Gun Violence and Gun Control Fervor - Page 88 - TundraTalk.net - Toyota Tundra Discussion Forum
User Tag List

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
#1306 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 03:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 455
Thanks: 16
Thanked 618 Times in 288 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Re: Gun Violence and Gun Control Fervor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Dad's Tundra View Post
When the liberals become the majority, I'll agree with that

According to the recent election, you might think liberals are, in fact, the majority. Not true, though they are quickly becoming the majority, and as the handouts increase, it will be game over.
Not if you keep up with your gerrymandering efforts.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using AutoGuide.Com Free App


2012 DC RW 3" RC front, BHLM, PC beadlocks, NFAB Steps
Magnetic Grey Club #18
Iamjcb is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#1307 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 03:04 PM
Banned
Premium Member
 
Bad Dad's Camrys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: in the spiral...
Posts: 21,288
Thanks: 17,937
Thanked 35,831 Times in 15,365 Posts
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 527 Post(s)
Bad Dad's Camrys is offline  
#1308 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 03:49 PM
Senior Member
 
swmotundra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 585
Thanks: 51
Thanked 1,061 Times in 435 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Gun Violence and Gun Control Fervor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamjcb View Post
I view the Bill of Rights as a protection of the citizens against the government and the majority. Each amendment is not a clear and concise limit without exceptions but a balancing act. Each amendment has exceptions and are not absolute.
......
That doesn't answer the question. I asked why you believe that nine of the first ten amendments are clear, concise, unquestioned limits on the power of government, but somehow the 2nd amendment should be read in such a way as to limit the rights of the people. And, just to be precise, the amendments were absolute. The fact that we have diluted them and distorted their meaning doesn't change their intent.

The Constitution protects the things I hold dear. It should also protect the things you cherish that I may not like. Lefties should accept what the 2nd amendment says for the same reasons that they want me to accept a woman's right to choose....that the Constitution does not grant the federal government power to infringe upon either activity.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com App
swmotundra is offline  
#1309 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 03:58 PM
"Resident Crackpot"
 
RRzxter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 5,824
Thanks: 319
Thanked 9,605 Times in 4,322 Posts
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by swmotundra View Post
That doesn't answer the question. I asked why you believe that nine of the first ten amendments are clear, concise, unquestioned limits on the power of government, but somehow the 2nd amendment should be read in such a way as to limit the rights of the people. And, just to be precise, the amendments were absolute. The fact that we have diluted them and distorted their meaning doesn't change their intent.

The Constitution protects the things I hold dear. It should also protect the things you cherish that I may not like. Lefties should accept what the 2nd amendment says for the same reasons that they want me to accept a woman's right to choose....that the Constitution does not grant the federal government power to infringe upon either activity.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com App
Because it's just different. Guns are scary and hurt people. They wrote the constitution 500 yrs ago, when pirates ruled the world and rode dinosaurs and shot muskets. Things are different now and people are shooting up schools with rocket launchers and machine guns and we all know that if we made all guns illegal, crime would go down and less people would die.
Why can't you just stop being stubborn and old fashioned and closed minded and paranoid?
Just throw your guns away and embrace a new world peace. Just stop fighting it. You sound like a big fat banana sandwich crazy person.

RRzxter is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RRzxter For This Useful Post:
BigRed2007 (01-17-2013), swmotundra (01-17-2013)
#1310 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 04:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 455
Thanks: 16
Thanked 618 Times in 288 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by swmotundra View Post
That doesn't answer the question. I asked why you believe that nine of the first ten amendments are clear, concise, unquestioned limits on the power of government, but somehow the 2nd amendment should be read in such a way as to limit the rights of the people. And, just to be precise, the amendments were absolute. The fact that we have diluted them and distorted their meaning doesn't change their intent.

The Constitution protects the things I hold dear. It should also protect the things you cherish that I may not like. Lefties should accept what the 2nd amendment says for the same reasons that they want me to accept a woman's right to choose....that the Constitution does not grant the federal government power to infringe upon either activity.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com App
I don't believe that. You have freedom of speech, but not the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one. You are protected against unreasonable searches and seizure, with exceptions.
They are all rights, with exceptions.

And no where on here have stated support for a ban on particular guns or magazine sizes.


