assault weapons ban!!
- Thread starter glk35
- Start date
For a good example of government at work, just ask the residents of these communitites about paying your property taxes for years, and then being kicked out of your home because a big developer and local government decide that a luxury condominum complex will bring more tax revenue, and you now have to leave because of their twisted idea on Eminent Domain laws. What do you think will happen to the future of "simple gun registration"?
New Haven, CN
Riveria Beach, FL
Atlantic City, NJ
New Haven, CN
Riveria Beach, FL
Atlantic City, NJ
I seem to be seeing a lot of people on here that believe we should be able to take up arms and overthrow the government. That seems really wierd to me because pretty much everything else that is said is agreeing with the laws and is contridictory to that statement. I guess the citizens of nazi germany believed that too.
all I really have to say is that people use the terms "laws" and "criminals" as if these are some kind of divine mandate or physical truth. they are just ideas that people thought up and wrote down. what that means is that they aren't exclusivley good or bad. the reason that people cite the nazis so much is because it's a really fucked up society where the leader was democratically elected and mostly everyone went along with it. remember that for them a criminal was someone that tried to get in the way of mass murder. In other words just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean that they are bad, if the law itself is bad.
all I really have to say is that people use the terms "laws" and "criminals" as if these are some kind of divine mandate or physical truth. they are just ideas that people thought up and wrote down. what that means is that they aren't exclusivley good or bad. the reason that people cite the nazis so much is because it's a really fucked up society where the leader was democratically elected and mostly everyone went along with it. remember that for them a criminal was someone that tried to get in the way of mass murder. In other words just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean that they are bad, if the law itself is bad.
Well first one gun considered as an assault weapon was missing , the springfield m1a1 and its full auto version the m14 which was an awesome full auto weapon. That idiot of Clinton and his bunch of leftists banned high capacity magazins for ten years and I am glad that the ban was lifted. But what I can't forgive to Clinton is the destruction of a highly valuable firearms taht could have saved lives: the m14. 500000 of those guns were distroyed under Clinton's presidency. Also california banned the barrett sniping rifle in 50bmg for law enforcement use because of some fucking democrat senator saying it could make planes explode. I also disliked Michael The Fat Pig Moore blattant bullshit in Bowling for Colombine.I am all for the second amendment but there will be always some dolts who just want to ban firearms just for the sake of banning them. I was an nra member during long years, everytime I was visiting my family in the USA, I was always firing my para ord and my desert eagle with my cousin and uncle at the range. When you are threatened or one of your friends or family members is threatened, you are in the whole right to use your gun for defense.
Yeah! Keep comparing Nazi Germany to current day USA! How logical! How apt!
Oh yeah! Nothing is 'exclusively' "good" or "bad". A 40 year old having sex with a 2 year old isn't "exclusively bad" because "laws and criminals are just ideas that people thought up and wrote down."
Or the fact that "a 20 year old murdering a 20 year old isn't "exclusively bad" because "laws and criminals are just ideas that people thought up and wrote down."
You could not be more mistaken if you tried. I suggest you brush up on your history - specifically Weimar Germany and the ascension of Hitler.
In short (for the readers of this thread) : Germany in the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s had little, if ANYTHING to do with "democracy" .....
I do actually agree with you in the strictest sense of the post...
cheers,
While that may be true, the support would have then gone from the haves vs. the have nots. The people evicted were lower class tax payer's and the side bet by local government on this was it was a way to clean out the "bad part" of the neighborhood. So I guess the dividing line was if your income was below a certain level, even if you were an honesty hard working citizen, you lose your home in the name of progress, so that government and private developer's can profit.
Philbert
Banned
One thing that I need to comment on...the teeth-gnashing frustration of hearing someone use the logic "if sisters are girls, then all girls are sisters".
Nope...not a true thing in both directions.
If people democratically elect Hamas to run their government, they have made their choice and will pay whatever price there is to be paid for that choice...democracies learn over time to choose wisely or pay the price.
I would NOT turn over people to any goverment (Federal or Mucinipal) because it's my choice, just as I would not rebel against my country if the time came for change and I couldn't accept it.
