Hoss;976310 wrote: I disagree.
I should be allowed to buy or make any weapon I choose, without exception. According to the second amendment the government cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. The government can punish me for murdering someone with a gun, but they cannot limit what guns I own.
That’s the problem with our government. They don't follow the constitution. We make smaller laws that infringe on my right as a citizen to arm myself. They should not limit me in any way. It is illegal to do so.
If they make a law saying I must keep my guns in a cracker box with a plastic clip that is unconstitutional. We have laws that protect people from the illegal use of weapons. What we need to do is enforce those laws and punish those who break them sufficiently enough to make us use the guns for just hunting instead of feeling we need them for self protection.
I think we have messed in law so much we now feel we must regulate everything we do. And now no one feels safe.
:yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap STANDING O! :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap
Obama on gun control
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama on gun control
Hoss;976310 wrote: I disagree.
I should be allowed to buy or make any weapon I choose, without exception. According to the second amendment the government cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. The government can punish me for murdering someone with a gun, but they cannot limit what guns I own.
That’s the problem with our government. They don't follow the constitution. We make smaller laws that infringe on my right as a citizen to arm myself. They should not limit me in any way. It is illegal to do so.
If they make a law saying I must keep my guns in a cracker box with a plastic clip that is unconstitutional. We have laws that protect people from the illegal use of weapons. What we need to do is enforce those laws and punish those who break them sufficiently enough to make us use the guns for just hunting instead of feeling we need them for self protection.
I think we have messed in law so much we now feel we must regulate everything we do. And now no one feels safe.
What legal use can you see which would require you to own an assault rile, an RPG or a tank - your definition even runs to the private ownership of tactical nukes.
I should be allowed to buy or make any weapon I choose, without exception. According to the second amendment the government cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. The government can punish me for murdering someone with a gun, but they cannot limit what guns I own.
That’s the problem with our government. They don't follow the constitution. We make smaller laws that infringe on my right as a citizen to arm myself. They should not limit me in any way. It is illegal to do so.
If they make a law saying I must keep my guns in a cracker box with a plastic clip that is unconstitutional. We have laws that protect people from the illegal use of weapons. What we need to do is enforce those laws and punish those who break them sufficiently enough to make us use the guns for just hunting instead of feeling we need them for self protection.
I think we have messed in law so much we now feel we must regulate everything we do. And now no one feels safe.
What legal use can you see which would require you to own an assault rile, an RPG or a tank - your definition even runs to the private ownership of tactical nukes.
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976303 wrote: I would say that my original statement is a no-brainer :-
A straight restatement :-
If the carrying of guns is illegal it is easier for the police to act against criminals who do so or plan to do so. If the police have to wait until a criminal has used or is directly on the point of using a gun then it is less likely that action will occur. The reduced likelihood of the police being able to act before the event makes the streets less safe.
Experience in the UK shows that the number of guns in circulation has drastically fallen and that this reduction will continue the longer the ban is enforced. This is now bringing dividends with the amount of gun crime having peaked and now being on the wane.
I live in the East End of London – one of the rougher parts of the country. Last year, in this area, there were 30,187 reported crimes, 6,625 involving violence against the person. Of those only 41 involved the use of a gun – would you care to quote equivalent figures for the rougher quarter of any major US city to compare rates?
As to traceability, we have a case going on here at the moment involving black market gun production (one guy in his garage turning out handguns) - the forensic evidence is no different for legit guns, his guns have been linked to 50 crimes over the past few years and it looks like it was the common source of the weapons used that led to his arrest.
I don't doubt that an all out gun ban in the UK would be more superficial but I cannot think for a minute that the US would not, especially given present times, see the exact same rates of illegal guns...You wouldn't be seeing most of the big time gun manufacturers selling guns but the black market for that in my own opinion would stay at that...Sadly enough even the term "business" is one of the worst evils I've ever witnessed..."Business" as defined by itself gives prevalence to better worth...Which means there is someone out there that is willing to pay for something that is not worth the effort to sustain it...