2012 DC RW 3" RC front, BHLM, PC beadlocks, NFAB Steps
Magnetic Grey Club #18
Iamjcb is offline  
#1311 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 04:31 PM
"Resident Crackpot"
 
RRzxter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 5,824
Thanks: 319
Thanked 9,605 Times in 4,322 Posts
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamjcb View Post
I don't believe that. You have freedom of speech, but not the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one. You are protected against unreasonable searches and seizure, with exceptions.
They are all rights, with exceptions.

And no where on here have stated support for a ban on particular guns or magazine sizes.
The second amendment does disclose our rights and there are already exceptions to it. The point is that they want to make further exceptions and restrictions. Completely unnecessary restrictions that any critically thinking human being can clearly see will do absolutely nothing to curb violent crime and mass shootings. That has been the argument all along.

And even though nothing in the published 23 edicts, clearly states that they are targeting a particular weapon or feature of a weapon, they have done precisely just that in NY already and the president and vice president have said countless times, that we need to do something about "assault weapons".
Which we know is a blanket term used to cover all firearms, in order to do exactly what NY just did, on a federal level.

RRzxter is offline  
#1312 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 04:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Tundra Hunden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 247
Thanks: 138
Thanked 369 Times in 206 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRzxter View Post
Because it's just different. Guns are scary and hurt people. They wrote the constitution 500 yrs ago, when pirates ruled the world and rode dinosaurs and shot muskets. Things are different now and people are shooting up schools with rocket launchers and machine guns and we all know that if we made all guns illegal, crime would go down and less people would die.
Why can't you just stop being stubborn and old fashioned and closed minded and paranoid?
Just throw your guns away and embrace a new world peace. Just stop fighting it. You sound like a big fat banana sandwich crazy person.
Haha. Sarcastic much?

"I come in peace. I didnít bring artillery. But Iím pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f*ck with me, Iíll kill you all." General James "Mad Dog" Mattis
Tundra Hunden is offline  
#1313 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 04:39 PM
"Resident Crackpot"
 
RRzxter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 5,824
Thanks: 319
Thanked 9,605 Times in 4,322 Posts
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tundra Hunden View Post
Haha. Sarcastic much?

RRzxter is offline  
#1314 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 05:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 455
Thanks: 16
Thanked 618 Times in 288 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't think an assault weapon ban will pass Congress, but if it did, Scalia has already ruled on its legality.

" [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." [District of Columbia v. Heller, 6/26/08, via Google Scholar]

"


2012 DC RW 3" RC front, BHLM, PC beadlocks, NFAB Steps
Magnetic Grey Club #18
Iamjcb is offline  
#1315 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 05:09 PM
Senior Member
 
swmotundra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 585
Thanks: 51
Thanked 1,061 Times in 435 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamjcb View Post
I don't believe that. You have freedom of speech, but not the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one. You are protected against unreasonable searches and seizure, with exceptions.
They are all rights, with exceptions.

And no where on here have stated support for a ban on particular guns or magazine sizes.
I respectfully disagree. Whether it's showing tits in primetime or yelling fire in a crowded theater, there are instances where improper use of speech can be punishable. That said, the penalty only comes after you misuse that right rather than infringing upon the rights of those who act within the law preemptively. What is being proposed here with gun and ammo restrictions is akin to telling people in a crowded theater that they are not allowed to speak, for fear someone might yell "fire". If you read the Ten Amendments word for word, there aren't exeptions. None. Our founders seem to have been pretty thorough fellows, so I imagine if they wanted some in there then they would have put them there. Obviously, I can be reasonable and accept that all laws go through a growth process where precedent and changing technologies will shape the application of that law. This isn't one of those times.

And no, I haven't seen an overt desire for a ban on guns from your posts. You do, however, support those who would place a ban. You linked (and supported) Cory Booker's article that called for an immediate assault weapons ban in its text as well as a 1 handgun a month purchase limit.
swmotundra is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to swmotundra For This Useful Post:
GWD (01-17-2013)
#1316 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 05:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 455
Thanks: 16
Thanked 618 Times in 288 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. A quick glance does show 2 "exceptions" described within the Bill of Rights.

