Right To Bear Arms?

[lsiberian]

Not sure what your issue with Sotomayer is.

She's probably the most conservative judge Obama would consider.

besides the court is already 5-4 in favor of the conservatives and Souter was the courts most liberal member.

IOTW it's a good idea to have a liberal take her place.

Of course you never know how supreme court justices will turn out.

 

[Matt34]

When any of you have to live in a ghetto where the majority of the guns held by dealers and gang members are bought from "good upstanding citizens" from Virginia and West Virginia who have the right to "bear arms", talk to me about gun rights please. Till then, hold accountable those good upstanding citizens who have the right to bear arms but do NOT have the right to sell them without proper background checks or licensing, because THEY are the ones making this "right to bear arms" for all you "good upstanding citizens" such a hot topic.

Oh, and in case anyone didn't get the memo that week, VA Tech wa shot up by a kid who went through a very lax background check. Columbine was shot up by a bunch of kids whose parents had the right to bear arms. Guns don't kill people, irresponsible stupid people who exercise their "right to bear arms" kill people.

The forefathers didn't have 300M+ people to consider. Or hate messages that could be transmitted at the speed of electrical currents thanks to the internet. Or YouTube to inspire an entire generation of morons who like to watch snuff videos.

Forefathers... yeah, all men are created equal. Men, and they meant it literally, did not include women, blacks, or Native Americans. So yeah, keep quoting the hypocrites and let's live by their words AND their example. Let's repeal women's right to vote and the right of non-whites to be in the company of whites when not serving them.

Wow nemo, angry rant pointed entirely in the wrong direction! You do know that VA Tech had a gun ban in effect at the time of the shooting right? Wonder why the shooter didn't obey that law?

Yes they do trace serial numbers back to.dealers and do put them in jail if they can prove the weapon was sold illegaly.

 

[Tomorrow]

I wish Sotomayor's Anti-Second Amendment stance was her only problem.

She ruled against white firefighters that pasted a promotion exam, because no minorities pasted the test.
She ruled it was OK to throw out the entire test.

If you thought Sotomayor's stances on racial issues lacked common sense and smacked or racism, you should get a gander at the Supreme Court nominee's apparent hostility to property rights. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/05/sotomayors-bias-against-private-property/

This women is a train wreck, but guess what...
She will be appointed to the Supreme Court, for the same reason she was considered in the first place.
Sadly, because she's a women, and she's Hispanic.
Case closed end of story.

She is also one of the most overturned appeals court judges in the nation, batting under 50% with her decisions.

 

[Rickster71]

Sotomayor's remarks about the merits of a Latina woman over a white man:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

So let me get this straight:
A women that is about to appointed to the Supreme Court can't see the blatant racism in her own statement.
(A statement that she's made several times, while speaking to large groups)

Though, on the other hand, a comedian / shock jock Don Imus got fired for saying "Nappy Headed Ho's" on his radio show.

At the very least, doesn't anyone see how bias the press is for reporting one and not the other, right when they happened?

 

[Nemo128]

Wow nemo, angry rant pointed entirely in the wrong direction! You do know that VA Tech had a gun ban in effect at the time of the shooting right? Wonder why the shooter didn't obey that law?

Yes they do trace serial numbers back to.dealers and do put them in jail if they can prove the weapon was sold illegaly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre#Background

This exclusion applied to Cho after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment.[1][3] Because of gaps between federal and Virginia state laws, the state did not report Cho's legal status to the NICS.[3] Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine addressed this problem on April 30, 2007, by issuing an executive order intended to close those reporting gaps.

*sigh* We have our rights, some paperwork slips through the cracks, a bunch of people die, but who cares.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Firearms

I pose a serious question. Why are people so adamant about Iran not having nuclear material? Simple question.

It will take someone exercising their right to bear arms running wild throughout the whole country with a truck full of ammo taking out everyone in his path because he didn't like the way his neighbor looked at him for people to finally see the problem with this "right". Till then, it'll pretty much be NIMBY. Because it doesn't affect someone, it's not their problem or their concern.

My rant isn't misdirected or directed at any one in particular except those who see this as a black and white issue because a piece of paper says they have some right. People are up in arms about rights. Doesn't the right to walk amongst our fellow man safely outweigh the "right" to pump 30 rounds from a M4 Carbine into a paint jug in a backyard? At the very least, isn't this a serious question of priorities? I apologize if you feel I offended you.

 

[Rickster71]

Seung-Hui Cho was a South Korean native and Resident Alien who arrived in the United States as a boy from South Korea in 1992.

The Virginia Tech review panel report faulted university officials for failing to share information that would have shed light on the seriousness of Cho's mental problems, citing misinterpretations of federal privacy laws.
The report also pointed to failures by Virginia Tech's counseling center, flaws in Virginia's mental health laws, and inadequate state mental health services, but concluded that "Cho himself was the biggest impediment to stabilizing his mental health" in college.

Sounds like it comes down to lack of personal responsibility, with all involved.

