Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[Pogo]

You are not here for gun control, it is merely a coincidence that every argument you make about gun control is in favor of it.

By the way, you really need to unlearn all that stuff they taught you in school about subordinate clauses always being restrictive clauses. In fact, you should start by looking up restrictive and non restrictive clauses.

My printer's still on. So.... where's that evidence?
-- or shall I take this as a tacit confession that you couldn't find any and thus were wr.... were wro.... what is the word...

You might unlearn your own assumptions and examine when I'm contesting a point, as opposed to when I'm contesting bad logic. Which is most of the time, as e.g. all day here today with the exception of the fuzzy iPad numbers -- which by themselves make no point anyway.

Reading is fun. We'll get to da mental part later.

@ Bfgrn: credit where due: I got that image from the same military friend who also gave me the story this thread is originally based on.

Feel free to prove me wrong by making an argument opposed to universal background checks, limiting magazine capacity, or banning weapons based on cosmetic attachments.

I don't know what you were doing at the time but I've already proven you wrong. I challenged you to come up with something, anything, backing up your claim and you came up empty. It's not my job to prove the negative. Not on this planet.

One of us has to say it... I guess you were just ... WRONG.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

https://www.google.com/search?q=gun...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Googled 'gun confiscation proposal' for you, Bfgrn...

It seems you haven't been keeping up...

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

It seems you are too retarded to read. I will say it again.

No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace. That is your paranoid, polarized dysfunctional small brain overwhelmed by chicken little fear.

The right wing articles your query found are states trying to implement an assault weapons ban and a clip size restriction. No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace.

Maybe you missed this

It's called baby steps. They are trying to take certian firearms away then when they do that they'll start with other firearms and you'll be saying the same old shit

No one is calling for disarming the populace.

\
Of course, they can't come right out and take all firearms at once but do it slowly, and you'll be saying "No one is calling for disarming the populace." when the last firearm has been taken.
Coloroda is trying to take away pump shotguns
SHOTGUNS OF ALL FIREARMS..........

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What keeps tyranny in check in America is not guns or the 2nd amendment, it is the RULE OF LAW. "Ours is a nation of laws. We are ruled by laws, not men"- John Adams

The history of mankind was dominated by what is called the 'divine right of kings'. Men and women were ruled by kings who claimed the right to rule, who changed the law to suit their every whim.

Our founding fathers, who were the most enlightened liberal thinkers of their time considered that intolerable. They envisioned a nation established on the rule of duly enacted laws ... not the conceited edicts of arrogant tyrants.

Humanity had lived under the rule of one form of king or another for thousands of years until that fateful day in Philadelphia, when wise, courageous men gathered on the Fourth of July 1776 to institute a new form of government whereby the people would rule themselves under law.

America was born, and The Rule of Law was made our highest maxim. Not without many problems was America born. Not without mistakes. Not without errors of the most horrible kind. Yet America was born, and there appeared upon the face of this war-worn planet a new hope. Hope for peace to come. Hope for the day when right will conquer might. When truth will overcome deceit.

The Rule of Law lives in the hearts of free men and women everywhere. The maxim states that men should not be trusted to rule others unless their rule is tempered by fixed laws that prevent tyranny, laws that prevent individuals from accumulating wealth by force, laws that prevent those in high office from exercising power over the populace without restraint, laws that prevent the majority from acting without a due regard for the rights and well-being of individuals, laws that prevent the powerful from plundering the weak.The Rule of Law is what our heroes died for in past wars for liberty. The Rule of Law is worthy of our highest efforts as a people. This principle that laws should govern us instead of men -- laws of our own making and not the cruel edicts of tyrant dictators or divine right decrees of kings -- is the bedrock of human justice, the philosophical cornerstone of these United States, and the foundation of hope for all mankind.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

There is a small problem with your argument, the "Rule of law" does not carve out exemptions to laws based on what a person does for a living. If we actually lived in a country with the rule of law we would never...

