Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I didn't start the bullshit ad hom attacks that you trolls start, so don't come crying to me when you get it in return. You're the one who can't form an opinion based on case law and the Constitution, so you have to troll to show off.
Consider this: Guns and firearms are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and neither is the right to vote. There is a prohibition against disarming the populace and a prohibition against denying a citizen their rights based on race and gender, but the Constitution has never said a woman or a Black person has the right to vote.
Since we all believe we have the right to vote, why are we required to register to vote? Why shouldn't that right be the way you view gun rights where you believe registration is taking away a right? The Constitution didn't say I could only vote once or that I needed to register to vote, did it?
Can you see how ridiculous an argument against gun registration can become for people who have very little understanding of what the Constitution truly says?
Do you see how to make a point and not troll people? Try it sometime, but don't expect the people you have trolled to immediately start discussing everything with the likes of you!
The 2nd amendment says the word "arms." That means firearms.
Clause 1 of Article 1 of the consitution states how each state deterimines how representatives are selected, and who can vote for them:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
So the states determine voting requirements, and to vote in a federal election you must meet the requirements of the largest part of the state legislature. The states, I am sure have 1 person 1 vote provisions, and thus this passes on to federal elections. This is modifed by the restrictions on disqualifying voting for race, sex and age after age 18 VIA AMENDMENT (which you are free to attempt with the 2nd)
Registering to vote is required because you actually have to interact with the government to cast your vote, Also to assure each person only casts one vote. You also need the # of voters to determine legislative breakdown by state.
A person keeping thier guns in thier house does not interact with the government, nor do thier guns impact how many votes they have, or the outcome of elections.
You make points yes, but they are wrong and based on a flawed intepretation of the constitution.
Try one point at a time! The Constitution saying arms did not mean firearms, which are only one type of arms.
Is that what you right wing scum thought of when you heard about the brutal murder of those twenty 6 and 7 year old beautiful children?
It was horrible, but before those babies were even taken out of that school you left wing bastards were circling like buzzards to try to advance your gun grabbing agenda. Your pathetic human excrement of the worse order with absolutely no fucking shame. I sincerely hope that answers your question.
Liberals don't have a 'gun grabbing agenda', no matter how much you butt hurt adolescent minded pea brains scream the sky is falling. The assault type weapons themselves have created an agenda to get them out of our communities. NOTHING the President proposes is a 'gun grabbing agenda'. It is common sense legislation.
NO ONE outside of a war zone needs a weapon that can fire off 100 rounds at a fire rate of a round per second. And if you FEEL you need that kind of firepower you belong in a padded cell. You have a deep mental illness of phobia and paranoia. You are unfit to own a pea shooter. Plus you might load your own pea brain in the straw and blow.
I didn't start the bullshit ad hom attacks that you trolls start, so don't come crying to me when you get it in return. You're the one who can't form an opinion based on case law and the Constitution, so you have to troll to show off.
Consider this: Guns and firearms are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and neither is the right to vote. There is a prohibition against disarming the populace and a prohibition against denying a citizen their rights based on race and gender, but the Constitution has never said a woman or a Black person has the right to vote.
Since we all believe we have the right to vote, why are we required to register to vote? Why shouldn't that right be the way you view gun rights where you believe registration is taking away a right? The Constitution didn't say I could only vote once or that I needed to register to vote, did it?
Can you see how ridiculous an argument against gun registration can become for people who have very little understanding of what the Constitution truly says?
Do you see how to make a point and not troll people? Try it sometime, but don't expect the people you have trolled to immediately start discussing everything with the likes of you!
so when do we start doing background checks on people registering to vote and force them to have some form of government ID? Now i recall when conservatives made this type of recommendation you cried it was a violation of their constitutional rights and unfairly inconvenieced the poor. why do you have a sudden change of heart all of a sudden? why the double standard?
The Constitution doesn't give you the right to vote and only prohibits denying people's rights as citizens. How can you claim the person voting has to register, but a gun owner can't be required to register? The fact is the state requires a person to register to vote and the state can require a registration to own a firearm. The Constitution only prohibits disarming the populace and that is a right involvng the general public and not an individual's right in the sense of applying it to themselves. A person can be disarmed without it violating the Constitution. A person has the right to not have the populace disarmed.
This is what happens when the gungrabbers get to control the language on the issue.
There isn't a single of those weapons on that list that is a fully automatic weapon. Everyone of those is an Ugly and Scary looking, Semi-Automatic.
Hell, I saw a shotgun on Saturday that nearly made me wet my pants. Scary wasn't the word for how this damn thing looked.
It terrified me.
But it was still a Semi-Automatic. In all reality it was no different than other semi-automatic shot gun, it was cosmetically ugly, mechanically normal.
It has nothing to do with how they 'look'. It has to do with the vast amount of human carnage they inflict in a very, very short time span.