The question isn't a matter of banning guns rather what do you do to change the mentality of a criminal ideology...Not changing the ideology of a non criminal society...It speaks for itself...
The difference being that there will always be people in the world that feel owning a gun is worth the risk of using it...
A straight restatement :-
If the carrying of guns is illegal it is easier for the police to act against criminals who do so or plan to do so. If the police have to wait until a criminal has used or is directly on the point of using a gun then it is less likely that action will occur. The reduced likelihood of the police being able to act before the event makes the streets less safe.
Experience in the UK shows that the number of guns in circulation has drastically fallen and that this reduction will continue the longer the ban is enforced. This is now bringing dividends with the amount of gun crime having peaked and now being on the wane.
I live in the East End of London – one of the rougher parts of the country. Last year, in this area, there were 30,187 reported crimes, 6,625 involving violence against the person. Of those only 41 involved the use of a gun – would you care to quote equivalent figures for the rougher quarter of any major US city to compare rates?
As to traceability, we have a case going on here at the moment involving black market gun production (one guy in his garage turning out handguns) - the forensic evidence is no different for legit guns, his guns have been linked to 50 crimes over the past few years and it looks like it was the common source of the weapons used that led to his arrest.
I don't doubt that an all out gun ban in the UK would be more superficial but I cannot think for a minute that the US would not, especially given present times, see the exact same rates of illegal guns...You wouldn't be seeing most of the big time gun manufacturers selling guns but the black market for that in my own opinion would stay at that...Sadly enough even the term "business" is one of the worst evils I've ever witnessed..."Business" as defined by itself gives prevalence to better worth...Which means there is someone out there that is willing to pay for something that is not worth the effort to sustain it...
The question isn't a matter of banning guns rather what do you do to change the mentality of a criminal ideology...Not changing the ideology of a non criminal society...It speaks for itself...
The difference being that there will always be people in the world that feel owning a gun is worth the risk of using it...
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976278 wrote: We quaint old fogies in merry olde England have a saying - if you start with a preconceived idea and then base your reasoning on guesses, you end up being right every time.
Like Hoss, I believe that swearing is a sign of a limited mind and a limited vocabulary and, to me, crap is a profanity that has no place in polite company.
You might have cities that have a strict gun ban - what you don't have is a society where guns are seen as unacceptable and the carrying of guns in public a sign of criminal intent. In a civilised society, there is no possible reason to carry a gun in an urban environment other than the criminal.
Oh, come down off your high horse. SHEEESE!
Like Hoss, I believe that swearing is a sign of a limited mind and a limited vocabulary and, to me, crap is a profanity that has no place in polite company.
You might have cities that have a strict gun ban - what you don't have is a society where guns are seen as unacceptable and the carrying of guns in public a sign of criminal intent. In a civilised society, there is no possible reason to carry a gun in an urban environment other than the criminal.
Oh, come down off your high horse. SHEEESE!
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976309 wrote: I'd rather reduce the likelihood of my own demise being inevitable.
You're speaking in past tense...
I'll rephrase the question...
If you were being assaulted, upon your knowledge your death is inevitable, and you'd happen to have seen a gun lying on the ground, would you use the gun to prevent your death?...
You're speaking in past tense...
I'll rephrase the question...
If you were being assaulted, upon your knowledge your death is inevitable, and you'd happen to have seen a gun lying on the ground, would you use the gun to prevent your death?...
Obama on gun control
K.Snyder;976334 wrote: I don't doubt that an all out gun ban in the UK would be more superficial but I cannot think for a minute that the US would not, especially given present times, see the exact same rates of illegal guns...You wouldn't be seeing most of the big time gun manufacturers selling guns but the black market for that in my own opinion would stay at that...Sadly enough even the term "business" is one of the worst evils I've ever witnessed..."Business" as defined by itself gives prevalence to better worth...Which means there is someone out there that is willing to pay for something that is not worth the effort to sustain it...
The question isn't a matter of banning guns rather what do you do to change the mentality of a criminal ideology...Not changing the ideology of a non criminal society...It speaks for itself...