• We would not be carving out a separate class of people who are exempt from gun laws because they make movies.
• We would not be carving out exceptions to laws based on whether a person ever worked for the government.
• We would not have laws that allow professors in college to carry guns yet prohibit students at the same facilities from doing the same.
• In summation, we would not be giving the divine right of kings to people based solely on the fact that they work for the government, or are in favor with those in power.

In other words, every time you argue for restrictions on guns that do not apply to everyone, even police and the Secret Service, you are replacing the rule of law with an arbitrary use of power. In other words, you support tyranny.

You lose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My printer's still on. So.... where's that evidence?
-- or shall I take this as a tacit confession that you couldn't find any and thus were wr.... were wro.... what is the word...

You might unlearn your own assumptions and examine when I'm contesting a point, as opposed to when I'm contesting bad logic. Which is most of the time, as e.g. all day here today with the exception of the fuzzy iPad numbers -- which by themselves make no point anyway.

Reading is fun. We'll get to da mental part later.

@ Bfgrn: credit where due: I got that image from the same military friend who also gave me the story this thread is originally based on.

Feel free to prove me wrong by making an argument opposed to universal background checks, limiting magazine capacity, or banning weapons based on cosmetic attachments.

I don't know what you were doing at the time but I've already proven you wrong. I challenged you to come up with something, anything, backing up your claim and you came up empty. It's not my job to prove the negative. Not on this planet.

One of us has to say it... I guess you were just ... WRONG.

I did not come up empty, I did not look. I am relying solely on my, admittedly, faulty memory to stake out my position. Issue all the challenges you want, I will continue to treat them with the same contempt I treat your claim not to support gun control.

 

[Pogo]

Feel free to prove me wrong by making an argument opposed to universal background checks, limiting magazine capacity, or banning weapons based on cosmetic attachments.

I don't know what you were doing at the time but I've already proven you wrong. I challenged you to come up with something, anything, backing up your claim and you came up empty. It's not my job to prove the negative. Not on this planet.

One of us has to say it... I guess you were just ... WRONG.

I did not come up empty, I did not look. I am relying solely on my, admittedly, faulty memory to stake out my position. Issue all the challenges you want, I will continue to treat them with the same contempt I treat your claim not to support gun control.

Fine. And I have ten times that contempt for sanctimonious windbags who puff up and spew shit they know nothing about and then run away when challenged to back it up.

 

[Bfgrn]

https://www.google.com/search?q=gun...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Googled 'gun confiscation proposal' for you, Bfgrn...

It seems you haven't been keeping up...

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

It seems you are too retarded to read. I will say it again.

No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace. That is your paranoid, polarized dysfunctional small brain overwhelmed by chicken little fear.

The right wing articles your query found are states trying to implement an assault weapons ban and a clip size restriction. No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace.

Maybe you missed this

It's called baby steps. They are trying to take certian firearms away then when they do that they'll start with other firearms and you'll be saying the same old shit

No one is calling for disarming the populace.

\
Of course, they can't come right out and take all firearms at once but do it slowly, and you'll be saying "No one is calling for disarming the populace." when the last firearm has been taken.
Coloroda is trying to take away pump shotguns
SHOTGUNS OF ALL FIREARMS..........

Maybe you missed THIS...

 

[Bfgrn]

What keeps tyranny in check in America is not guns or the 2nd amendment, it is the RULE OF LAW. "Ours is a nation of laws. We are ruled by laws, not men"- John Adams

The history of mankind was dominated by what is called the 'divine right of kings'. Men and women were ruled by kings who claimed the right to rule, who changed the law to suit their every whim.

Our founding fathers, who were the most enlightened liberal thinkers of their time considered that intolerable. They envisioned a nation established on the rule of duly enacted laws ... not the conceited edicts of arrogant tyrants.

Humanity had lived under the rule of one form of king or another for thousands of years until that fateful day in Philadelphia, when wise, courageous men gathered on the Fourth of July 1776 to institute a new form of government whereby the people would rule themselves under law.

America was born, and The Rule of Law was made our highest maxim. Not without many problems was America born. Not without mistakes. Not without errors of the most horrible kind. Yet America was born, and there appeared upon the face of this war-worn planet a new hope. Hope for peace to come. Hope for the day when right will conquer might. When truth will overcome deceit.

