It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

[Maryland Patriot]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

liberals need to be thinking about something too, "Control your fucking nasty ghetto trash animals"

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, we should all be packing heat when we're old enough to walk. Kindergarten would be much more fun.

Desperately need to get the court to enforce the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd Amendment. Sure you can have guns....if you're a memeber of a "well regulated militia". If not, no soup for you.

How many more people have to die?

There is zero evidence that further gun control will do anything whatsoever to prevent murders.

Basically, you begging the question is based on utter fallacy. Don't let that stop you from pushing another political agenda over smoking corpses though.

Thanks to the NRA and conservatives there is never a shortage of smoking corpses.

It's time to appoint judges that will enforce the 2nd Amendment

They have.

Just because you don't understand what the second amendment protects does not mean that it is not clear to the courts.

What you want is to appoint judges that will destroy the second amendment because you know damn well you cannot get it changed. Sorry if the rest of us do not want to cede rights simply because it would make you feel better even though it would have no effect whatsoever.

The words "well regulated militia" are in the text of the amendment. I know of nobody in a militia (regulated or otherwise). Those in the stand-in for the militia (the National Guard and Reserves) have weaponry provided for them.

There is zero need for the militia; thus gun ownership could be argued as being not covered by the Constitution since A) owners are not being required to join a militia and B) the militia has it's weapons provided for them.

Yes, the word militia is in the amendment but in order to understand it you need to look at what it means in context of the amendment AND how the word was interpreted in the time it was actually penned.

Gun ownership cannot be argued (at least genuinely and in the courts) in the manner you suggest because it would require ignoring intent of the second as well as precedent. It is WELL established that the right to own a firearm is not connected to the militia and that no such requirement was ever the intent of the second amendment. That is crystal clear to anyone that actually looks at this without an agenda they are trying to justify.

What is also very clear is that you have a method to deal with this - the constitution can be changed. The very fact that you are looking for judicial activism to rewrite the constitution as you want it to read shows that you know full well that there is not nearly enough support to destroy one of our most basic rights. Such is counter to EVERYTHING that this nation stands for. We do not remove rights lightly nor should the courts be employed to do so when it is counter to the constitution.

The verdict is already in. The evidence is all over the place. Further gun control will do nothing to address violence problems that we have in this nation. There are real world examples all over the planet that show it will not work. If you truly cared about those being killed you would look into ACTUAL SOLUTIONS to the violence - not false political bullshit that accomplishes nothing.

 

[turtledude]

[
The words "well regulated militia" are in the text of the amendment. I know of nobody in a militia (regulated or otherwise). Those in the stand-in for the militia (the National Guard and Reserves) have weaponry provided for them.

There is zero need for the militia; thus gun ownership could be argued as being not covered by the Constitution since A) owners are not being required to join a militia and B) the militia has it's weapons provided for them.

the founders clearly stated that the second amendment was designed to recognize a pre-existing natural right: the Supreme court in the 1877 case of CRUIKSHANK clearly noted that as well


candycorn-WHAT preexisting right did the founders intend to recognize in the 2A?

 

[turtledude]

Wrong! We need universal background checks.

why, the Brady bill has not down anything to stop crime according to several studies

you gun banners want it so when it fails you can demand universal registration

 

[FA_Q2]

Wrong! We need universal background checks.

why, the Brady bill has not down anything to stop crime according to several studies

you gun banners want it so when it fails you can demand universal registration

Feel good measure.
It is wanted so that people can say that we did something when we did not. So people can feel safer when they are not.

It is what happens when you base things on emotion rather than fact.

 

[Lakhota]

Wrong! We need universal background checks.

why, the Brady bill has not down anything to stop crime according to several studies

you gun banners want it so when it fails you can demand universal registration

Feel good measure.
It is wanted so that people can say that we did something when we did not. So people can feel safer when they are not.

It is what happens when you base things on emotion rather than fact.

Yeah, so stop buckling your seat belt. Fuck those government regulations. Ignore speed limits. Don't have your vehicle inspected. Fuck it all. Go for it.

 

[turtledude]

[
Yeah, so stop buckling your seat belt. Fuck those government regulations. Ignore speed limits. Don't have your vehicle inspected. Fuck it all. Go for it.

grow up and stop demanding that government be your perpetual nanny

 

[Lakhota]

[
Yeah, so stop buckling your seat belt. Fuck those government regulations. Ignore speed limits. Don't have your vehicle inspected. Fuck it all. Go for it.

grow up and stop demanding that government be your perpetual nanny

Absolutely! Let everyone do exactly as they please. Total freedom. No rules. No laws. No regulations. Let's go for it.

