Why the 2nd Amendment needs to be reconsidered...

[AmericanFirst]

If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal. You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference.

What if the law required all guns to be registered and that registration had to be renewed each year. What if the law required ballistic tests during those yearly renewals and before the weapon was purchased. A law requiring background checks on every sale, even private. Possession of an unregistered firearm means the firearm is confiscated and the person is fined and possibly jailed or given probation. What if the cops in the cities started behaving like those NYC cops and search anyone they suspected of having a gun? What if the purchase of a gun required a cooling off period where the gun is sent to a center near you, where it is ballistic fired and bullet is scanned to be sent to the FBI. If the person had multiple weapons, a newly purchased gun would be sceduled less than a year at the time for the individual to renew his registrations on all his weapons.

Now, I can think of a few more, but I think you get the point. Such a system would require more of an effort by the law abiding citizen than they have to do today, but it would get the guns off the streets. If a gun was registered, I don't think someone would be too inclined to shoot somebody with it, knowing the ballistics of their bullet is on record. An unregistered gun isn't going to last that long in society under those conditions. A person in possession of an unregistered gun may lose their gun ownership ability for life, it depends on the circumstances, but a minimum suspension would be required. If they owned other guns, they would be locked in an armory until the person was allowed to own a gun again, if they were allowed.

It beats allowing over 8,500 American homicide by guns per year. If it inconveniences you, that's just too damned bad. Go cry to the NRA, don't cry to me about it!

Actually guns commit zero (0) homicides each year.

"If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal."
But only if the courts rule that it is not an infrigment on Constitutional right.

"You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference."
Or maybe you're the idiot for not understanding that noone is making any such claim.
The claim (the truth) is that more laws are not going to hamper those willing those to break the law and commit violent crime. The recent shootings only provide additional proof of that.

Your suggestions are obvious infrigments on my rights and will not be tolerated.

How childish can you get?

You have the right to not be disarmed and that's it. Making you get background checks and register your weapons isn't violating your rights.

With those changes the guns that criminal possess will fade away. There would be very little gun crime.

You sound like a libtard socialist. Shut up and move to russia commie.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It's hard to beat people to death or kill them with a knife. It's easy with a gun.

Hands and knives kill

2422 in 2011 alone

 

[Shogun]

I don't think it's a gun problem at all. Humanity has always been rife with violence and life is sometimes unfortunate. There are a lot of responsible gun owners who are not blowing people away just like there are a lot of kids who play video games that don't go out shooting shit up.

it's the person not the tool.


I do find it highly ironic that the same NRA pussies crying about liberty and guns are the quickest to point fingers at video games as if liberty shouldn't apply there as well.

It's hard to beat people to death or kill them with a knife. It's easy with a gun.

and yet I don't see the population of gun owners doing that.

the ease of killing doesn't belay the individual will that it takes to choose to kill.

 

[Dubya]

I don't think it's a gun problem at all. Humanity has always been rife with violence and life is sometimes unfortunate. There are a lot of responsible gun owners who are not blowing people away just like there are a lot of kids who play video games that don't go out shooting shit up.

it's the person not the tool.


I do find it highly ironic that the same NRA pussies crying about liberty and guns are the quickest to point fingers at video games as if liberty shouldn't apply there as well.

It's hard to beat people to death or kill them with a knife. It's easy with a gun.

and yet I don't see the population of gun owners doing that.

the ease of killing doesn't belay the individual will that it takes to choose to kill.

Everybody doesn't have a gun, so how can you explain homicide by gun is nearly 4 times what it is with fists and knives?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Everybody doesn't have a gun, so how can you explain homicide by gun is nearly 4 times what it is with fists and knives?

It is hard to kill yourself accidently or otherwise with your fists ?

 

[SniperFire]

I don't think it's a gun problem at all. Humanity has always been rife with violence and life is sometimes unfortunate. There are a lot of responsible gun owners who are not blowing people away just like there are a lot of kids who play video games that don't go out shooting shit up.

it's the person not the tool.


I do find it highly ironic that the same NRA pussies crying about liberty and guns are the quickest to point fingers at video games as if liberty shouldn't apply there as well.

It's hard to beat people to death or kill them with a knife. It's easy with a gun.