The Rule of Law lives in the hearts of free men and women everywhere. The maxim states that men should not be trusted to rule others unless their rule is tempered by fixed laws that prevent tyranny, laws that prevent individuals from accumulating wealth by force, laws that prevent those in high office from exercising power over the populace without restraint, laws that prevent the majority from acting without a due regard for the rights and well-being of individuals, laws that prevent the powerful from plundering the weak.The Rule of Law is what our heroes died for in past wars for liberty. The Rule of Law is worthy of our highest efforts as a people. This principle that laws should govern us instead of men -- laws of our own making and not the cruel edicts of tyrant dictators or divine right decrees of kings -- is the bedrock of human justice, the philosophical cornerstone of these United States, and the foundation of hope for all mankind.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

There is a small problem with your argument, the "Rule of law" does not carve out exemptions to laws based on what a person does for a living. If we actually lived in a country with the rule of law we would never...

• We would not be carving out a separate class of people who are exempt from gun laws because they make movies.
• We would not be carving out exceptions to laws based on whether a person ever worked for the government.
• We would not have laws that allow professors in college to carry guns yet prohibit students at the same facilities from doing the same.
• In summation, we would not be giving the divine right of kings to people based solely on the fact that they work for the government, or are in favor with those in power.

In other words, every time you argue for restrictions on guns that do not apply to everyone, even police and the Secret Service, you are replacing the rule of law with an arbitrary use of power. In other words, you support tyranny.

You lose.

First, you need to back up your claims with solid proof, not wind. Second, you need to find another country, because this one is too flawed. Check out Somalia, there is little or no government there.

 

[Bfgrn]

How a Bill Becomes a Law
Creating laws is the U.S. House of Representatives’ most important job. All laws in the United States begin as bills. Before a bill can become a law, it must be approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and the President. Let’s follow a bill’s journey to become law.

The Bill Begins
Laws begin as ideas. These ideas may come from a Representative—or from a citizen like you. Citizens who have ideas for laws can contact their Representatives to discuss their ideas. If the Representatives agree, they research the ideas and write them into bills.

The Bill Is Proposed
When a Representative has written a bill, the bill needs a sponsor. The Representative talks with other Representatives about the bill in hopes of getting their support for it. Once a bill has a sponsor and the support of some of the Representatives, it is ready to be introduced.

The Bill Is Introduced
In the U.S. House of Representatives, a bill is introduced when it is placed in the hopper—a special box on the side of the clerk’s desk. Only Representatives can introduce bills in the U.S. House of Representatives.

When a bill is introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, a bill clerk assigns it a number that begins with H.R. A reading clerk then reads the bill to all the Representatives, and the Speaker of the House sends the bill to one of the House standing committees.

The Bill Goes to Committee
When the bill reaches committee, the committee members—groups of Representatives who are experts on topics such as agriculture, education, or international relations—review, research, and revise the bill before voting on whether or not to send the bill back to the House floor.

If the committee members would like more information before deciding if the bill should be sent to the House floor, the bill is sent to a subcommittee. While in subcommittee, the bill is closely examined and expert opinions are gathered before it is sent back to the committee for approval.

The Bill Is Reported
When the committee has approved a bill, it is sent—or reported—to the House floor. Once reported, a bill is ready to be debated by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Bill Is Debated
When a bill is debated, Representatives discuss the bill and explain why they agree or disagree with it. Then, a reading clerk reads the bill section by section and the Representatives recommend changes. When all changes have been made, the bill is ready to be voted on.

The Bill Is Voted On
There are three methods for voting on a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives:

1. Viva Voce (voice vote): The Speaker of the House asks the Representatives who support the bill to say “aye” and those that oppose it say “no.”

2. Division: The Speaker of the House asks those Representatives who support the bill to stand up and be counted, and then those who oppose the bill to stand up and be counted.

3. Recorded: Representatives record their vote using the electronic voting system. Representatives can vote yes, no, or present (if they don’t want to vote on the bill).