 

[FA_Q2]

[
Yeah, so stop buckling your seat belt. Fuck those government regulations. Ignore speed limits. Don't have your vehicle inspected. Fuck it all. Go for it.

grow up and stop demanding that government be your perpetual nanny

Absolutely! Let everyone do exactly as they please. Total freedom. No rules. No laws. No regulations. Let's go for it.

So that is your replyu when it is pointed out that the measures you want to enact do nothing at all...


You see, buckling your seat belt does something - it cuts driving deaths by a LOT. Speed limits cut accidents by a lot as well. Gun control measures cut homicides by 0.

 

[turtledude]

[
Yeah, so stop buckling your seat belt. Fuck those government regulations. Ignore speed limits. Don't have your vehicle inspected. Fuck it all. Go for it.

grow up and stop demanding that government be your perpetual nanny

Absolutely! Let everyone do exactly as they please. Total freedom. No rules. No laws. No regulations. Let's go for it.

I SEE STRAWMEN WALKING chief

 

[Slyhunter]

By Dennis A. Henigan

The American people can overcome the gun lobby, but only if we confront, and expose, three myths that have long dominated the gun debate and given the politicians a ready excuse for inaction.

First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does any rational person really believe that the Sandy Hook killer could have murdered twenty-seven people in minutes with a knife or a baseball bat? Guns enable people to kill, more effectively and efficiently than any other widely available weapon.

Second, we must challenge the idea that no law can prevent violent people from getting guns. This canard is refuted by the experience of every other western industrialized nation. Their violent crime rates are comparable to ours. But their homicide rates are exponentially lower because their strong gun laws make it harder for violent individuals to get guns.

Third, we must not accept the notion that our Constitution condemns us to the continued slaughter of our children. It is true that the Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in recent years; it is equally true that the Court has insisted that the right allows for reasonable restrictions. In his opinion in the Heller Second Amendment case, Justice Scalia listed restrictions on "dangerous and unusual weapons" among the kinds of gun laws that are still "presumptively lawful." Assault weapons that fire scores of rounds without reloading surely are "dangerous and unusual."

The tobacco control movement overcame some equally powerful mythology to fundamentally alter American attitudes toward tobacco products. The tobacco industry's effort to sow confusion and uncertainty about the link between smoking and disease eventually was exposed as a fraud. The entrenched view that smoking was simply a bad habit that individuals can choose to break was destroyed by evidence that the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was powerfully addictive and engineered their cigarettes to ensure that people got hooked and stayed hooked. The assumption that smoking harms only the smoker was contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke.

Once these myths were exposed, attitudes changed, policies changed and we started saving countless lives. Since youth smoking peaked in the mid-1990s, smoking rates have fallen by about three-fourths among 8th graders, two-thirds among 10th graders and half among 12th graders. A sea change has occurred on the tobacco issue.

Similarly fundamental change can come to the gun issue as well. The myths about gun control, however, still have a hold on too many of our political leaders and their constituents. We will hear them repeated again and again in the coming weeks of intense debate. Every time we hear them, we must respond and we must persuade.

There is too much at stake to be silent.

More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns

There isn't a Constitution right to Tobacco
There is one for firearms

This post should've ended the thread.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Yeah, so stop buckling your seat belt. Fuck those government regulations. Ignore speed limits. Don't have your vehicle inspected. Fuck it all. Go for it.

grow up and stop demanding that government be your perpetual nanny

Absolutely! Let everyone do exactly as they please. Total freedom. No rules. No laws. No regulations. Let's go for it.

If you hate this country's gun control laws so much and hate even more the fact that you know you have no sound argument for implementing further limits -- why don;t you move to Canada?

 

[Lakhota]

Other than criminals, mentally ill, and domestic abusers - why would anyone be against universal background checks. Polls show most Americans want them - even among gun owners.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yes, we should all be packing heat when we're old enough to walk. Kindergarten would be much more fun.

Desperately need to get the court to enforce the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd Amendment. Sure you can have guns....if you're a memeber of a "well regulated militia". If not, no soup for you.

How many more people have to die?

There is zero evidence that further gun control will do anything whatsoever to prevent murders.