You could make the same sort of Stalinist greater good' argument to ban many things via taking away freedoms.

For example, AIDS and homosexual activity.

You really want to go there?

 

[Dubya]

Actually guns commit zero (0) homicides each year.

"If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal."
But only if the courts rule that it is not an infrigment on Constitutional right.

"You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference."
Or maybe you're the idiot for not understanding that noone is making any such claim.
The claim (the truth) is that more laws are not going to hamper those willing those to break the law and commit violent crime. The recent shootings only provide additional proof of that.

Your suggestions are obvious infrigments on my rights and will not be tolerated.

How childish can you get?

You have the right to not be disarmed and that's it. Making you get background checks and register your weapons isn't violating your rights.

With those changes the guns that criminal possess will fade away. There would be very little gun crime.

You sound like a libtard socialist. Shut up and move to russia commie.

Someone doesn't agree with a right-wing extremist, so they have to be a communists. You don't even realize how retarded you wingnuts are.

 

[Dubya]

Everybody doesn't have a gun, so how can you explain homicide by gun is nearly 4 times what it is with fists and knives?

It is hard to kill yourself accidently or otherwise with your fists ?

Are you talking about those over 20,000 suicide by gun each year?

 

[Dubya]

I don't think it's a gun problem at all. Humanity has always been rife with violence and life is sometimes unfortunate. There are a lot of responsible gun owners who are not blowing people away just like there are a lot of kids who play video games that don't go out shooting shit up.

it's the person not the tool.


I do find it highly ironic that the same NRA pussies crying about liberty and guns are the quickest to point fingers at video games as if liberty shouldn't apply there as well.

It's hard to beat people to death or kill them with a knife. It's easy with a gun.

You could make the same sort of Stalinist greater good' argument to ban many things via taking away freedoms.

For example, AIDS and homosexual activity.

You really want to go there?

When did you ever volunteer to fight communists?

It isn't going to hurt someone to take a couple hours a year, if it takes that long, and renew the registration on their weapons. That isn't hurting your freedoms.

 

[Shogun]

It's hard to beat people to death or kill them with a knife. It's easy with a gun.

and yet I don't see the population of gun owners doing that.

the ease of killing doesn't belay the individual will that it takes to choose to kill.

Everybody doesn't have a gun, so how can you explain homicide by gun is nearly 4 times what it is with fists and knives?

a LOT of people have guns. Just like a LOT of kids play video games. Just like a LOT of people drink alcohol. Just like a LOT of people conduct themselves responsibly with a vast array of behaviors that you might think would create utopia if nixed.


Is there supposed to be a correlation between fists, knives and guns?

To be honest, I didn't come here to debate with anyone about guns. You can believe what you want until you get your grass root effort on and scrap the second amendment. However, and this is the point that you are missing here, I'm as liberal as they come on this forum and I'm telling you that your illogical fascination with scapegoating guns is as much of an albatross to the left as abortion hating dogma junkies are to the right. If you can't trust them with their guns then you have no reason to think they should trust you with your choice of liberty.


reflect on the bold text a minute.

 

[SniperFire]

It's hard to beat people to death or kill them with a knife. It's easy with a gun.

You could make the same sort of Stalinist greater good' argument to ban many things via taking away freedoms.

For example, AIDS and homosexual activity.

You really want to go there?

When did you ever volunteer to fight communists?

It isn't going to hurt someone to take a couple hours a year, if it takes that long, and renew the registration on their weapons. That isn't hurting your freedoms.

I notice you deflect instead of taking on the questions which destroy your meme.

LOL

 

[OODA_Loop]

Are you talking about those over 20,000 suicide by gun each year?

Sometimes I wonder if it really is GWB posting.

 

[blackhawk]

Not that I think it was about anything but Militias, but let's pretend we are in National Rampage Association crazy land...

This is a Revolutionary War Era Musket. It could fire 2-3 rounds a minute in the hands of a trained infantryman. Accurate to only about 100 yards.

This is a AR-15 Bushmaster.

It can fire 45 Rounds per minute, and has a maximum effective range of 450 meters.

Now, before one of you mutants gets on here and tells me, "Well, the First Amendment never considered Television", you are right.