If a majority of the Representatives say or select yes, the bill passes in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill is then certified by the Clerk of the House and delivered to the U.S. Senate.

The Bill Is Referred to the Senate
When a bill reaches the U.S. Senate, it goes through many of the same steps it went through in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill is discussed in a Senate committee and then reported to the Senate floor to be voted on.

Senators vote by voice. Those who support the bill say “yea,” and those who oppose it say “nay.” If a majority of the Senators say “yea,” the bill passes in the U.S. Senate and is ready to go to the President.

The Bill Is Sent to the President
When a bill reaches the President, he has three choices. He can:

1. Sign and pass the bill—the bill becomes a law.

2. Refuse to sign, or veto, the bill—the bill is sent back to the U.S. House of Representatives, along with the President’s reasons for the veto. If the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate still believe the bill should become a law, they can hold another vote on the bill. If two-thirds of the Representatives and Senators support the bill, the President’s veto is overridden and the bill becomes a law.

3. Do nothing (pocket veto)—if Congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law after 10 days. If Congress is not in session, the bill does not become a law.

The Bill Is a Law
If a bill has passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has been approved by the President, or if a presidential veto has been overridden, the bill becomes a law and is enforced by the government.

Kids in the house

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What keeps tyranny in check in America is not guns or the 2nd amendment, it is the RULE OF LAW. "Ours is a nation of laws. We are ruled by laws, not men"- John Adams

The history of mankind was dominated by what is called the 'divine right of kings'. Men and women were ruled by kings who claimed the right to rule, who changed the law to suit their every whim.

Our founding fathers, who were the most enlightened liberal thinkers of their time considered that intolerable. They envisioned a nation established on the rule of duly enacted laws ... not the conceited edicts of arrogant tyrants.

Humanity had lived under the rule of one form of king or another for thousands of years until that fateful day in Philadelphia, when wise, courageous men gathered on the Fourth of July 1776 to institute a new form of government whereby the people would rule themselves under law.

America was born, and The Rule of Law was made our highest maxim. Not without many problems was America born. Not without mistakes. Not without errors of the most horrible kind. Yet America was born, and there appeared upon the face of this war-worn planet a new hope. Hope for peace to come. Hope for the day when right will conquer might. When truth will overcome deceit.

The Rule of Law lives in the hearts of free men and women everywhere. The maxim states that men should not be trusted to rule others unless their rule is tempered by fixed laws that prevent tyranny, laws that prevent individuals from accumulating wealth by force, laws that prevent those in high office from exercising power over the populace without restraint, laws that prevent the majority from acting without a due regard for the rights and well-being of individuals, laws that prevent the powerful from plundering the weak.The Rule of Law is what our heroes died for in past wars for liberty. The Rule of Law is worthy of our highest efforts as a people. This principle that laws should govern us instead of men -- laws of our own making and not the cruel edicts of tyrant dictators or divine right decrees of kings -- is the bedrock of human justice, the philosophical cornerstone of these United States, and the foundation of hope for all mankind.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

There is a small problem with your argument, the "Rule of law" does not carve out exemptions to laws based on what a person does for a living. If we actually lived in a country with the rule of law we would never...

• We would not be carving out a separate class of people who are exempt from gun laws because they make movies.
• We would not be carving out exceptions to laws based on whether a person ever worked for the government.
• We would not have laws that allow professors in college to carry guns yet prohibit students at the same facilities from doing the same.
• In summation, we would not be giving the divine right of kings to people based solely on the fact that they work for the government, or are in favor with those in power.

In other words, every time you argue for restrictions on guns that do not apply to everyone, even police and the Secret Service, you are replacing the rule of law with an arbitrary use of power. In other words, you support tyranny.

You lose.

First, you need to back up your claims with solid proof, not wind. Second, you need to find another country, because this one is too flawed. Check out Somalia, there is little or no government there.

Films could be exempt from N.Y.'s assault-weapons ban

You lose.

 

[Bfgrn]

There is a small problem with your argument, the "Rule of law" does not carve out exemptions to laws based on what a person does for a living. If we actually lived in a country with the rule of law we would never...