Here is how a Police Chief explains the true purpose of a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle before Congress:
"We use that weapon in police because of its technical capability, it's ability to cool down and handle round after round after round ... It's rugged...it's meant for a combat or environment that one would be placed in facing adversaries, human beings, people. That weapon can be retrofitted with other devices to enhance your offensive capability. The weapon itself has features to adjust it -- optics sights, for example -- that can cost hundreds of dollars, and I've shot this weapon many times -- that would enhance our capability in various tactical maneuvers, whether [you're firing] from the shoulder or the hip or whether you choose to spray fire that weapon or individually shoot from the shoulder. The optic sights are amazing, the technology advances that weapon has.
That weapon is the weapon of our time. Its the place that we find ourselves in today. And, certainly, I believe its meant for the battlefield and in a public safety environment only."
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.Education? Seriously?? Do you make this shit up in your little mind as you go along??? Jefferson and our founding fathers did not have a paranoid fear of the government they created. When Jefferson said: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government" he was talking about what government's role is. In that same letter he talks about the 'public good'.
If you want to educate yourself, read the Federalist Papers where Hamilton and Madison talk about a well regulated militia. The Federalist Papers were arguments FOR the creation of a federal government. And they come close to outright mocking the anti-Federalist who spewed the same 'slippery slope' paranoia you right wing turds keep spewing.
And finally, a last word from George Washington himself:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
And that about sums it up!
It doesn't sum anything up. You folks are so fucked in the head it is scary.
Background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment.
If you read and understand what our founder's intent was regarding the second amendment, you would understand that our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.
Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress debate on arms and militia, youll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.
The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed since a well-regulated militia is the best security of a free country.
Virginias support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State
Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then its best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.
The other defensive option would have been a standing army.
But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, an engine of oppression.
Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty. Those were the exact words used in the state of New Yorks amendment to the gun debate.
Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.
Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.
more
Sigh.
The report starts with the claim that gun shows are an important avenue in gun trafficking, and then reports that only 2% of felons actually in prison had a gun that was in any way tied to a gun show.
That is 2%.
I wasn't referencing the opinions of the study's authors, which are suspect.
I was referencing their data, which is not.
As I stated previously, the "Gun Show Loophole" is a misnomer, as private sales occur everywhere without documentation or background checks, not just at Gun Shows.
And criminals will obey all of that.
It's not important whether criminals will obey anything.
What's important is that the people selling guns to said criminals realize that there will be severe consequences if they continue to do so, thus stopping the majority of criminals from getting the guns in the first place.
I know that the cities with the tightest gun control laws have the highest murder rates.
I also know that that none of the perps of the mass shootings that has a bug up the asses of all of you bedwetting lolberals went through a background check to get their weapons.
Background checks are completely ineffective....Period.
Well that is just altogether false.
New York City is one of the safest large cities to live in in the nation, and it has very strict gun control laws.
Missouri doesn't have a particularly strict set of Gun Laws, as far as I know, and is is the most dangerous city in the nation.
Virginia has basically no gun laws, and Richmond is regularly in the top 10 most dangerous cities.
And, here is a point that I'd like to know the answer to:
Why are private sellers exempt from the same sort of rules that licensed gun sellers must follow in the first place?
The only reason I can see for this loophole to exist is to put guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have guns.
Then you are not looking very hard. Does the Government require the private seller of an automobile to copy the drivers license and proof of insurance when selling a car as Dealers are required to do?
Does the Government require private dealers to offer a limited warranty on a car as they do Dealers?
Dealers are not required to copy licence & insurance info to sell a car.
Talk about a meaningless stat...A weapon coud've been bought and sold numerous times by dealers, but it's the one time that it's sold privately that gives you that ridiculously, ergo meaninglessly, high number.It also states that 85% of guns used in crimes were resold through private sales at least once.
That's 85%.
It's not meaningless at all, since the point where it's sold through a private sale is the point in the chain of sales where the new owner becomes unknown.
Do you feel a criminal or a potential criminal would want a gun that can immediately be traced to him, or not?
Since your side often brings up the point that much of gun violence is performed by "Gang Bangers", where do you think they get their guns? Licensed Dealers?
Better question: Why are dealers and law abiding citizens put through the whole background check Kabuki dance, when it's demonstrably ineffective at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?
The only reason it's "it's demonstrably ineffective at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals" is because of the very loopholes we're referring to, and because Congress has made specific legislation that makes it almost impossible to enforce existing regulation.
Then I would suggest that you have a severe, quite possibly debilitating, case of myopia.
Perhaps in your Bizarro-world universe. But here in the real world, that's the only reason I can see.
I know that the cities with the tightest gun control laws have the highest murder rates.
I also know that that none of the perps of the mass shootings that has a bug up the asses of all of you bedwetting lolberals went through a background check to get their weapons.
Background checks are completely ineffective....Period.
Well that is just altogether false.
New York City is one of the safest large cities to live in in the nation, and it has very strict gun control laws.
Missouri doesn't have a particularly strict set of Gun Laws, as far as I know, and is is the most dangerous city in the nation.
Virginia has basically no gun laws, and Richmond is regularly in the top 10 most dangerous cities.
GMA reported that only 4 hand guns were used at one time, and as far as I know the mother was reported as being shot from day one. And since CT has a ban on assault weapons and the weapon used was state compliant, there was no assault weapon used. See how facts work, they are what they are neither you or I can change that.