The difference being that there will always be people in the world that feel owning a gun is worth the risk of using it...
As you say, the mental aspect is paramount - without the change in social attitude nothing else will change.
The question isn't a matter of banning guns rather what do you do to change the mentality of a criminal ideology...Not changing the ideology of a non criminal society...It speaks for itself...
The difference being that there will always be people in the world that feel owning a gun is worth the risk of using it...
As you say, the mental aspect is paramount - without the change in social attitude nothing else will change.
Obama on gun control
Hoss;976310 wrote:
That’s the problem with our government. They don't follow the constitution.
Accountable;976322 wrote: :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap STANDING O! :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap
hoppy;976335 wrote: Oh, come down off your high horse. SHEEESE!
Even if someone doesn't hold the same view I cannot understand how any of you do not see the importance in consensus...
The problem being that you people give off the tone that you're not willing to change the constitution for the betterment of society.
That’s the problem with our government. They don't follow the constitution.
Accountable;976322 wrote: :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap STANDING O! :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap
hoppy;976335 wrote: Oh, come down off your high horse. SHEEESE!
Even if someone doesn't hold the same view I cannot understand how any of you do not see the importance in consensus...
The problem being that you people give off the tone that you're not willing to change the constitution for the betterment of society.
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976340 wrote: As you say, the mental aspect is paramount - without the change in social attitude nothing else will change.
I agree...But as far as I'm concerned until that happens I feel it's appropriate to abide by the right for a societies' people to bare arms...
I'm assuming you feel this mentality elongates said concern...
I agree...But as far as I'm concerned until that happens I feel it's appropriate to abide by the right for a societies' people to bare arms...
I'm assuming you feel this mentality elongates said concern...
Obama on gun control
K.Snyder;976337 wrote: You're speaking in past tense...
I'll rephrase the question...
If you were being assaulted, upon your knowledge your death is inevitable, and you'd happen to have seen a gun lying on the ground, would you use the gun to prevent your death?...
Sure I'm talking in the past tense - I will do everything in my power now to reduce the likelihood in the future.
If that does not work then it would be totally dependant on the circumstances and not predictable in advance (you allow me no possible survival so instinctive reaction is not an issue).
I'll rephrase the question...
If you were being assaulted, upon your knowledge your death is inevitable, and you'd happen to have seen a gun lying on the ground, would you use the gun to prevent your death?...
Sure I'm talking in the past tense - I will do everything in my power now to reduce the likelihood in the future.
If that does not work then it would be totally dependant on the circumstances and not predictable in advance (you allow me no possible survival so instinctive reaction is not an issue).
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976324 wrote: What legal use can you see which would require you to own an assault rile, an RPG or a tank - your definition even runs to the private ownership of tactical nukes.
Irellevant question. The right shall not be infringed.
Irellevant question. The right shall not be infringed.
Obama on gun control
Accountable;976354 wrote: Irellevant question. The right shall not be infringed.
Why?
Why?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama on gun control
K.Snyder;976343 wrote: Even if someone doesn't hold the same view I cannot understand how any of you do not see the importance in consensus...
The problem being that you people give off the tone that you're not willing to change the constitution for the betterment of society.
No one has raised the issue of changing the constitution. Where's the movement to amend? Today's legislators don't even feel the need to look at their governing documents. They just make law to grease whatever wheel is squeaking loudest, regardless of constitutionality.
The problem being that you people give off the tone that you're not willing to change the constitution for the betterment of society.
No one has raised the issue of changing the constitution. Where's the movement to amend? Today's legislators don't even feel the need to look at their governing documents. They just make law to grease whatever wheel is squeaking loudest, regardless of constitutionality.
Obama on gun control
Hoss;976358 wrote: None Sir, I have one old collector type assault weapon, it’s a non firing piece of history.
But if we can make people feel safe enough with a stable government that we can pursue our happiness under then I doubt anyone will want to keep a nuclear device in their garage.
It's not what you own yourself it is what the rules you suggest would allow an unscrupulous citizen to do.