• We would not be carving out a separate class of people who are exempt from gun laws because they make movies.
• We would not be carving out exceptions to laws based on whether a person ever worked for the government.
• We would not have laws that allow professors in college to carry guns yet prohibit students at the same facilities from doing the same.
• In summation, we would not be giving the divine right of kings to people based solely on the fact that they work for the government, or are in favor with those in power.

In other words, every time you argue for restrictions on guns that do not apply to everyone, even police and the Secret Service, you are replacing the rule of law with an arbitrary use of power. In other words, you support tyranny.

You lose.

First, you need to back up your claims with solid proof, not wind. Second, you need to find another country, because this one is too flawed. Check out Somalia, there is little or no government there.

Films could be exempt from N.Y.'s assault-weapons ban

You lose.

How many people die in movies? Do they use real guns?

BTW, allowing law enforcement and the Secret Service to carry assault weapons is NOT arbitrary. You really are a butt hurt moron, aren't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First, you need to back up your claims with solid proof, not wind. Second, you need to find another country, because this one is too flawed. Check out Somalia, there is little or no government there.

Films could be exempt from N.Y.'s assault-weapons ban

You lose.

How many people die in movies? Do they use real guns?

BTW, allowing law enforcement and the Secret Service to carry assault weapons is NOT arbitrary. You really are a butt hurt moron, aren't you?

I made that point earlier, doesn't change the fact that NY is thinking about exempting them from the law, does it? Since you chose to deflect instead of condemn them for that exemption, you do not support a nation of laws.

 

[Bfgrn]

Films could be exempt from N.Y.'s assault-weapons ban

You lose.

How many people die in movies? Do they use real guns?

BTW, allowing law enforcement and the Secret Service to carry assault weapons is NOT arbitrary. You really are a butt hurt moron, aren't you?

I made that point earlier, doesn't change the fact that NY is thinking about exempting them from the law, does it? Since you chose to deflect instead of condemn them for that exemption, you do not support a nation of laws.

No, you butt hurt morons believe any restraints on you have to be arbitrary and everyone has to be treated the same, even though the circumstances are NOT the same. Police and the Secret Service weapon requirements are NOT the same as civilians. The movie industry does not really kill people in movies.

I would like to see movies become less violent. But it is a FEDERAL issue. A state like New York could ban the use of phony assault weapons in movies that are shot in the state. But all that will do is cause the movie industry to go elsewhere. I know you right wing scum really enjoy spreading pain and love to see people fail. It is the way your brains are wired.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How many people die in movies? Do they use real guns?

BTW, allowing law enforcement and the Secret Service to carry assault weapons is NOT arbitrary. You really are a butt hurt moron, aren't you?

I made that point earlier, doesn't change the fact that NY is thinking about exempting them from the law, does it? Since you chose to deflect instead of condemn them for that exemption, you do not support a nation of laws.

No, you butt hurt morons believe any restraints on you have to be arbitrary and everyone has to be treated the same, even though the circumstances are NOT the same. Police and the Secret Service weapon requirements are NOT the same as civilians. The movie industry does not really kill people in movies.

I would like to see movies become less violent. But it is a FEDERAL issue. A state like New York could ban the use of phony assault weapons in movies that are shot in the state. But all that will do is cause the movie industry to go elsewhere. I know you right wing scum really enjoy spreading pain and love to see people fail. It is the way your brains are wired.

New York is not banning phony guns magazines, they want to allow the movie industry to use real guns and magazines. You really should read the links I post for you.

Let me try this again, any law that is not applied to everyone equally is arbitrary. The Founding Fathers fought a fucking war and put their lives on the line to make that point, and you want to use their words to argue for arbitrary laws that recreate the a government that is above the law.

And it only took 224 years for us to get here.

 

[Bfgrn]

I made that point earlier, doesn't change the fact that NY is thinking about exempting them from the law, does it? Since you chose to deflect instead of condemn them for that exemption, you do not support a nation of laws.

No, you butt hurt morons believe any restraints on you have to be arbitrary and everyone has to be treated the same, even though the circumstances are NOT the same. Police and the Secret Service weapon requirements are NOT the same as civilians. The movie industry does not really kill people in movies.