It's an unfortunate chain of events.

It's ironic, we expect the same type of bureaucrat that failed so many at Virginia Tech, to run a government bail-out and a government health system.

 

[Matt34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre#Background

This exclusion applied to Cho after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment.[1][3] Because of gaps between federal and Virginia state laws, the state did not report Cho's legal status to the NICS.[3] Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine addressed this problem on April 30, 2007, by issuing an executive order intended to close those reporting gaps.

*sigh* We have our rights, some paperwork slips through the cracks, a bunch of people die, but who cares.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Firearms

I pose a serious question. Why are people so adamant about Iran not having nuclear material? Simple question.

It will take someone exercising their right to bear arms running wild throughout the whole country with a truck full of ammo taking out everyone in his path because he didn't like the way his neighbor looked at him for people to finally see the problem with this "right". Till then, it'll pretty much be NIMBY. Because it doesn't affect someone, it's not their problem or their concern.

My rant isn't misdirected or directed at any one in particular except those who see this as a black and white issue because a piece of paper says they have some right. People are up in arms about rights. Doesn't the right to walk amongst our fellow man safely outweigh the "right" to pump 30 rounds from a M4 Carbine into a paint jug in a backyard? At the very least, isn't this a serious question of priorities? I apologize if you feel I offended you.

How many times has a thug used an M4 carbine in a violent crime compared to say a .38 revolver? There will always be gun crime, but disarming the populace through more laws is not going to do anything to stop it.

Giving up rights never leads down a desired path for a free people.

 

[Nemo128]

Matt, I'm simply in favor of MUCH more stringent gun control. I in no way advocate the complete removal of firearms from our citizens. The same way we want to control the proliferation of nuclear power throughout the world, we should critically and strictly control the purchase and possession of firearms. People need to respect not only the gun itself but the potential damage that can be caused with its use or misuse.

We can both agree that they are not toys. They are very dangerous products that have the potential to do the worst kind of damage, the loss of life, literally with a 1/4" movement of an index finger. We as a society should take their exposure very seriously. If the Constitution said we all have the right to own anthrax and mustard gas, would we all be out buying them by the gallon to show our friends when they come over for dinner?

By the way, I eat red meat and I'm in favor of capital punishment.

 

[Rickster71]

How many times has a thug used an M4 carbine in a violent crime compared to say a .38 revolver? There will always be gun crime, but disarming the populace through more laws is not going to do anything to stop it.

Giving up rights never leads down a desired path for a free people.

Agreed Matt,
It becomes a real slippery slope when we assign Intent and Responsibility to Inanimate Objects.

 

[Nemo128]

Agreed Matt,
It becomes a real slippery slope when we assign Intent and Responsibility to Inanimate Objects.

True, but the military does it. We do checks of all weapons, vehicles, and munitions constantly. If something turns up missing or unaccounted for, heads roll and answers have to be found. The soldier must never neglect his weapon for any reason, and must never surrender it unless ordered by a superior officer.

If our military personnel, who have an obvious need and use for these weapons, are subjected to such scrutiny and security, why shouldn't the common citizen be? We have to register our cars every year!

 

[nibhaz]

Just throwing it out there, but the premise that guns should be regulated based on their potential damage or misuse is a pretty weak argument don’t you think?

4 X times as many people die due auto accidents in the US each year than from guns. By your own logic the ability to own a car and operate it should be heavily regulated and controlled to ensure everyone’s safety. Is this how you truly feel?

 

[Rickster71]

True, but the military does it. We do checks of all weapons, vehicles, and munitions constantly. If something turns up missing or unaccounted for, heads roll and answers have to be found. The soldier must never neglect his weapon for any reason, and must never surrender it unless ordered by a superior officer.

If our military personnel, who have an obvious need and use for these weapons, are subjected to such scrutiny and security, why shouldn't the common citizen be? We have to register our cars every year!

I can only go back to personal responsibility.
The gun that I have had since third grade, nor myself has ever been involved in an illegal act.
(unless you count the time with those Asian women and the ice cream) jk

While her Second Amendment stance is scary.
Don't let it cloud the fact, that we are watching a sexist and bigoted women, and she is about to become a Supreme Court judge.

 

[Nemo128]

Comparing accidental deaths through misuse of a commonly needed product to intentional deaths through the intentional directed use of an unnecessary product are two completely different things.

There are people in America that require a car to live their lives, due to the prevalence of the McMansion and the cul-de-sac. Short of military and law enforcement, no one needs a gun to live their lives, period. Driving is also something in this country that is treated as a right when it shouldn't be. It's a privilege, and if people treated it as such, it wouldn't be so dangerous.

It's the feeling of right and entitlement that makes both things dangerous. And, you said it yourself. "4 X times as many people die due auto accidents in the US each year than from guns" Yes, accidents. Meaning, with the exception of vehicular homicides, people did not intend the end result of their actions. That's far different than, oh I dunno, shooting up a school? Holding up a gas station? Robbing a bank? Examples galore.