Basically, you begging the question is based on utter fallacy. Don't let that stop you from pushing another political agenda over smoking corpses though.

Thanks to the NRA and conservatives there is never a shortage of smoking corpses.

It's time to appoint judges that will enforce the 2nd Amendment

They have.

Just because you don't understand what the second amendment protects does not mean that it is not clear to the courts.

What you want is to appoint judges that will destroy the second amendment because you know damn well you cannot get it changed. Sorry if the rest of us do not want to cede rights simply because it would make you feel better even though it would have no effect whatsoever.

The words "well regulated militia" are in the text of the amendment. I know of nobody in a militia (regulated or otherwise). Those in the stand-in for the militia (the National Guard and Reserves) have weaponry provided for them.

There is zero need for the militia; thus gun ownership could be argued as being not covered by the Constitution since A) owners are not being required to join a militia and B) the militia has it's weapons provided for them.

thus gun ownership could be argued as being not covered by the Constitution

Yes it could be argued and has been. Read Heller v District of Columbia.
In short, SCOTUS ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, irrespective of membership in a militia.

 

[BluesLegend]

Other than criminals, mentally ill, and domestic abusers - why would anyone be against universal background checks. Polls show most Americans want them - even among gun owners.

We know the game you gun grabbing creeps play. You pass law after law, restriction after restriction, each designed to erode our 2nd amendment rights until gun ownership is so legally risky people voluntarily give up their 2nd amendment rights out of fear of running afoul of the convoluted laws. So forget it, we won't work with you on this, we won't give an inch because we know what your true agenda is.

And as I said earlier in this thread, alcohol kills FAR more people. Its the source of domestic abuse, traffic injuries and fatalities. It increases healthcare costs. Its a FAR larger problem so why are you gun grabbers not fighting that fight to ban alcohol hmmm?

 

[Ernie S.]

[
Yeah, so stop buckling your seat belt. Fuck those government regulations. Ignore speed limits. Don't have your vehicle inspected. Fuck it all. Go for it.

grow up and stop demanding that government be your perpetual nanny

Absolutely! Let everyone do exactly as they please. Total freedom. No rules. No laws. No regulations. Let's go for it.

Thou shalt not kill should be sufficient.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

I'm thinking of two other words. Fuck and off.

 

[Oldstyle]

America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.

The right to bear arms, Lakhota...was not just as a defense against "outside aggression" but was designed to be a defense against an overbearing government. Having a strong standing army isn't the same thing as having citizens with the right to bear arms.

 

[Lakhota]

Other than criminals, mentally ill, and domestic abusers - why would anyone be against universal background checks. Polls show most Americans want them - even among gun owners.

We know the game you gun grabbing creeps play. You pass law after law, restriction after restriction, each designed to erode our 2nd amendment rights until gun ownership is so legally risky people voluntarily give up their 2nd amendment rights out of fear of running afoul of the convoluted laws. So forget it, we won't work with you on this, we won't give an inch because we know what your true agenda is.

And as I said earlier in this thread, alcohol kills FAR more people. Its the source of domestic abuse, traffic injuries and fatalities. It increases healthcare costs. Its a FAR larger problem so why are you gun grabbers not fighting that fight to ban alcohol hmmm?

Gun grabber? I cherish my guns and hunting rights. We have laws against driving while under the influence or intoxicated. We don't have universal background checks. Why not?

 

[Ernie S.]

Other than criminals, mentally ill, and domestic abusers - why would anyone be against universal background checks. Polls show most Americans want them - even among gun owners.

We know the game you gun grabbing creeps play. You pass law after law, restriction after restriction, each designed to erode our 2nd amendment rights until gun ownership is so legally risky people voluntarily give up their 2nd amendment rights out of fear of running afoul of the convoluted laws. So forget it, we won't work with you on this, we won't give an inch because we know what your true agenda is.

And as I said earlier in this thread, alcohol kills FAR more people. Its the source of domestic abuse, traffic injuries and fatalities. It increases healthcare costs. Its a FAR larger problem so why are you gun grabbers not fighting that fight to ban alcohol hmmm?

Gun grabber? I cherish my guns and hunting rights. We have laws against driving while under the influence or intoxicated. We don't have universal background checks. Why not?

Oregon, Colorado, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts do for all guns. Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan,Pennsylvania, Maryland and North Carolina do for hand guns. How's that working out?