And we don't treat Television like the printed press. There are restrictions on what you can broadcast, when you can broadcast, and who can broadcast. More to the point, the Television industry largely self-regulates. they don't put commercials for Trojan condoms on The Hub kiddie network.

Depends on which television you are looking at in order to compete with cable the restrictions on broadcast TV are much less than they used to be same with expanded basic cable as far as the premium cable networks go not really much in the way of restrictions there. As far as redoing the Second Amendment the first Amendment or any other part's of the Constitution something that has worked very well for over 200 years in my opinion I would say take a look at the dipsticks in Congress today both Dem and Rep and ask yourself how much do you trust them reworking the Constitution?

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a fine line between government mandates and infringements of rights.

So the government can't search your person or your home or your private papers, etc. or seize your legal private property without a search warrant and there must be cause in order for a warrant to be issued. But would it violate your rights if the government required that you register the contents of your home, what private papers you possess, what property you carry on your person?

The first amendment gives us the right to think, read, write, and worship as we please so long as we do not violate the right of anybody else. Would it violate your rights if the government required you to register the newspapers you buy, the books you read, or advise the government of what church you attend?

Would you not want to know what the government intended to do with that information before you willingly handed over that information?

We have to ask ourselves what the purpose of gun registration is and what it accomplishes. We don't have to pass a backgroud check in order to buy an airline ticket, but if we have been identified as a dangerous person, we can be denied one. We don't have to register or tag our automobile UNLESS we intend to drive it on public roads. Guns should be handled the very same way. If we don't use it in public, we shouldn't have to register it.

 

[Dubya]

and yet I don't see the population of gun owners doing that.

the ease of killing doesn't belay the individual will that it takes to choose to kill.

Everybody doesn't have a gun, so how can you explain homicide by gun is nearly 4 times what it is with fists and knives?

a LOT of people have guns. Just like a LOT of kids play video games. Just like a LOT of people drink alcohol. Just like a LOT of people conduct themselves responsibly with a vast array of behaviors that you might think would create utopia if nixed.


Is there supposed to be a correlation between fists, knives and guns?

To be honest, I didn't come here to debate with anyone about guns. You can believe what you want until you get your grass root effort on and scrap the second amendment. However, and this is the point that you are missing here, I'm as liberal as they come on this forum and I'm telling you that your illogical fascination with scapegoating guns is as much of an albatross to the left as abortion hating dogma junkies are to the right. If you can't trust them with their guns then you have no reason to think they should trust you with your choice of liberty.


reflect on the bold text a minute.

Did someone make you post? These assholes claim that no laws can stop gun violence and I showed them laws that would. If all firearms are registered to owners with background checks, ballistic tested and the registration has to be renewed each year, then criminals are going to run out of guns. Who wants to kill someone with a gun that has a ballistic test on file? A gun that isn't registered is forfeited. In a city, if you get caught walking around with a gun, you lose it, unless you have a carry permit.

So they have to spend a couple hours a year to make it work, big deal! They can feel safer in their homes as gun crime disappears. I don't see why you can't have a system like that and allow assault weapons.

 

[daveman]

If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal. You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference.

D.C decided that gun ownership was illegal.

Turns out they were wrong.

I believe you were saying something about governmental actions always being legal...?

It beats allowing over 8,500 American homicide by guns per year. If it inconveniences you, that's just too damned bad. Go cry to the NRA, don't cry to me about it!

I'm curious:

Why all the fuss about guns from the left? Drunk drivers, swimming pools, and hammers each kill more people than are killed by guns.

Oh, wait, I know -- nobody ever overthrew a tyrant using a swimming pool.

So, that's the answer, isn't it? Progs oppose the right to bear arms because they don't want anyone rebelling against their dictatorial rule.

 

[daveman]

If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal. You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference.

What if the law required all guns to be registered and that registration had to be renewed each year. What if the law required ballistic tests during those yearly renewals and before the weapon was purchased. A law requiring background checks on every sale, even private. Possession of an unregistered firearm means the firearm is confiscated and the person is fined and possibly jailed or given probation. What if the cops in the cities started behaving like those NYC cops and search anyone they suspected of having a gun? What if the purchase of a gun required a cooling off period where the gun is sent to a center near you, where it is ballistic fired and bullet is scanned to be sent to the FBI. If the person had multiple weapons, a newly purchased gun would be sceduled less than a year at the time for the individual to renew his registrations on all his weapons.