Assault weapons bans usually involve dates and are bans on sales. The weapon used is an obvious assault weapon and there was no AR-15 left in the vehicle. It was a military style shotgun and may have even been like this one, hence the confusion:
Except that is not the gun he used, is it? Why are you accusing others of being dishonest when you are dishonest yourself?
This is what a Bushmaster looks like when it is compliant with the assault weapons ban in CT, which was the strictest law in the nation at the time.
No flash suppressor, no forward grip, no barrel shroud, no tactical mount for a flashlight, and, most importantly of all, not a shotgun.
It was a military style shotgun and may have even been like this one, hence the confusion:
Those children are what you think of every single time you try to argue about the 2nd Amendment. Is that because your intellectual capacity won't let you admit you are wrong about everything?
Have you thought about the fact that Jefferson actually thought people should conduct an armed rebellion once every few years was a good idea, or do you only like the quotes that are easy for you to misinterpret?
Where do you come up with 'Jefferson actually thought people should conduct an armed rebellion once every few years was a good idea'? You are a total moron with a brain smaller than a pea. And are you saying what happened to those children was 'a good idea'?
SCUM...
Because I can actually read and comprehend English. Even if we ignore the quote about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed we have other quotes that more than prove my point.
Emphasis in the original.
Before you try to obfuscate the issue, Monticello.org is the official site of the Monticello museum.
"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.[1]Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787[2]
A little rebellion...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello
Look at that, rebellion is as important as rain.
Criminals in general do not obey laws. So, should there then be no laws?
there should be laws. but not being able to enforce them doesn't mean you should add further restrictions to them that only impact the law abiding
I agree to some extent. Laws need to be enforceable and there needs to be the public will to enforce them.
However in this case I think the laws being proposed are modest and moderate: universal background check for example. Yet anytime something is proposed, you have one side jumping up and down claiming that the government is now going to confiscate your weapons and guns will be banned. That is highly unlikely given public opinion and the constitution (with the right to bare arms strongly affirmed in a recent Supreme Court case).
So why not consider reasonable gun control measures if it might keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, potential suicides (3 day waiting period), and possibly make it more difficult for at least some criminals to get them?
And I predict that is the last response Dumya will give to that thread, an objection he raised himself.
Yes, gun laws don't work. We have a 100 year history of them not working. And as in real life, Dumya's suggestions for improvement go ever more towards restriction and control. First background checks. When pointed out those wont work,, then gun registration. When that won't work, keeping them locked up. When that wont work, keeping them disassembled. When that won't work, confiscating them. When that won't work outlawing knives. When that wont work constant video surveillance inside everyone's home by the gov't. Hello, Big Brother.
He is a big gov dunce of epic proportions and a total fail so bad he's turned off his rep.
What was there like 35 to 50 homicides by gun that year in the UK and 11,000 here?
Homicides by gun are increasing. Uou claim they will end if we ban guns and track all weapons.
You are wrong, end of discussion.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
And finally, a last word from George Washington himself:
And that about sums it up!
It doesn't sum anything up. You folks are so fucked in the head it is scary.
Background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment.
If you read and understand what our founder's intent was regarding the second amendment, you would understand that our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.
Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress debate on arms and militia, youll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.
The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed since a well-regulated militia is the best security of a free country.
Virginias support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State
Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then its best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.
The other defensive option would have been a standing army.
But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, an engine of oppression.
Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty. Those were the exact words used in the state of New Yorks amendment to the gun debate.
Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.
Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.
more
Exactly, A FREE STATE, now show me anywhere the founders used the term "State" and the term "Government or Federal Government", synonymously. Hint, not once.
The 2nd amendment says the word "arms." That means firearms.
Clause 1 of Article 1 of the consitution states how each state deterimines how representatives are selected, and who can vote for them:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
So the states determine voting requirements, and to vote in a federal election you must meet the requirements of the largest part of the state legislature. The states, I am sure have 1 person 1 vote provisions, and thus this passes on to federal elections. This is modifed by the restrictions on disqualifying voting for race, sex and age after age 18 VIA AMENDMENT (which you are free to attempt with the 2nd)
Registering to vote is required because you actually have to interact with the government to cast your vote, Also to assure each person only casts one vote. You also need the # of voters to determine legislative breakdown by state.
A person keeping thier guns in thier house does not interact with the government, nor do thier guns impact how many votes they have, or the outcome of elections.
You make points yes, but they are wrong and based on a flawed intepretation of the constitution.
Try one point at a time! The Constitution saying arms did not mean firearms, which are only one type of arms.
They were the type of arms a citizen brought to the party, pikes and maces being outdated at the time.
And yes firearms are a type of arms, and your right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. So you just made your argument against yourself.
Try one point at a time! The Constitution saying arms did not mean firearms, which are only one type of arms.
They were the type of arms a citizen brought to the party, pikes and maces being outdated at the time.
And yes firearms are a type of arms, and your right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. So you just made your argument against yourself.
You just can't stop talking about me, can you?
I simply said firearms weren't the only type of arm in those days. Swords were also arms of that day and so were knives. Even a cannon was an type of arm of that day.
Chicago and Washington DC have very strict gun laws...and are essentially war zones. You fail.