I would like to see movies become less violent. But it is a FEDERAL issue. A state like New York could ban the use of phony assault weapons in movies that are shot in the state. But all that will do is cause the movie industry to go elsewhere. I know you right wing scum really enjoy spreading pain and love to see people fail. It is the way your brains are wired.

New York is not banning phony guns magazines, they want to allow the movie industry to use real guns and magazines. You really should read the links I post for you.

Let me try this again, any law that is not applied to everyone equally is arbitrary. The Founding Fathers fought a fucking war and put their lives on the line to make that point, and you want to use their words to argue for arbitrary laws that recreate the a government that is above the law.

And it only took 224 years for us to get here.

'Arbitrary' would be mindlessly applying the law to a movie set that doesn't use real bullets, that doesn't really shoot, wound or kill any human beings. 'Arbitrary' would be charging David Gregory for having a high capacity clip to show on Meet the Press.

Applying the law to either of those instances wouldn't be based on necessity, reason, or principle. They would be based on the whim of a bunch of butt hurt vigilantes who are throwing a temper tantrum because the mean old government wants to enact common sense gun legislation to protect We, the People.

You are unable to use adult judgement because you are too butt hurt. And you are too stupid to understand the difference between REAL threats from revenge.

 

[NoNukes]

and what is even more interesting is these deadly assualt weapons who anti gun nuts claim that there only purpose is to kill humans have killed less people than hammers.

How many assault rifles are there quickly at hand compared to hammers? How much does an assault rifle cost compared to a hammer? Try again.

and all that means nothing. fact is, hammer proved more deadly than deadly assualt weapons. why aren't you banning hammers and registering them? why aren't you requiring background checks? hammers are so easy to get. you can even buy them at yard sales. no one is tracking these deadly weapons.

It means a lot, but you choose to ignore it because you cannot admit you are wrong. Hammers are tools and their purpose is not to be used as defense or for hunting. Rocks are deadly too. So are cars.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you butt hurt morons believe any restraints on you have to be arbitrary and everyone has to be treated the same, even though the circumstances are NOT the same. Police and the Secret Service weapon requirements are NOT the same as civilians. The movie industry does not really kill people in movies.

I would like to see movies become less violent. But it is a FEDERAL issue. A state like New York could ban the use of phony assault weapons in movies that are shot in the state. But all that will do is cause the movie industry to go elsewhere. I know you right wing scum really enjoy spreading pain and love to see people fail. It is the way your brains are wired.

New York is not banning phony guns magazines, they want to allow the movie industry to use real guns and magazines. You really should read the links I post for you.

Let me try this again, any law that is not applied to everyone equally is arbitrary. The Founding Fathers fought a fucking war and put their lives on the line to make that point, and you want to use their words to argue for arbitrary laws that recreate the a government that is above the law.

And it only took 224 years for us to get here.

'Arbitrary' would be mindlessly applying the law to a movie set that doesn't use real bullets, that doesn't really shoot, wound or kill any human beings. 'Arbitrary' would be charging David Gregory for having a high capacity clip to show on Meet the Press.

Applying the law to either of those instances wouldn't be based on necessity, reason, or principle. They would be based on the whim of a bunch of butt hurt vigilantes who are throwing a temper tantrum because the mean old government wants to enact common sense gun legislation to protect We, the People.

You are unable to use adult judgement because you are too butt hurt. And you are too stupid to understand the difference between REAL threats from revenge.

Excuse me, douchebag, arbitrary is making an exception to the law when there is no way for a person looking at a movie to tell if the magazine is real or fake because they look exactly the same from the outside.

You have not only lost the debate, you have clearly lost your mind, and are simply defending the government because you believe it is infallible.

 

[Bfgrn]

How many assault rifles are there quickly at hand compared to hammers? How much does an assault rifle cost compared to a hammer? Try again.

and all that means nothing. fact is, hammer proved more deadly than deadly assualt weapons. why aren't you banning hammers and registering them? why aren't you requiring background checks? hammers are so easy to get. you can even buy them at yard sales. no one is tracking these deadly weapons.