Now, I can think of a few more, but I think you get the point. Such a system would require more of an effort by the law abiding citizen than they have to do today, but it would get the guns off the streets. If a gun was registered, I don't think someone would be too inclined to shoot somebody with it, knowing the ballistics of their bullet is on record. An unregistered gun isn't going to last that long in society under those conditions. A person in possession of an unregistered gun may lose their gun ownership ability for life, it depends on the circumstances, but a minimum suspension would be required. If they owned other guns, they would be locked in an armory until the person was allowed to own a gun again, if they were allowed.

It beats allowing over 8,500 American homicide by guns per year. If it inconveniences you, that's just too damned bad. Go cry to the NRA, don't cry to me about it!

Actually guns commit zero (0) homicides each year.

"If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal."
But only if the courts rule that it is not an infrigment on Constitutional right.

"You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference."
Or maybe you're the idiot for not understanding that noone is making any such claim.
The claim (the truth) is that more laws are not going to hamper those willing those to break the law and commit violent crime. The recent shootings only provide additional proof of that.

Your suggestions are obvious infrigments on my rights and will not be tolerated.

How childish can you get?

You have the right to not be disarmed and that's it. Making you get background checks and register your weapons isn't violating your rights.

With those changes the guns that criminal possess will fade away. There would be very little gun crime.

You should have to run your opinions through a government agency before you're allowed to state them publicly.

That doesn't violate your rights, does it?

 

[OODA_Loop]

If all firearms are registered to owners with background checks, ballistic tested and the registration has to be renewed each year, then criminals are going to run out of guns. Who wants to kill someone with a gun that has a ballistic test on file?

Criminals already commiting the crime of not registering or stealing a registered gun.

 

[daveman]

It's hard to beat people to death or kill them with a knife. It's easy with a gun.

You could make the same sort of Stalinist greater good' argument to ban many things via taking away freedoms.

For example, AIDS and homosexual activity.

You really want to go there?

When did you ever volunteer to fight communists?

It isn't going to hurt someone to take a couple hours a year, if it takes that long, and renew the registration on their weapons. That isn't hurting your freedoms.

It isn't going to hurt someone to take an hour every few years and get an ID they can use to vote. That isn't hurting your freedoms.

 

[Shogun]

Everybody doesn't have a gun, so how can you explain homicide by gun is nearly 4 times what it is with fists and knives?

a LOT of people have guns. Just like a LOT of kids play video games. Just like a LOT of people drink alcohol. Just like a LOT of people conduct themselves responsibly with a vast array of behaviors that you might think would create utopia if nixed.


Is there supposed to be a correlation between fists, knives and guns?

To be honest, I didn't come here to debate with anyone about guns. You can believe what you want until you get your grass root effort on and scrap the second amendment. However, and this is the point that you are missing here, I'm as liberal as they come on this forum and I'm telling you that your illogical fascination with scapegoating guns is as much of an albatross to the left as abortion hating dogma junkies are to the right. If you can't trust them with their guns then you have no reason to think they should trust you with your choice of liberty.


reflect on the bold text a minute.

Did someone make you post? These assholes claim that no laws can stop gun violence and I showed them laws that would. If all firearms are registered to owners with background checks, ballistic tested and the registration has to be renewed each year, then criminals are going to run out of guns. Who wants to kill someone with a gun that has a ballistic test on file? A gun that isn't registered is forfeited. In a city, if you get caught walking around with a gun, you lose it, unless you have a carry permit.

So they have to spend a couple hours a year to make it work, big deal! They can feel safer in their homes as gun crime disappears. I don't see why you can't have a system like that and allow assault weapons.

first bold is nothing less than fantasy projection.

second bold is mere conjecture.

Like I said, go get your grass root effort on and strike down the second amendment. Or, sit there and wonder why everyone doesn't fall in line behind your silly ass opinion about the cure for violence while remaining as much of a cancer to the left as Tony Perkins is the the right.