Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:52 pm to Rebelgator
I'm 40! I'M A MAN!
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:53 pm to Alahunter
was your link supposed to do anything?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:54 pm to Alahunter
Shotguns just weren't supposed to be fired that fast.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:55 pm to CheeseburgerEddie
take you to gunbroker where that shotgun was up for auction
eta- oops
eta- oops
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:55 pm to Stonehog
quote:
You don't think people should have nukes, but doesn't that fall under the 2nd amendment? It is an arm after all.
I don't think Nukes are classified as an arm, at least not in the personal firearm sense.
This is a dumb strawman argument you're making. Something like a nuke requires infrastructure from which to fire it from, and costs so much that only a handful of private citizens could afford one anyways. And it can destroy entire cities.
It's not even close to comparable to a semi automatic rifle for which a person can carry, fire, and store safely.
We have the Supreme Court, and a Constitutional Amendment process, to handle "technology innovations" regarding constitutional rights. These have largely already been decided in many cases.
If you don't like it, then get the Constitution amended. Good luck.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:55 pm to Alahunter
it just takes you back to this thread
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:56 pm to heartbreakTiger
took it down.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:56 pm to deltaland
quote:
Something like a nuke requires infrastructure from which to fire it from, and costs so much that only a handful of private citizens could afford one anyways. And it can destroy entire cities.
It's not even close to comparable to a semi automatic rifle for which a person can carry, fire, and store safely.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:03 pm to Rebelgator
quote:
Show me the last mass murder with a duck gun. I'll wait.
More murders are committed with shotguns, blunt objects, handguns than are with rifles, like the one you posted.
LINK
You lose.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:04 pm to deltaland
quote:
I don't think Nukes are classified as an arm, at least not in the personal firearm sense.
Arms are any kind of weapon. The Constitution just says "arms" not "firearms."
quote:
This is a dumb strawman argument you're making
Not entirely. In the argument that the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from a tyrannical government, wouldn't you, as a citizen, want the same arms the government has? I would, otherwise we're at a distinct disadvantage.
quote:
We have the Supreme Court, and a Constitutional Amendment process, to handle "technology innovations" regarding constitutional rights. These have largely already been decided in many cases.
Right, and the one of most recent cases(DC vs Heller) the Supreme Court ruled that it was Constitutional to pass gun control laws. So any law proposed to control guns is not always an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment, which is what the gun rights advocates want everyone to believe.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:04 pm to deltaland
Actually, you lose.
Look up.
Look up.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:16 pm to The Spleen
quote:
Right, and the one of most recent cases(DC vs Heller) the Supreme Court ruled that it was Constitutional to pass gun control laws. So any law proposed to control guns is not always an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment, which is what the gun rights advocates want everyone to believe.
It also ruled that some laws are unconstitutional. And that certain rights cannot be infringed upon. For instance, the trigger lock requirement was ruled unconstitutional. And the AG just in the last week came out with the idea of electronic bracelets that would allow tracking. Something that would seem to fall under the same criteria that was just ruled unconstitutional. Some proposed laws, as gun control advocates want to push, won't pass muster in a court of law.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:23 pm to Alahunter
This still going?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:23 pm to The Spleen
Yes and you failed in passing those laws through congress because people think they are an infringement of our rights.
The President using executive orders for gun control is therefore extreme and an abuse of power, which is what you said was sensible.
Nationwide gun rights have expanded rather than be restricted. Gun control is a losing battle for those proposing it
The President using executive orders for gun control is therefore extreme and an abuse of power, which is what you said was sensible.
Nationwide gun rights have expanded rather than be restricted. Gun control is a losing battle for those proposing it
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:24 pm to wadewilson
Yeah. Starting to peter out a lil bit though.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:33 pm to deltaland
I failed? I haven't tried to pass any gun laws. And most people are in favor of common sense gun laws, but it's tough to fight the deep pockets of the NRA.
And since when are Executive Orders an extreme abuse of power? Every President uses them.
And again, I'm not necessarily arguing for more stringent gun laws. I don't think gun violence is as bad as some portray it to be. It needs addressing, but I'm no convinced more stringent gun laws will address it very adequately.
And since when are Executive Orders an extreme abuse of power? Every President uses them.
And again, I'm not necessarily arguing for more stringent gun laws. I don't think gun violence is as bad as some portray it to be. It needs addressing, but I'm no convinced more stringent gun laws will address it very adequately.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:35 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Starting to peter out a lil bit though.
Which is unfortunate. I was keeping myself entertained while writing reports....
Posted on 4/22/14 at 2:45 pm to The Spleen
It's easy to get favorable polling when you ask generic questions using terms such as "common sense gun control" but the resulting legislation, or lack thereof, shows at what point most people consider common sense to be.
If most people want more gun control then wouldn't organizations promoting gun control be more powerful than the NRA due to a larger support base to get donations from.
Executive orders can't add to, or take pieces from, existing law. They cannot create new law or regulations. They can only force agencies under the executive branch to enforce existing law.
Look at Obamas use of EO to delay parts of the ACA for an example of this abuse of power.
If most people want more gun control then wouldn't organizations promoting gun control be more powerful than the NRA due to a larger support base to get donations from.
Executive orders can't add to, or take pieces from, existing law. They cannot create new law or regulations. They can only force agencies under the executive branch to enforce existing law.
Look at Obamas use of EO to delay parts of the ACA for an example of this abuse of power.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:09 pm to deltaland
quote:
It's easy to get favorable polling when you ask generic questions using terms such as "common sense gun control" but the resulting legislation, or lack thereof, shows at what point most people consider common sense to be.
Sure, and that's where the lawmakers come in and ask the people what common sense gun controls they want. Instead they take money from NRA and vote them down.
quote:
If most people want more gun control then wouldn't organizations promoting gun control be more powerful than the NRA due to a larger support base to get donations from.
Sure, but the NRA's opposition to these types of laws is a recent shift for them. They haven't always been so staunchly against it.
quote:
Executive orders can't add to, or take pieces from, existing law. They cannot create new law or regulations
Okay, and the Executive Orders pertaining to guns did none of that. He only asked Congress to take those issues up. Such an abuse of power.
Page 13 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News