Vote with your feet if things are unbearable, and the majority of citizens want it that way; or, stick it out and swing the tide in the other direction over time. Right does win if given the time and space, and effort.
Cynics will never find a new solution to old problems,and only realists can implement those solutions.
Nope...not a true thing in both directions.
If people democratically elect Hamas to run their government, they have made their choice and will pay whatever price there is to be paid for that choice...democracies learn over time to choose wisely or pay the price.
I would NOT turn over people to any goverment (Federal or Mucinipal) because it's my choice, just as I would not rebel against my country if the time came for change and I couldn't accept it.
Vote with your feet if things are unbearable, and the majority of citizens want it that way; or, stick it out and swing the tide in the other direction over time. Right does win if given the time and space, and effort.
Cynics will never find a new solution to old problems,and only realists can implement those solutions.
Amendments aren't changed by simple majority vote ...
Unfortunately, we try to do it much faster than it took ourselves, and we fuck up.
We had 200 years of "testing," 10 years of "formal debate" and then about another 20-30 years of "tweaking" before the US Constitution, it's Amendments, it's initial parties and -- most importantly -- the Supreme oversight of them by the Judicial was established close to today.
Fuck up #1 was alienating the Sunnis in Iraq, clearly a minority that must have its interests equally represented.
Everything has kinda rolled downhill from there.
And the second we socialize medicine, we cut our GNP over 25%, which is the threshhold known as an economic depression -- of which we've only had 1 in our time.
At the same time, 99% of the world drug research will be exterminated overnight, as there is no other country that offers IP protection for drug research.
American citizens currently subsidize virtually all drug research, as most nations utterly ignore our patent system when it comes to drugs.
Without protections, it's gone, and it's over.
America is not the "will of the American people today," but the history of American Republicanism spread over almost 450 years,
largely documented and implemented formally over 30-40 years some 200 years ago.
If you want to go against that, then there is no America, period.
We are the richest nation in the world not because we guarantee fair.
We are the richest nation in the world because we guarantee free.
Access is not the same as free access.
Fair/equal is not the same as fair/equal opportunity.
We can play that game all day.
After all, the #1 reason cited over and over by the American founding fathers for many things from the Amendment process to the Electoral College was to prevent a single majority from preventing the minority from even being considered.
And the #1 example cited over and over by the American founding fathers as a majority versus a minority was the have nots versus the haves ....
More explicitly, the majority poor should not be able to take away the wealth of the minority rich.
Read up. Until then, you don't understand the first thing why we are the richest country in the world.
And I'm not just talking money, but why the American Republic will eventually implode more than once in its history.
The ones who know the Constitution, how you can change it, etc... and the ones that assume simple majority decision can negate any part of it.
Americans try to install Democratic-Republics just like ourselves.
Unfortunately, we try to do it much faster than it took ourselves, and we fuck up.
We had 200 years of "testing," 10 years of "formal debate" and then about another 20-30 years of "tweaking" before the US Constitution, it's Amendments, it's initial parties and -- most importantly -- the Supreme oversight of them by the Judicial was established close to today.
Fuck up #1 was alienating the Sunnis in Iraq, clearly a minority that must have its interests equally represented.
Everything has kinda rolled downhill from there.
Actually, most would rather watch American idol while they get free health care and vote in better wages for themselves.
And the second we socialize medicine, we cut our GNP over 25%, which is the threshhold known as an economic depression -- of which we've only had 1 in our time.
At the same time, 99% of the world drug research will be exterminated overnight, as there is no other country that offers IP protection for drug research.
American citizens currently subsidize virtually all drug research, as most nations utterly ignore our patent system when it comes to drugs.
Without protections, it's gone, and it's over.
No, that's the "will of the American people today."
America is not the "will of the American people today," but the history of American Republicanism spread over almost 450 years,
largely documented and implemented formally over 30-40 years some 200 years ago.
Until 3/4ths of the people agree -- aka a "Supermajority" -- doesn't matter what the "will of the American people today" think.
If you want to go against that, then there is no America, period.