But if we can make people feel safe enough with a stable government that we can pursue our happiness under then I doubt anyone will want to keep a nuclear device in their garage.
It's not what you own yourself it is what the rules you suggest would allow an unscrupulous citizen to do.
Obama on gun control
Accountable;976362 wrote: No one has raised the issue of changing the constitution. Where's the movement to amend? Today's legislators don't even feel the need to look at their governing documents. They just make law to grease whatever wheel is squeaking loudest, regardless of constitutionality.
Please Sir, please Sir, can I - I want to raise it, please.
Please Sir, please Sir, can I - I want to raise it, please.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976355 wrote: Why?
We in the United States have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. We also have the right to exercise that right or not, as we choose. There is no need or justification to restrict, confine, or imprison the law-abiding so long as they don't infringe/impinge on the rights of others. I've had my mind changed once today; I'm perfectly willing for it to happen again.
We in the United States have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. We also have the right to exercise that right or not, as we choose. There is no need or justification to restrict, confine, or imprison the law-abiding so long as they don't infringe/impinge on the rights of others. I've had my mind changed once today; I'm perfectly willing for it to happen again.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976373 wrote: Please Sir, please Sir, can I - I want to raise it, please.
Is it worth your citizenship?
I'd be proud to call you a fellow American. :yh_flag
Is it worth your citizenship?
I'd be proud to call you a fellow American. :yh_flagObama on gun control
Hoss;976374 wrote: I'm sorry that has nothing to do with my right under the constitution to keep and bear arms. I'm not the criminal. Why do you limit the law abiding citizen? I have done nothing wrong and you’re infringing on my right to keep and bear arms.
You’re punishing me on my potential to commit a crime not punishing me for committing a crime. That’s not fair.
Let’s take your pornographic magazines away; they might lead you to commit rape. No one would stand for that.
The degree of gun crime has everything to do with your right under the constitution to bare and keep arms - it is essential to consider the actual rate of occurrence when looking to change the law. What is the likelihood of gun crime involving a legally owned firearm - it is not about limiting the law abiding citizen it is about risk avoidance and the criminal element of society.
You’re punishing me on my potential to commit a crime not punishing me for committing a crime. That’s not fair.
Let’s take your pornographic magazines away; they might lead you to commit rape. No one would stand for that.
The degree of gun crime has everything to do with your right under the constitution to bare and keep arms - it is essential to consider the actual rate of occurrence when looking to change the law. What is the likelihood of gun crime involving a legally owned firearm - it is not about limiting the law abiding citizen it is about risk avoidance and the criminal element of society.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976382 wrote: The degree of gun crime has everything to do with your right under the constitution to bare and keep arms - it is essential to consider the actual rate of occurrence when looking to change the law. What is the likelihood of gun crime involving a legally owned firearm - it is not about limiting the law abiding citizen it is about risk avoidance and the criminal element of society.
Ah. Balancing liberty and security?
Ah. Balancing liberty and security?
Obama on gun control
Accountable;976377 wrote: We in the United States have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. We also have the right to exercise that right or not, as we choose. There is no need or justification to restrict, confine, or imprison the law-abiding so long as they don't infringe/impinge on the rights of others. I've had my mind changed once today; I'm perfectly willing for it to happen again.
The inability to consider changes to the status quo is the sign of a closed mind. The fact that you currently hold an inalienable right to keep and bare arms does not mean that the removal of that right cannot be considered.
Gwann - who's changed your mind today and how :wah: I'll make every effort to do it again :-6
The inability to consider changes to the status quo is the sign of a closed mind. The fact that you currently hold an inalienable right to keep and bare arms does not mean that the removal of that right cannot be considered.
Gwann - who's changed your mind today and how :wah: I'll make every effort to do it again :-6
Obama on gun control
Hoss;976378 wrote: I'm sorry I understood that you were asking me personally.
My issue is that it's not a discussion of what one can own, or does own, but whether anyone has the right to infringe on what the constitution guarantees he can own.