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
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.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

I doubt this is what you meant by exceptions though. I think the difficulty here is that the 2nd Amendmend is the only one that covers a "tangible object" as opposed to speech, assembly, religion etc.


2012 DC RW 3" RC front, BHLM, PC beadlocks, NFAB Steps
Magnetic Grey Club #18

Last edited by Iamjcb; 01-17-2013 at 05:24 PM.
Iamjcb is offline  
#1317 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 05:31 PM
Senior Member
 
swmotundra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 585
Thanks: 51
Thanked 1,061 Times in 435 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamjcb View Post
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. A quick glance does show 2 "exceptions" described within the Bill of Rights.

Third Amendment Ė Protection from quartering of troops.
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.

Fifth Amendment Ė due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Those are original intent exceptions, and only bolster my point that if the Founders wanted a bunch of "what ifs, only ifs, and excepts" in the second amendment they would have put it there. Those are not exceptions in the context of this discussion, where the contention is that the simply worded second amendment was somehow intended to mean that the government could limit the type, the amount of, the open exchange of, and the lawful use of guns and ammunition. Sorry, but the left has stretched this amendment about as far as I'm willing to tolerate.
swmotundra is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to swmotundra For This Useful Post:
GWD (01-17-2013)
#1318 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 05:35 PM
"Resident Liberal"
Premium Member
 
OkSlim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tulsa,OK
Posts: 11,765
Thanks: 1,122
Thanked 18,656 Times in 7,358 Posts
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 838 Post(s)
Al Franken wont even go on record saying he will vote for a ban on assault weapons.

The voices in my head don't like you.

If you are a fan of fat girls, Dave Matthews CD's are better than a ham on a fishing pole.

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
H. L. Mencken


2008 RCSB 4.7 TRD Offroad 4x4
OkSlim is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to OkSlim For This Useful Post:
BigRed2007 (01-17-2013)
#1319 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 06:39 PM
"Resident Crackpot"
 
RRzxter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 5,824
Thanks: 319
Thanked 9,605 Times in 4,322 Posts
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
The whole term "assault weapon" is killing me.
An assault rifle is a fully auto "machine gun". Those are already banned, correct?
An "assault weapon" would be anything that shares a cosmetic feature with an assault rifle. Which would be a pistol grip, adjustable stock, flash supressor, etc. None of which make a semi auto rifle, a fully auto assault rifle.
If I put a thumbhole stock or pistol grip on my 12 ga pump action, it won't make it fully auto. But it will make it an "assault weapon"?

If they are saying that 30 round and above capacity magazines are a problem and give a mass murderer an advantage and want to ban them,......um, ok,.....WTF does changing a handgun's capacity from 10 to 7, do to help that situation?

What we need to ban is ignorance and the term "assault weapon".
I know, this is all repetitive. I just can't get over it though.
These are both .223 semi-auto rifles. Which one is more lethal?



"You CAN still own machine guns , they are regulated under the National firearms act of 1934....
The FOPA made it so no NEW machine guns can be registered after may 1986....
To own a machine gun you need to find one.... Pay for it .... Fill out the form 4 , pay your $200 tax and wait for ATF approval.... And pick it up from your FFL/SOT ....
Now as you might imagine , with limited supply ( no new ones since 1986) and demand keeps rising ... prices are out of control... the CHEAPEST full auto you will find is a Mac-10 for about 3 grand...."

(that is, if your state allows it).
Sooooo, if by "assault weapons" ban, they mean they will make fully auto machine guns outright illegal, under any circumstances......um......ok?
But what does that have to do with an AR-15 or 10 round handgun mags or thumbhole stocks or the mass shootings?
Can anyone help me here?

RRzxter is offline  
#1320 (permalink) Old 01-17-2013, 06:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 455
Thanks: 16
Thanked 618 Times in 288 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Maybe the NRA should come out with commercials stating that instead of the crazy onee out now.


2012 DC RW 3" RC front, BHLM, PC beadlocks, NFAB Steps
Magnetic Grey Club #18
Iamjcb is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Iamjcb For This Useful Post:
EUPHOR1C (01-17-2013)
Closed Thread

  TundraTalk.net - Toyota Tundra Discussion Forum > Member Area > Off-Topic Discussion

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the TundraTalk.net - Toyota Tundra Discussion Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome