Giffords is trying to steal our rights

[M14 Shooter]

Gabrielle Giffords and her husband are gun owners. All they are pushing for is more stringent background checks. There's nothing wrong with that! If you're against that then you must have something to worry about! I'm a conservative, my husband owns several guns.....the Giffords aren't trying to take guns away from anyone, they aren't trying to stop honest people from having guns. They are hoping that the crazy's will be stopped!

If you're for them you must be an anal retentive busybody slug.

Why in the hell do liberals fail to undestand the simple phrase "shall not be infringed?"

Are they that stupid?

Why do conservatives fail to understand no right is absolute, where government regulation is Constitutional when compelling and justified.

Hmm.
What compelling state interest are background checks a means to affect, how are background checks an effective means to affect that interest, and how are they the least restrictive means to that end?

 

[Dubya]

The problem with liberals is they refuse to listen to the majority. Gabrielle Giffords is still trying to push for gun control that goes against our Second amendment rights to bear arms. The majority of the American people are gun owners and are against this liberal anti Constitution movement. If the liberals get their way criminals will be free to walk into our homes and take what they want and then kill us. Why are the liberals to stupid to understand this?



Giffords visits rampage site, urges gun control - Yahoo! News

1. About 35-45% of Americans have a gun in the house. Not a "majority".

2. On the other hand, a vast majority of Americans support universal background checks.

Fallacy: Appeal to popularity

3. Gabrielle Giffords, like Jim Brady, is absolutely justified in her calls for more gun control.

She has the right to advocate anyting she wants.
That doesn't mean that what she wants will have any positive effect on gun-related crime, and it doesn't mean that what she wants does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

How sad! Yo pol little wingnut rights is being infringed, again. What else is new?

 

[CaGOPatriot]

Gabrielle Giffords and her husband are gun owners. All they are pushing for is more stringent background checks. There's nothing wrong with that! If you're against that then you must have something to worry about! I'm a conservative, my husband owns several guns.....the Giffords aren't trying to take guns away from anyone, they aren't trying to stop honest people from having guns. They are hoping that the crazy's will be stopped!

If you're for them you must be an anal retentive busybody slug.

Why in the hell do liberals fail to undestand the simple phrase "shall not be infringed?"

Are they that stupid?

no one is infringing the right to Bare (A)rms - by defining (A)rms.

.

There are to many laws that liberals have already passed that infringe on the Second amendment we can't afford to let them pass any more. We need our guns to stand up for what the Founding Fathers planned.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The problem with liberals is they refuse to listen to the majority. Gabrielle Giffords is still trying to push for gun control that goes against our Second amendment rights to bear arms. The majority of the American people are gun owners and are against this liberal anti Constitution movement. If the liberals get their way criminals will be free to walk into our homes and take what they want and then kill us. Why are the liberals to stupid to understand this?



Giffords visits rampage site, urges gun control - Yahoo! News

1. About 35-45% of Americans have a gun in the house. Not a "majority".

2. On the other hand, a vast majority of Americans support universal background checks.

Fallacy: Appeal to popularity

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just responding to a post.

3. Gabrielle Giffords, like Jim Brady, is absolutely justified in her calls for more gun control.

She has the right to advocate anyting she wants.
That doesn't mean that what she wants will have any positive effect on gun-related crime, and it doesn't mean that what she wants does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

Agreed.

 

[nitroz]

The problem with liberals is they refuse to listen to the majority. Gabrielle Giffords is still trying to push for gun control that goes against our Second amendment rights to bear arms. The majority of the American people are gun owners and are against this liberal anti Constitution movement. If the liberals get their way criminals will be free to walk into our homes and take what they want and then kill us. Why are the liberals to stupid to understand this?



Giffords visits rampage site, urges gun control - Yahoo! News

Gabrielle Giffords and her husband are gun owners. All they are pushing for is more stringent background checks. There's nothing wrong with that! If you're against that then you must have something to worry about! I'm a conservative, my husband owns several guns.....the Giffords aren't trying to take guns away from anyone, they aren't trying to stop honest people from having guns. They are hoping that the crazy's will be stopped!

Regulation is not a bad thing.

If you think it is, then you need to be put in an enclosed area with mentally neglected people who can't function normally and are given guns + ammo like free candy.

 

[Dubya]

If you're for them you must be an anal retentive busybody slug.

Why in the hell do liberals fail to undestand the simple phrase "shall not be infringed?"

Are they that stupid?

no one is infringing the right to Bare (A)rms - by defining (A)rms.

.

There are to many laws that liberals have already passed that infringe on the Second amendment we can't afford to let them pass any more. We need our guns to stand up for what the Founding Fathers planned.

Knickers and powdered wigs?

 

[bripat9643]

The background check is more an infringement than just regulating public firearms - all public owned firearms should be bolt or lever action per round and without detachable magazines.

Fuck that. The public should be allowed to own any firearm issued to the military, including fully automatic weapons.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

 

[bripat9643]

Gabrielle Giffords and her husband are gun owners. All they are pushing for is more stringent background checks. There's nothing wrong with that! If you're against that then you must have something to worry about! I'm a conservative, my husband owns several guns.....the Giffords aren't trying to take guns away from anyone, they aren't trying to stop honest people from having guns. They are hoping that the crazy's will be stopped!

If you're for them you must be an anal retentive busybody slug.

Why in the hell do liberals fail to undestand the simple phrase "shall not be infringed?"

Are they that stupid?

no one is infringing the right to Bare (A)rms - by defining (A)rms.

.

You don't get to change the definition, turd. A fully automatic weapon is an arm.

