Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Uncle Sam

Debate on gun control should ask

47 posts in this topic

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate children.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was being sarcastic Uncle Sam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I was being sarcastic Uncle Sam.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have gun control in Oz and there is no harm in background checking to make sure the former mental patient can get a gun. :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civilian usage does include fully automatic weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think I fully grasp this line of reasoning. If the second amendment is about defending against tyranny, why are people not upset about rocket launchers and such being Restricted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have gun control in Oz and there is no harm in background checking to make sure the former mental patient can get a gun. :gun:

1 the thread is about usa, not oz. what you have down there is irrelavant to usa, OZ IS NOT USA

2 we alreday have background checks, those few loopholes as private sale are blown out of proportion, gangs don't buy guns from those ppl, plus, everyone that sells a gun privatly knows who he sold it to, you make copy of their id. if you don't you either extreamly dumb, or a criminal. either way, we have not seen many, if at all cases wher eweapons used in crimes were bought that way. so it is irrelavant as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't civilian usage include fully automatic weapons?

Who gets to draw that line - Constitutionally?

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.

The national guard was never a civilian militia.

http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx

Edited by Uncle Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The national guard was never a civilian militia.

http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx

What do you mean by Civilian militia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't civilian usage include fully automatic weapons?

As hatecraft posted, they are included. They make it hard though. See my best guess why below...

I dont think I fully grasp this line of reasoning. If the second amendment is about defending against tyranny, why are people not upset about rocket launchers and such being Restricted?

I'll lump machine guns in here even though they're legal but here's my reasoning.... As for machine guns I imagine the potential for collateral damage to property and persons is far greater than one bullet per trigger pull. I never fired a machine gun but if not well trained I could see a person pulling the trigger and spraying 30 bullets up, down, left and right before letting go. Not exactly ideal when you have thin walls and ceilings with family in the house or neighbors close by or kids outside or upstairs. So average joes across the country see a lot of redundancy in using an M16 incase a thief breaks in the house.

Personal protection should have reasonable limits yet they're not restricted because there are many ways to still enjoy the excitement of a machine gun if you've got the money. The permit process is lengthy, so I hear, but the cost of shooting a machine gun for only a few minutes could extend to hundreds of dollars. Plus, I don't think you can just carry them around. The people who have them are either ex military or collectors and those who actually shoot them do well enough to have plenty of F-U money.

Even worse, imagine a situation like the theater shooting and someone in the crowd, by law, could carry an Uzi, which is automatic, and decided to save the day and take out the shooter. He then shoots the Uzi toward the perpetrator, someone bumps him in the panic, he briefly loses control of himself, his finger is lodged and suddenly 60 bullets spray across the public crowd. However, a semi auto gun with 10, 20, 30 or 100 round magazines are far easier to control and only as dangerous as a gun with a 7 round magazine since all only shoot one bullet per trigger pull therefore far less likely to cause collateral damage.

As for rocket launchers. Same thing basically. Collateral damage. Unintended damages. You would be foolish to use a rocket launcher or personal protection in your home. You'd probably kill yourself and destroy the home you're trying to protect.

In public you'd be a freaking menace if you thought using a rocket launcher was in any way sensible. Same reasoning with nukes. You want to hit your target. Not blow up a building or a city. It amazes me these things need to be explained.

As for overthrowing tyranny... I say anything goes because at that point you are likely in a war and rules don't mean much in war. Still, there are common sense limits I would hope folks would take in such a situation. Especially nukes. I may support wiping out Washington DC in a time like that but not in the most literal sense. It's a fight to take your country back, not obliterate it.

Same thing for foreign wars though. Nukes are frowned upon for their collateral damage. They do way more than kill the enemy.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by Civilian militia?

It is a militia formed by the civilians. These groups are not controlled by the government, but they are registered so the governments know they exist. The reason they are registered, so we know none of them are ill-intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a militia formed by the civilians. These groups are not controlled by the government, but they are registered so the governments know they exist. The reason they are registered, so we know none of them are ill-intent.

So - are they State trained?

Edit: And by that - I mean trained by the individual states.

Edited by Tiggs
Because the word State is sometime confusing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As hatecraft posted, they are included. They make it hard though. See my best guess why below...

I'll lump machine guns in here even though they're legal but here's my reasoning.... As for machine guns I imagine the potential for collateral damage to property and persons is far greater than one bullet per trigger pull. I never fired a machine gun but if not well trained I could see a person pulling the trigger and spraying 30 bullets up, down, left and right before letting go. Not exactly ideal when you have thin walls and ceilings with family in the house or neighbors close by or kids outside or upstairs. So average joes across the country see a lot of redundancy in using an M16 incase a thief breaks in the house.

Personal protection should have reasonable limits yet they're not restricted because there are many ways to still enjoy the excitement of a machine gun if you've got the money. The permit process is lengthy, so I hear, but the cost of shooting a machine gun for only a few minutes could extend to hundreds of dollars. Plus, I don't think you can just carry them around. The people who have them are either ex military or collectors and those who actually shoot them do well enough to have plenty of F-U money.

Even worse, imagine a situation like the theater shooting and someone in the crowd, by law, could carry an Uzi, which is automatic, and decided to save the day and take out the shooter. He then shoots the Uzi toward the perpetrator, someone bumps him in the panic, he briefly loses control of himself, his finger is lodged and suddenly 60 bullets spray across the public crowd. However, a semi auto gun with 10, 20, 30 or 100 round magazines are far easier to control and only as dangerous as a gun with a 7 round magazine since all only shoot one bullet per trigger pull therefore far less likely to cause collateral damage.

As for rocket launchers. Same thing basically. Collateral damage. Unintended damages. You would be foolish to use a rocket launcher or personal protection in your home. You'd probably kill yourself and destroy the home you're trying to protect.

In public you'd be a freaking menace if you thought using a rocket launcher was in any way sensible. Same reasoning with nukes. You want to hit your target. Not blow up a building or a city. It amazes me these things need to be explained.

So it's not against the constitution, according to you, to restrict certain weapons in the interest of safety (minimizing collateral damage)?

As for overthrowing tyranny... I say anything goes because at that point you are likely in a war and rules don't mean much in war. Still, there are common sense limits I would hope folks would take in such a situation. Especially nukes. I may support wiping out Washington DC in a time like that but not in the most literal sense. It's a fight to take your country back, not obliterate it.

Same thing for foreign wars though. Nukes are frowned upon for their collateral damage. They do way more than kill the enemy.

Yeah, but then what's the point of the 2nd ammendment? I thought everyone was up in arms about it because its there for overthrowing the enemy, whether foreign or domestic... that they need those weapons to fight a tyrant government if needed. If you're saying that it doesnt matter that, regardless of the 2nd ammendment, certain types of weapons are currently restricted because, in the event of a war against a tyrannical government, people will get those weapons, then the whole argument of keeping weapons now in defense of a portential future tyrannical government becomes irrelevent.

Edited by Stellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.