Assault weapons ban

[Underhill]

Actually what you are describing as a republic has nothing to do with your rights.

Your rights are in place because the government voted in by our representatives a long time ago put them there. And they can be taken away if the majority of representatives are directed that way by the will of the people.

A republic is ruled by representatives of the people. A pure democracy would mean every decision is made by a vote of all citizens. That is the difference in the purest sense.

If you were educated on the matter before us you would know that the bill of rights was added to let the government know that it was their job to defend the rights mentioned and those that were not.

The rights were and still are birthrites. There is nothing in the constitution that says the rights were granted by it or by any law - what the amendments say is that the rights are inherent to all living humans and they are outside the jurisdiction of the government and the people.
The biggest difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that the Republic recognizes individual rights that are beyond the powers of government and even the people themselves. That is why the nineth amendment was added - they couldn't list all our rights so they covered them in the nineth.

"By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different. The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority. In a true democracy, the majority rules in all cases, regardless of any consequences for individuals or for those who are not in the majority on an issue."

I bolded the most important part for you so you wouldn't have too hard a time finding it.

Yes, rights are protected but not to any degree. The bill of rights can be amended, added to, or have parts removed. It's not as simple as a majority vote, but it can be done and has been in the past.

And what I described is no less correct. The representatives of the people are the buffer. They are elected, and in turn trusted, to do what is right regardless of the will of the people.

But the reality is they are politicians and anyone who thinks they will act in any way that will put their political career on the line is delusional.

 

[PaulS1950]

The bill of rights has NEVER let me say that again N E V E R been amended. There have been other amendments that have been but none of the first ten (which are the bill of rights) have ever been amended.

 

[PaulS1950]

Yes, rights are protected but not to any degree. The bill of rights can be amended, added to, or have parts removed. It's not as simple as a majority vote, but it can be done and has been in the past.

And what I described is no less correct. The representatives of the people are the buffer. They are elected, and in turn trusted, to do what is right regardless of the will of the people.

But the reality is they are politicians and anyone who thinks they will act in any way that will put their political career on the line is delusional.

In your seven sentences you have lied four times.

The rights are protected by the history that we have of the intention of the founding fathers. Like it or not the reasons they expressed publicly weigh heavily in the decisions of the supreme court. It is the understanding of what they built that makes it so important to keep that essence alive throughout our history.

The first ten amendments, the bill of rights, have never and can never be amended or detracted. Not even with a unanimous vote of all the people, all the states, and the whole of congress.

The representatives are elected to do the will of the people - nothing else. This government is one "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" not by the elected officials for the elected officials - throughout the constitution it is THE PEOPLE who are served by government not the government served by the people. You are either completely uneducated or simple.

There have been many politicians who have gone against the wishes of the people to find themselves out of a job, and some who thought they were above the laws set forth in the constitution. NIxon and Obama are two. Obama found out that he could not just appoint people to jobs without the congress and the result was that a lot of rules that were passed by the NTSB have been thrown out because the appointments were unlawful.

Ignorance can be cured with education but stupidity has only one cure and it usually takes too long to take effect.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually that example is perfect.

As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements. You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.

The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips. You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.

Now there are differences obviously. But the goal is the same. The cause is the same. No example is perfect.

It just doesn't matter. Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything on the issue. Both sides have legitimate complaints and defenses. And both sides think the other is off their rocker. It's a matter of perspective.

I am on the fence.

I don't think anyone should take away guns. Even if it has worked in other places (and the evidence is murky either way) I doubt it would here. There are too many of them.

On the other hand I think there are ways to make them safer. Mandatory gun locks. Mandatory training. Taking the handcuffs off those who are supposed to enforce current laws. These things could be done without infringing on anyone's rights. And while I'm sure many would still be against them, I couldn't care less.

These are things all gun owners should be doing anyway.

Things like limiting clip sizes to 10 are fine by me, but would have a negligible impact so I'm not going to get too worked up about them either way.