Check into the way Germany administers driving privileges to see exactly how I think about driving.

Any other common day items you want to compare? Perhaps next my thoughts will be compared to banning spoons because you can scoop eyeballs out with them?

 

[nibhaz]

Comparing accidental deaths through misuse of a commonly needed product to intentional deaths through the intentional directed use of an unnecessary product are two completely different things.

There are people in America that require a car to live their lives, due to the prevalence of the McMansion and the cul-de-sac. Short of military and law enforcement, no one needs a gun to live their lives, period. Driving is also something in this country that is treated as a right when it shouldn't be. It's a privilege, and if people treated it as such, it wouldn't be so dangerous.

It's the feeling of right and entitlement that makes both things dangerous. And, you said it yourself. "4 X times as many people die due auto accidents in the US each year than from guns" Yes, accidents. Meaning, with the exception of vehicular homicides, people did not intend the end result of their actions. That's far different than, oh I dunno, shooting up a school? Holding up a gas station? Robbing a bank? Examples galore.

Check into the way Germany administers driving privileges to see exactly how I think about driving.

Any other common day items you want to compare? Perhaps next my thoughts will be compared to banning spoons because you can scoop eyeballs out with them?

The intention of an action is irrelevant when we are talking about what poses a greater safety risk. The simple fact is that cars and there use kill far more people than guns due by large margin. And that’s despite the fact that there are far more civilian owned guns in the US than there are cars.

The only thing that gun control laws do is strip the law abiding citizens of the means of defending themselves. Criminals and ne'er do wells will continue to obtain guns and commit crimes with them regardless of the level of control.

School shootings are irrelevant to the discussion as they are a recent phenomenon, and speak more to the state of our current society than the dangers guns.

What you are suggesting is punishing the masses for the actions of the few.

 

[Schupo]

The constitution grants us the right to bear arms, yet we violate that with not allowing civilians to own biological or nuclear weapons. What gives?

 

[lsiberian]

Just throwing it out there, but the premise that guns should be regulated based on their potential damage or misuse is a pretty weak argument don’t you think?

4 X times as many people die due auto accidents in the US each year than from guns. By your own logic the ability to own a car and operate it should be heavily regulated and controlled to ensure everyone’s safety. Is this how you truly feel?

Cars are a major issue. but there are more per capita car owners than gun owners.

 

[markw]

Gee...

The constitution grants us the right to bear arms, yet we violate that with not allowing civilians to own biological or nuclear weapons. What gives?

All along I've been thiking that tie right to bare arms meant we could wear short-sleeve shirts

 

[Nemo128]

The only thing that gun control laws do is strip the law abiding citizens of the means of defending themselves. Criminals and ne'er do wells will continue to obtain guns and commit crimes with them regardless of the level of control.

School shootings are irrelevant to the discussion as they are a recent phenomenon, and speak more to the state of our current society than the dangers guns.

What you are suggesting is punishing the masses for the actions of the few.

Answer me this. How do those criminals and ne'er do wells get the guns? I guess from the beginning of the process (manufacturing) all the way to the crinimal, the entire process involves none of these so-called law-abiding citizens.

Maybe every gun ever used for a violent act has been aquired from a legal owner by illegal INVOLUNTARY means. See, that's the important part. Involuntary. If every gun used for a crime were aquired through a crime, I could agree completely with your argument.

I could buy one right now, a few even, without any background check or waiting period from the original authorized licensed owner, and I bet he's not the only one in the country who cares more about the dollar than the responsibility. Yet, I can't buy a car without a title, and I can't drive it or even park it in public without registering it.

 

[lsiberian]

Answer me this. How do those criminals and ne'er do wells get the guns? I guess from the beginning of the process (manufacturing) all the way to the crinimal, the entire process involves none of these so-called law-abiding citizens.

Maybe every gun ever used for a violent act has been aquired from a legal owner by illegal INVOLUNTARY means. See, that's the important part. Involuntary. If every gun used for a crime were aquired through a crime, I could agree completely with your argument.

I could buy one right now, a few even, without any background check or waiting period from the original authorized licensed owner, and I bet he's not the only one in the country who cares more about the dollar than the responsibility. Yet, I can't buy a car without a title, and I can't drive it or even park it in public without registering it.

I can kill someone without a gun. Just remember that. You ban guns and they will use knives. You ban knives they will use sticks. You get the idea.

People can be savages. No law is gonna change that.

 

[Schupo]

I can kill someone without a gun. Just remember that. You ban guns and they will use knives. You ban knives they will use sticks. You get the idea.

To accidentally kill someone with a knife is kind of difficult. And even if you're intentionally killing someone, you have to be willing to get face to face with the person you're murdering and stab them repeatedly. You have to be willing to deal with the physical struggle, as well as the feeling of knife entering flesh. A gun allows someone who would otherwise be incapable of murder (the weak) to kill.

So, no. If you ban guns (which I'm not weighing in on), you don't necessarily step to a different weapon after that.