It means a lot, but you choose to ignore it because you cannot admit you are wrong. Hammers are tools and their purpose is not to be used as defense or for hunting. Rocks are deadly too. So are cars.

I'm sure Moe Howard of the three stooges could walk into a movie theater, sneak up behind 70 people, kill 12of them and wound 58 with a hammer in 5 minutes and before the usher noticed him...

 

[Bfgrn]

New York is not banning phony guns magazines, they want to allow the movie industry to use real guns and magazines. You really should read the links I post for you.

Let me try this again, any law that is not applied to everyone equally is arbitrary. The Founding Fathers fought a fucking war and put their lives on the line to make that point, and you want to use their words to argue for arbitrary laws that recreate the a government that is above the law.

And it only took 224 years for us to get here.

'Arbitrary' would be mindlessly applying the law to a movie set that doesn't use real bullets, that doesn't really shoot, wound or kill any human beings. 'Arbitrary' would be charging David Gregory for having a high capacity clip to show on Meet the Press.

Applying the law to either of those instances wouldn't be based on necessity, reason, or principle. They would be based on the whim of a bunch of butt hurt vigilantes who are throwing a temper tantrum because the mean old government wants to enact common sense gun legislation to protect We, the People.

You are unable to use adult judgement because you are too butt hurt. And you are too stupid to understand the difference between REAL threats from revenge.

Excuse me, douchebag, arbitrary is making an exception to the law when there is no way for a person looking at a movie to tell if the magazine is real or fake because they look exactly the same from the outside.

You have not only lost the debate, you have clearly lost your mind, and are simply defending the government because you believe it is infallible.

Sane people KNOW when watching a MOVIE that it is fiction. That would exclude you. You really can't help stepping in the same shit can you?

If you want to change movie content, then the only avenue is federal legislation. A state can only destroy the revenue of businesses that benefit from movies being made in their state. Doing THAT would be arbitrary.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

'Arbitrary' would be mindlessly applying the law to a movie set that doesn't use real bullets, that doesn't really shoot, wound or kill any human beings. 'Arbitrary' would be charging David Gregory for having a high capacity clip to show on Meet the Press.

Applying the law to either of those instances wouldn't be based on necessity, reason, or principle. They would be based on the whim of a bunch of butt hurt vigilantes who are throwing a temper tantrum because the mean old government wants to enact common sense gun legislation to protect We, the People.

You are unable to use adult judgement because you are too butt hurt. And you are too stupid to understand the difference between REAL threats from revenge.

Excuse me, douchebag, arbitrary is making an exception to the law when there is no way for a person looking at a movie to tell if the magazine is real or fake because they look exactly the same from the outside.

You have not only lost the debate, you have clearly lost your mind, and are simply defending the government because you believe it is infallible.

Sane people KNOW when watching a MOVIE that it is fiction. That would exclude you. You really can't help stepping in the same shit can you?

If you want to change movie content, then the only avenue is federal legislation. A state can only destroy the revenue of businesses that benefit from movies being made in their state. Doing THAT would be arbitrary.

This is not about move content, asswipe. The law does not ban fake guns and fake magazines, therefore there is no need to make an exception to it so movies can use either of them. The only reason to make an excpetion is so that the movie and television people can use real guns and real magazines in their fake reality.

Keep arguing with me, every time you post I look more intelligent.

 

[jtpr312]

It is interesting but not necessary or essential. But, what IS essential is what is written in the Constitution and ratified by the authors. The rest is opinions.

I can clearly see every penny the tax payers spent on your education was a colossal waste of funds better used elsewhere. When looking for the definition or meaning of something someone else wrote, don't you think it's a good idea to actaully see what that person meant by what they wrote. If every little thing was added to the Constitution, as you are seeming to imply, our Constitution would look like the obamacare bill, 20,000 pages of nonsense. Back in those days our Politicians didn't have the time to write crap like that, they had lives to lead and livings to earn, nor did they have the inclination to obfusate like our professional politicians do today. Cleary and simple put; A well regulated Militia (which is an armed citizenry made up of ALL citizens save a few politicians), being necessary to the security of a free State, (secure from the tyranny of a centralized govt) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,(keep weapons equal to those of the military) shall not be infringed (not be f*&^%d with EVER, or at all by said govt). How do I know that the meanings in parenthesis are accurate? Simple, I looked to the words of those that wrote the Amendment and voted on the Amendment to see what they meant.