And like the Greeks and the Romans, Americans will serve their own interests.
We are the richest nation in the world not because we guarantee fair.
We are the richest nation in the world because we guarantee free.
Access is not the same as free access.
Fair/equal is not the same as fair/equal opportunity.
And by elite you mean ... ???
We can play that game all day.
After all, the #1 reason cited over and over by the American founding fathers for many things from the Amendment process to the Electoral College was to prevent a single majority from preventing the minority from even being considered.
And the #1 example cited over and over by the American founding fathers as a majority versus a minority was the have nots versus the haves ....
More explicitly, the majority poor should not be able to take away the wealth of the minority rich.
Read up. Until then, you don't understand the first thing why we are the richest country in the world.
And I'm not just talking money, but why the American Republic will eventually implode more than once in its history.
I didn't say the phrase, but I used your rhetorical response to make a point ...
I gave you a direct answer, right out of your continued contempt for the American Republic in this and other threads.
The "insult" is that you set yourself so directly up for it, because you're still making "the people should decide about guns."
Anytime the "supermajority" of the American people want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, they have a process to do so.
Until then, the 2nd Amendment isn't up for debate by the majority, their elected representatives and not even the President of the United States, only the Supreme Court -- at least in comparison to other Laws not in the US Constitution.
You have asked your rhetorical questions and and over in this thread, and many others besides myself have tried to answer.
I have never used the phrase "fucking stupid," but I decided to use your use of it to make a point when you asked it rhetorically.
Fox, with all due respect, stop making yourself look like an ignorant ass.
You're the type of American that we despise, because you don't know the first thing even appreciating the protections you have been granted.
At least take the time to study basic, American civics, I plead with you man.
I didn't use those terms, you did, in what I will call a "rhetorical" response.
I gave you a direct answer, right out of your continued contempt for the American Republic in this and other threads.
The "insult" is that you set yourself so directly up for it, because you're still making "the people should decide about guns."
Anytime the "supermajority" of the American people want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, they have a process to do so.
Until then, the 2nd Amendment isn't up for debate by the majority, their elected representatives and not even the President of the United States, only the Supreme Court -- at least in comparison to other Laws not in the US Constitution.
You have asked your rhetorical questions and and over in this thread, and many others besides myself have tried to answer.
I have never used the phrase "fucking stupid," but I decided to use your use of it to make a point when you asked it rhetorically.
Fox, with all due respect, stop making yourself look like an ignorant ass.
You're the type of American that we despise, because you don't know the first thing even appreciating the protections you have been granted.
At least take the time to study basic, American civics, I plead with you man.
I wasn't the one that brought that up, and damn right I'll compare whatever I feel like if it's relevent. since the topic at hand is about the ethics of laws and how they relate to rights and civil liberties I think that is a pretty apt subject of discussion. and why should I shy away from that comparision? If you think that nazi germany was a totaly isolated case that wasn't based on anything else and isn't worth bringing up and doesn't have implications on the world even today, then maybe you are the one that needs to study your history.
I never said that "nothing" is good or bad. I said that laws were. your confusing the laws about murdering an old lady with whether or not the action itself is good or bad, and it's not the same thing and that's not what I said. To get right to the point, if the government bans guns, then anyone who has one is a criminal, by law. but by moral and ethical standards that doesn't mean they are neccesarily doing something harmful or bad. unless you consider the law to be exclusivley good and breaking it to be exclusviley bad, which is hypocritical if the law allows something bad or disallows something that is good.
once again, democracy is just like law. I didn't say that hitler's politics were democratic or fair, I said that he was popularly supported and backed up by the voters. yeah you can bash heads about just what that really means, but if people voting for thier leaders is not what you'd call a democracy, then I think you'll have to be the one to start talking about america in comparison.
Here's a petition worth taking a look at;
Petition
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348?ltl=1172937218
Petition
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348?ltl=1172937218
Read some of the respones of the people at that link. Great stuff. :thumbsup:
Philbert
Banned
I was disappointed with many of the written statements I read.
When you come to a politician and say to him, "I don't want you to support this legislation that will take my guns away. I want to be able to kill American police or any other law enforcement people that come to enforce the law"
(robots don't do the enforcing here, someone's son or daughter does), are you really convinced that declaring your willingness to kill other Americans to defy the law is the way to get legislators to consider your opposition to gun control?
No matter what your feelings are about the 2nd Amendment, you really don't use the possibility of insurrection to convince a lawmaker that controlling firearms even more is a bad idea.
There should be more and compelling reasons for why such restrictive statutes should not be declared law, and enforced.
When you come to a politician and say to him, "I don't want you to support this legislation that will take my guns away. I want to be able to kill American police or any other law enforcement people that come to enforce the law"
(robots don't do the enforcing here, someone's son or daughter does), are you really convinced that declaring your willingness to kill other Americans to defy the law is the way to get legislators to consider your opposition to gun control?
No matter what your feelings are about the 2nd Amendment, you really don't use the possibility of insurrection to convince a lawmaker that controlling firearms even more is a bad idea.
There should be more and compelling reasons for why such restrictive statutes should not be declared law, and enforced.
Read the godamn thread. Why should we let criminals have guns and not people that abide by the law? Are you insane? ALL CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS. How hard is it for you to understand that?
'Fox' season ...
Because the NPS and NRA would declare 'Fox' season immediately!
Oh hell no!
Because the NPS and NRA would declare 'Fox' season immediately!
Law's only apply to those who choose to abide by them, what's going to make the illegal owner of one ot these wepons turn them in?
All this ban serves to do is remove the guns from law abiding citizens.
The courts should do more in the way of punishment to the criminal who uses a gun in the commission of a crime.
I signed the petition #19301
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm
I'am in full support of the Florida Castle Doctrine, this should be the new law.
All this ban serves to do is remove the guns from law abiding citizens.
The courts should do more in the way of punishment to the criminal who uses a gun in the commission of a crime.
I signed the petition #19301
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm
I'am in full support of the Florida Castle Doctrine, this should be the new law.
Half the story ...
The reason for the "Castle Doctrine" is because of the previous 10-20-Life law in Florida.
If you merely pulled a gun in Florida, you got 10 years.
If you fired a gun in Florida, you got 20 years.
If you hurt someone with a gun in Florida, it was guaranteed life.
And in case you don't follow Florida, our prison power bills are rather high (i.e., electric chairs).
So what the "Castle Doctrine" basically does is protect legal, responsible use of guns for self-defense.
And yes, both sides have their "victims," but it works pretty well and is "common sense."
If I pull a gun on someone, fire it and/or possibly injury or kill someone, I have a limited set of excuses.
But if those excuses fit, I was not the criminal, I was the victim.
There is a very common attitude among many people that all gun owners are criminals.
These are the same people who keep wanting to eliminate our rights so it actually becomes true.
What people don't realize is that this is half the story.
The reason for the "Castle Doctrine" is because of the previous 10-20-Life law in Florida.
If you merely pulled a gun in Florida, you got 10 years.
If you fired a gun in Florida, you got 20 years.
If you hurt someone with a gun in Florida, it was guaranteed life.
And in case you don't follow Florida, our prison power bills are rather high (i.e., electric chairs).
So what the "Castle Doctrine" basically does is protect legal, responsible use of guns for self-defense.
And yes, both sides have their "victims," but it works pretty well and is "common sense."
If I pull a gun on someone, fire it and/or possibly injury or kill someone, I have a limited set of excuses.
But if those excuses fit, I was not the criminal, I was the victim.
There is a very common attitude among many people that all gun owners are criminals.
These are the same people who keep wanting to eliminate our rights so it actually becomes true.
Philbert
Banned
First of all, I have been in this thread since the beginning. Second, who are you to question my sanity?
All criminals don't have guns, just the ones you are the most scared of.
You haven't said anything to address my post, just tried to impress someone (don't know who) with your bad manners and lack of attention. Where did anyone, even the most slanted poster, say criminals should have guns?
You must be reading another thread.
Try to read the relevant posts before spewing such garbage, how hard is it for you to understand that?
Similar threads