 

[Noomi]

The problem with liberals is they refuse to listen to the majority. Gabrielle Giffords is still trying to push for gun control that goes against our Second amendment rights to bear arms. The majority of the American people are gun owners and are against this liberal anti Constitution movement. If the liberals get their way criminals will be free to walk into our homes and take what they want and then kill us. Why are the liberals to stupid to understand this?



Giffords visits rampage site, urges gun control - Yahoo! News

The woman was shot in the head by a lunatic and nearly died, spent nearly a year in hospital recovering from that shooting, so obviously she wants to do all she can prevent something like that from happening again.

Shame on you for vilifying her after what she has endured.

 

[Noomi]

I will tell you what..

Tell me exactly how another background check would have stopped Laughner from shooting Giffords.

No one, including the school or the Sheriff had reported the man for needing medical care even though they knew he did.

So your answer is to take away the only effective tool that helps prevent convicted felons from walking in and buying a gun?

If someone has served his time, he should be able to buy whatever the hell he pleases.

Great. A person who served 20 years for shooting someone dead should be allowed to buy a gun when they are released?

I hope you are kind enough to allow them to live next door to you and your family.

 

[BreezeWood]

If you're for them you must be an anal retentive busybody slug.

Why in the hell do liberals fail to undestand the simple phrase "shall not be infringed?"

Are they that stupid?

no one is infringing the right to Bare (A)rms - by defining (A)rms.

.

You don't get to change the definition, turd. A fully automatic weapon is an arm.

Article [II.]

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 is true, it is the 2nd that refers to (A)rms - as distinct from (your) automatic (a)rms.

 

[OKTexas]

no one is infringing the right to Bare (A)rms - by defining (A)rms.

.

You don't get to change the definition, turd. A fully automatic weapon is an arm.

Article [II.]

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 is true, it is the 2nd that refers to (A)rms - as distinct from (your) automatic (a)rms.

That would be Amendment II, Article II deals with the executive branch.

 

[BreezeWood]

You don't get to change the definition, turd. A fully automatic weapon is an arm.

Article [II.]

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 is true, it is the 2nd that refers to (A)rms - as distinct from (your) automatic (a)rms.

That would be Amendment II, Article II deals with the executive branch.

Amendments to the Constitution

ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENTS OF, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION

sounds right to me but the version used has them as Articles ... the quote - Article [II.]

 

[OKTexas]

that is true, it is the 2nd that refers to (A)rms - as distinct from (your) automatic (a)rms.

That would be Amendment II, Article II deals with the executive branch.

Amendments to the Constitution

ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENTS OF, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION

sounds right to me but the version used has them as Articles ... the quote - Article [II.]

That's a new one on me, Articles I - VII are the body of the Constitution, I've never seen the Amendments refered to as articles.

 

[BreezeWood]

Amendments to the Constitution

ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENTS OF, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II.]
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.

Article [III.]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

10/4 I agree with you but they are Articles in the above ...

 

[Dubya]

That would be Amendment II, Article II deals with the executive branch.

Amendments to the Constitution

ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENTS OF, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION

sounds right to me but the version used has them as Articles ... the quote - Article [II.]

That's a new one on me, Articles I - VII are the body of the Constitution, I've never seen the Amendments refered to as articles.

What became the Bill of Rights and the first Amendments were called articles when they were proposed.

 

[OKTexas]

Amendments to the Constitution

ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENTS OF, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II.]
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.

Article [III.]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

10/4 I agree with you but they are Articles in the above ...

You got a link to that, I'd like to see who published it that way.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Call me crazy, but I see the Gun issue in a totally different light and I was scrolling to see if im alone. turns out I am. Is there anyone else out there who thinks this isnt a law problem, but a cultural issue. Americans love our guns, and we love our violence, usually those two dont mesh well. People who have very very low chances of being victims of violent crime are often the ones who are most enthusiastic that they "need" guns for self-defense. In the past year, more than 31,000 people were killed by guns in the US, where in Britain, only around 500 have been killed. It isnt the guns, its the people with the guns. In other words guns arent killing people, people who love guns are.

 

[OKTexas]

Call me crazy, but I see the Gun issue in a totally different light and I was scrolling to see if im alone. turns out I am. Is there anyone else out there who thinks this isnt a law problem, but a cultural issue. Americans love our guns, and we love our violence, usually those two dont mesh well. People who have very very low chances of being victims of violent crime are often the ones who are most enthusiastic that they "need" guns for self-defense. In the past year, more than 31,000 people were killed by guns in the US, where in Britain, only around 500 have been killed. It isnt the guns, its the people with the guns. In other words guns arent killing people, people who love guns are.

Don't know where you got your numbers but they are way off, there were only, 16,400 murders in 2011, the last year complete data is available, and not all those were committed with guns. Check your data before you jump out there with ignorant statements.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Call me crazy, but I see the Gun issue in a totally different light and I was scrolling to see if im alone. turns out I am. Is there anyone else out there who thinks this isnt a law problem, but a cultural issue. Americans love our guns, and we love our violence, usually those two dont mesh well. People who have very very low chances of being victims of violent crime are often the ones who are most enthusiastic that they "need" guns for self-defense. In the past year, more than 31,000 people were killed by guns in the US, where in Britain, only around 500 have been killed. It isnt the guns, its the people with the guns. In other words guns arent killing people, people who love guns are.

Don't know where you got your numbers but they are way off, there were only, 16,400 murders in 2011, the last year complete data is available, and not all those were committed with guns. Check your data before you jump out there with ignorant statements.

fair enough, poor citing. 16 thousand though?! even if only 12 are committed by guns which is what bussiness insider tell me that number is ridiculously high. which still speaks to my original premise