Unlike you, I received an excellent liberal public education. That is why I am so much smarter and intelligent than you. Let me start your education pea brain. I can't give you too much to assimilate because a pea doesn't hold much. I'll try to keep it at your adolescent cognitive level.

What keeps tyranny in check in America is not guns or the 2nd amendment, it is the RULE OF LAW. "Ours is a nation of laws. We are ruled by laws, not men"- John Adams

The history of mankind was dominated by what is called the 'divine right of kings'. Men and women were ruled by kings who claimed the right to rule, who changed the law to suit their every whim.

Our founding fathers, who were the most enlightened liberal thinkers of their time considered that intolerable. They envisioned a nation established on the rule of duly enacted laws ... not the conceited edicts of arrogant tyrants.

Humanity had lived under the rule of one form of king or another for thousands of years until that fateful day in Philadelphia, when wise, courageous men gathered on the Fourth of July 1776 to institute a new form of government whereby the people would rule themselves under law.

America was born, and The Rule of Law was made our highest maxim. Not without many problems was America born. Not without mistakes. Not without errors of the most horrible kind. Yet America was born, and there appeared upon the face of this war-worn planet a new hope. Hope for peace to come. Hope for the day when right will conquer might. When truth will overcome deceit.

The Rule of Law lives in the hearts of free men and women everywhere. The maxim states that men should not be trusted to rule others unless their rule is tempered by fixed laws that prevent tyranny, laws that prevent individuals from accumulating wealth by force, laws that prevent those in high office from exercising power over the populace without restraint, laws that prevent the majority from acting without a due regard for the rights and well-being of individuals, laws that prevent the powerful from plundering the weak.The Rule of Law is what our heroes died for in past wars for liberty. The Rule of Law is worthy of our highest efforts as a people. This principle that laws should govern us instead of men -- laws of our own making and not the cruel edicts of tyrant dictators or divine right decrees of kings -- is the bedrock of human justice, the philosophical cornerstone of these United States, and the foundation of hope for all mankind.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

1. Lol. Yeah the law? Here's the thing dippy. The law means whatever the justices say it means and the 2nd Amendment, not to mention the rest of the Constitution, was given us, according to the Founders, as a means to keep tyranny by our govt, by those who write and interpret the laws, in check.
Seems the man who actually authored the law you worship, thought it was the citizens, NOT that law, and certainly not the govt, that had the final authority, "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
Furthermore, it's obvious the 2nd Amendment was included as a final check and balance on a govt that would use the laws they write to oppress the citizenry, much like King George's laws oppressed them.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

2. Right to rule huh? Conceited edicts of arrogant tyrants, huh? Ok slick, here we go; This is a quote from Cheif Justice Hughes, “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...” Doesn't that sound a bit like people who think they have a "Right to rule"? We have changed a King, for a black robed Oligarchy, and have suffered as a result, just as Thomas Jefferson warned us; "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Kings, despots, same/same son.

3. As for this nonsense, " laws that prevent tyranny, laws that prevent individuals from accumulating wealth by force, laws that prevent those in high office from exercising power over the populace without restraint, laws that prevent the majority from acting without a due regard for the rights and well-being of individuals, laws that prevent the powerful from plundering the weak" You obviously do live under a rock, becuase it's our laws, the law you seem to worship, that has allowed tryants in govt to exercise power w/o restraint, has allowed the minority to dictate to the majority, has allowed the few to accumulate untold wealth at the expense of the many, has allowed the govt to plunder the people and has given the govt the means to dictate and force it's will upon free men. As Mr Bumble once said, "The law is an ass".

4. Let's see what else Thomas Jefferson said shall we?
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)


You have a fine liberal indoctrination, not an education, there is a difference you know.