I would love to see a push by the people for less fear based reporting, less sensationalist news coverage. But it seems unlikely. The most watched news channel by a wide margin is among the most guilty. It seems to attract viewers so of course they all do it.

But everyone needs to calm the fuck down. The world probably isn't going to end tomorrow and chances are, if it does, your fucked anyway.

Should cops also have locks on their service weapons?
Should cops be limited to magazine capacity

I couldn't care less. Most cops never fire their guns. They also aren't held to the same rules as the rest of us. Swat routinely uses guns that are illegal to the average guy.

We aren't talking about cops.

OH so cops lives are somehow different than a civilians lives? Of course you don't care because it makes your position look really stupid and weak.

 

[Sactowndog]

Anyone who believes the US is a democracy needs to educate themselves on the difference between the two. In a democracy the majority decides what is right for everyone but in a Republic the people have rights that are beyond reproach - even if 99.9% of the voters diagree.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep decidine what is for dinner - in a Republic the sheep has the same rights as the wolves and the ability to defend itself agains the wolves. The wolves therefore eat something besides rack of lamb.

Actually what you are describing as a republic has nothing to do with your rights.

Your rights are in place because the government voted in by our representatives a long time ago put them there. And they can be taken away if the majority of representatives are directed that way by the will of the people.

A republic is ruled by representatives of the people. A pure democracy would mean every decision is made by a vote of all citizens. That is the difference in the purest sense.

I am not a right wing nut. In fact, I hate the current instantiation of the Republican Party... That fact aside, you really need to spend some time reading the Federalist papers or take a US government class in your community college because you couldn't be more ignorant in what your are saying.

The whole point is that the rights framed in the constitution are inalienable rights given to us by God and rights that no government can take away. The point of the second amendment is that without arms all those rights are at risk by tyrannical governments; The worst of which is the tyranny of the majority.

Your arguments are so off base and show such little understanding of the basis on which this country was founded it is embarrassing. I voted for Barak Obama so you can't claim I am right wing.

 

[Sactowndog]

Yes, and it misses the point that we live in a constitutional Republic too.
No one has the right to disarm the population, especially the government.

No one is advocating ‘disarming the population,’ this type of hyperbolic nonsense only undermines useful debate.

The point is valid and invalid at the same time. The "intent" of the second amendment is that the population should be sufficiently armed to overthrow a tyrannical government.

On one hand the right is correct that without automatic weapons the populace is at a severe disadvantage relative to the government.

The worst part about the "war on terror" is for the past 12 years the federal government has been developing, testing and perfecting exactly the types of strategies they would use against a popular uprising. Automatic weapons against drones are pointless.

Sadly the NRA is more about protecting gun manufacturers then about protecting our rights. What should be done is all guns should have biometric devices that allow them to be shot by a specific set of owners. Especially military style assault rifles. That would prevent the crazies from killing mom and using her guns. In exchange drone technology should be dispersed to national guard units so the technology isn't concentrated in the hands of the federal government.

 

[Sactowndog]

Yes, rights are protected but not to any degree. The bill of rights can be amended, added to, or have parts removed. It's not as simple as a majority vote, but it can be done and has been in the past.

And what I described is no less correct. The representatives of the people are the buffer. They are elected, and in turn trusted, to do what is right regardless of the will of the people.

But the reality is they are politicians and anyone who thinks they will act in any way that will put their political career on the line is delusional.

In your seven sentences you have lied four times.

The rights are protected by the history that we have of the intention of the founding fathers. Like it or not the reasons they expressed publicly weigh heavily in the decisions of the supreme court. It is the understanding of what they built that makes it so important to keep that essence alive throughout our history.

The first ten amendments, the bill of rights, have never and can never be amended or detracted. Not even with a unanimous vote of all the people, all the states, and the whole of congress.

The representatives are elected to do the will of the people - nothing else. This government is one "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" not by the elected officials for the elected officials - throughout the constitution it is THE PEOPLE who are served by government not the government served by the people. You are either completely uneducated or simple.

