotguns, SMGs, Assault Rifles, and sniper rifles to name a few that can be used by civilians for different reasons. The sting here is the fact that they are trying to banned some of the guns civilians can use, because the government is afraid  and see them as a threat to their dominance over us.

Tiggs, on 13 February 2013 - 08:06 PM, said:

Indeed you did - in which case - The title which you've copied doesn't particularly specify,..etc.

To better explain it than the title. This is a debate over rather the government is overstepping clear limitations set by the constitution founded by the forefathers. They also state the fact that many people are so caught up in the subject and blindly following the suggestions by the politicians, that they don't see the clear indications that the government is overstepping its boundaries on multiple fronts. I have researches and came to the conclusion that they have overstep exactly 8 constitutional rights since Obama took office unlike Bush who only overstepped 1 of the constitution rights while in office. The government is getting is getting bolder and bolder with each success it receives from the useful idiots.

Useful Idiots were a term coined by Soviets.

Edited by Uncle Sam, 13 February 2013 - 08:15 PM.

[Tiggs]

Uncle Sam, on 13 February 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

What they mean is stuff like Rockets, Explosives, Tanks, 50 Caliber Mini-guns, and other weapons of war are banned by the government. Civilian uses are Rifles, Pistols, Shotguns, SMGs, Assault Rifles, and sniper rifles to name a few that can be used by civilians for different reasons.

Why doesn't civilian usage include fully automatic weapons?

Who gets to draw that line - Constitutionally?

Quote

The sting here is the fact that they are trying to banned some of the guns civilians can use, because the government is afraid  and see them as a threat to their dominance over us.

And yet - I don't see the government trying to ban assault rifles from being used by the National Guard.

But that's well-organised militia's for you, I guess.