There have been many politicians who have gone against the wishes of the people to find themselves out of a job, and some who thought they were above the laws set forth in the constitution. NIxon and Obama are two. Obama found out that he could not just appoint people to jobs without the congress and the result was that a lot of rules that were passed by the NTSB have been thrown out because the appointments were unlawful.

Ignorance can be cured with education but stupidity has only one cure and it usually takes too long to take effect.

You lose all credibility when you don't include GW Bush in that list.

 

[Underhill]

The bill of rights has NEVER let me say that again N E V E R been amended. There have been other amendments that have been but none of the first ten (which are the bill of rights) have ever been amended.

Okay valid point, but they are an amendment to the constitution. And amendments have been changed.

 

[Underhill]

Yes, rights are protected but not to any degree. The bill of rights can be amended, added to, or have parts removed. It's not as simple as a majority vote, but it can be done and has been in the past.

And what I described is no less correct. The representatives of the people are the buffer. They are elected, and in turn trusted, to do what is right regardless of the will of the people.

But the reality is they are politicians and anyone who thinks they will act in any way that will put their political career on the line is delusional.

In your seven sentences you have lied four times.

Lied? Really?

The rights are protected by the history that we have of the intention of the founding fathers. Like it or not the reasons they expressed publicly weigh heavily in the decisions of the supreme court. It is the understanding of what they built that makes it so important to keep that essence alive throughout our history.

History protects us? Sorry but thats nonsense. If congress wanted to, clearly they could make changes.

The first ten amendments, the bill of rights, have never and can never be amended or detracted. Not even with a unanimous vote of all the people, all the states, and the whole of congress.

Feel free to point out the bit that says it cannot be amended. It would be incredibly difficult but it is possible.

The representatives are elected to do the will of the people - nothing else. This government is one "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" not by the elected officials for the elected officials - throughout the constitution it is THE PEOPLE who are served by government not the government served by the people. You are either completely uneducated or simple.

Yeah sure, but the will of the people is all to often stupid. I point to our 30 years of deficits as evidence of this. But you are right in part. That is the way it is. Politicians making stupid decisions based upon the will of an uneducated populace that is bad for the long term good of the nation and sometimes even their own constituency.

But the founding fathers, if you actually read their opinions, hoped that the representatives would mitigate the all too often ignorant and destructive will of the people.

There have been many politicians who have gone against the wishes of the people to find themselves out of a job, and some who thought they were above the laws set forth in the constitution. NIxon and Obama are two. Obama found out that he could not just appoint people to jobs without the congress and the result was that a lot of rules that were passed by the NTSB have been thrown out because the appointments were unlawful.

Sure, of course Bush did the same thing. Every president bitches during the elections about the previous guys over-reaching, and virtually every one of them does the same exact thing once they are confronted with opposition.

Ignorance can be cured with education but stupidity has only one cure and it usually takes too long to take effect.

If you are incapable of having a conversation without insults then you need to do some growing up.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Why did they spend all that money to buy a gun meant to kill lots and lots of people? It can't possibly be innocent.

 

[Snookie]

The guns are not evil. If the operator of that gun chooses to steel it in the first place and then use it to commit a crime he has committed two crimes - theft of a gun and murder. In over 40 years of owning and carrying guns I have never lost one to theft. I have never once killed anyone in civilian life. I have only had one desparate time when I drew that gun in self defense and I did not have to fire.
There are a lot more legal gun owners out there than there are criminals with those guns that you have an irrational fear of. In all the years I have been around guns I have never seen or even heard of one jumping up and killing someone. The guns are not evil - the criminal is.
Get that through your skull - the criminal is evil not the gun. The guns are used for legal recreation, target practice, competitions and the legal defense of property and life. They are very good at that when the person behind the trigger is a lawful owner and not a criminal. No gun is built to kill "lots and lots of people". Owning a semi-automatic rifle is innocent and a lot of fun. when my family goes to the range it is a great family outing. We all shoot - and shoot well - because we do it often. Not once have I heard any one of us say that they want to kill someone. Worry about the criminals, not about the legal gun owners.

Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.

Nuclear bombs are not protected by the 2A.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hell, you couldn't define what an assault rifle is.

Oh yeah?

That is not even a real gun! It is out of a comic book movie!
Really? is that the best you got? A comic book 357 assault rifle from Grimjack productions?
Please!

Things like this only make it less likely that there will ever be another 'assault weapon' ban.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I for one am tired of defending my right to own firearms every time that a nut job takes to the streets.

You don't have to feel defensive about owning ANY guns whenever there is another rampage mass murder. I don't think most of the public worries about people having a gun or two as a tool --- it's pretty much indispensable on a farm, for instance.

It's these guns that are manufactured to be as close as possible to the military mass killing machines intended to kill lots of people! Which are then used that way by the gun nuts themselves or their sons or their neighbor's sons who steal them. These are evil guns intended for bad, harmful purposes. The people who own them are NOT the good guys.

Aother spectacular display of mindlessness, ignorance and bigotry!
Well done!

 

[Snookie]

Oh yeah?

That is not even a real gun! It is out of a comic book movie!
Really? is that the best you got? A comic book 357 assault rifle from Grimjack productions?
Please!

Things like this only make it less likely that there will ever be another 'assault weapon' ban.

LOL, I played you dudes on that one. LOL.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually that example is perfect.

As in the example I gave, the trucks cause deaths to people in small cars so all trucks have to meet maximum height requirements. You lift your truck, you have to lower the bumper if you lift it too high.

The AR is used in mass homicides so they come out with a law that says you cannot buy 30 round clips. You can buy the gun, but the clip is restricted just like the bumper.

Now there are differences obviously. But the goal is the same. The cause is the same. No example is perfect.

The example is invalid, as one has to do with privileged use on puiblic property, and the other does not.

That has nothing to do with the example.

It has everything to do with the example.

Again, you're arguing that because we can regulate right A because of Y, we can also regulate right B because of Z.

The fact that we can regulate cars used on public property in no way means we can regulate guns that are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

 

[Underhill]

The example is invalid, as one has to do with privileged use on puiblic property, and the other does not.

That has nothing to do with the example.

It has everything to do with the example.

Again, you're arguing that because we can regulate right A because of Y, we can also regulate right B because of Z.

The fact that we can regulate cars used on public property in no way means we can regulate guns that are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

They are both a threat to public welfare when used incorrectly.

And for those of you that brought up the 2nd again, I wouldn't argue except to say the right to bear arms does not mean we cannot regulate them and put limits on their use. We already do.

We aren't talking about bans, but regulations. Two entirely different things in the eyes of the law.

 

[Snookie]

Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.

Nuclear bombs are not protected by the 2A.

Why not? You're slipping. lol.

 

[Underhill]

Nuclear bombs are not evil, either.

Nuclear bombs are not protected by the 2A.

Why not? You're slipping. lol.

So it's okay if the 2nd protects some arms and not others?

 

[faptist]

Here is how effective another assault weapons ban will be:
I have made 12 firearms from scratch & made ammo from scratch,all legal.It isn't all that hard really & doesn't require a rocket scientist.Legal or not,it's simple to make.When I was 15 (2004),I could get weed,cocaine,heroine & firearms VERY easily.

The firearms were mostly ak47 types imported from china,glock knockoffs,& revolvers all very cheap.And this was in a lil bitty town with 0-4 murders a year & very low violent crime.Feinstein's bill & NY's bill is useless.If anyone thinks these moronic knee jerk emotionally driven bills will save lives,they are out of touch with reality.
At the range I can shoot 24 quick moving targets dead center neck,head,&/or chest in 2-3mins with a 6 shot .45 revolver.Although its unlikely to be chosen,a revolver can successfully be used in a mass shooting.