If the Constitution is no longer appropriate then change the Constitution.
My issue is that it's not a discussion of what one can own, or does own, but whether anyone has the right to infringe on what the constitution guarantees he can own.
If the Constitution is no longer appropriate then change the Constitution.
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976352 wrote: Sure I'm talking in the past tense - I will do everything in my power now to reduce the likelihood in the future.
If that does not work then it would be totally dependant on the circumstances and not predictable in advance (you allow me no possible survival so instinctive reaction is not an issue).
Sorry I shouldn't have used the word "inevitable"...
I meant "eminent"...
Would you use a gun to save your life?...
:yh_bigsmi...Last question I promise...
If that does not work then it would be totally dependant on the circumstances and not predictable in advance (you allow me no possible survival so instinctive reaction is not an issue).
Sorry I shouldn't have used the word "inevitable"...
I meant "eminent"...
Would you use a gun to save your life?...
:yh_bigsmi...Last question I promise...
Obama on gun control
Accountable;976379 wrote: Is it worth your citizenship? I'd be proud to call you a fellow American. :yh_flag
It might be worth it at that but I've far too much to change here first :wah:
I'd be proud to call you a fellow American. :yh_flagIt might be worth it at that but I've far too much to change here first :wah:
Obama on gun control
Accountable;976384 wrote: Ah. Balancing liberty and security?
It's always a balance - in this case it is no longer reasonable to expect that armed citizens could overthrow the US government backed by the US armed forces so the right to keep and bare arms is no longer a force for liberty but is definitely a detriment to security.
It's always a balance - in this case it is no longer reasonable to expect that armed citizens could overthrow the US government backed by the US armed forces so the right to keep and bare arms is no longer a force for liberty but is definitely a detriment to security.
Obama on gun control
Accountable;976362 wrote: No one has raised the issue of changing the constitution. Where's the movement to amend? Today's legislators don't even feel the need to look at their governing documents. They just make law to grease whatever wheel is squeaking loudest, regardless of constitutionality.
I'm more so speaking in general nomenclature...
I'm trying to ask that everyone keep an open mind..."You" as people owe everyone that much.
I'm more so speaking in general nomenclature...
I'm trying to ask that everyone keep an open mind..."You" as people owe everyone that much.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976388 wrote: The inability to consider changes to the status quo is the sign of a closed mind. The fact that you currently hold an inalienable right to keep and bare arms does not mean that the removal of that right cannot be considered.There are things important enough to close one's mind to, then.
My Buddy Bryn wrote: Gwann - who's changed your mind today and how :wah: I'll make every effort to do it again :-6http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showthread.p ... 240&page=4
Post 34. I don't know if you've been following the thread.
My Buddy Bryn wrote: Gwann - who's changed your mind today and how :wah: I'll make every effort to do it again :-6http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showthread.p ... 240&page=4
Post 34. I don't know if you've been following the thread.
Obama on gun control
K.Snyder;976393 wrote: Sorry I shouldn't have used the word "inevitable"...
I meant "eminent"...
Would you use a gun to save your life?...
:yh_bigsmi...Last question I promise...
Depends on the circumstance - yes, I could envisage circumstances where I would try to (not many but some) but I will do everything I can to ensure that those circumstances can never occur.
That I would do so does no always make it right that I should and, if the circumstance came about where I would and I should I would still ask questions of the society that allowed those circumstances to come about.
Does that explain my position sufficiently? :wah:
I meant "eminent"...
Would you use a gun to save your life?...
:yh_bigsmi...Last question I promise...
Depends on the circumstance - yes, I could envisage circumstances where I would try to (not many but some) but I will do everything I can to ensure that those circumstances can never occur.
That I would do so does no always make it right that I should and, if the circumstance came about where I would and I should I would still ask questions of the society that allowed those circumstances to come about.
Does that explain my position sufficiently? :wah:
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976397 wrote: It's always a balance - in this case it is no longer reasonable to expect that armed citizens could overthrow the US government backed by the US armed forces so the right to keep and bare arms is no longer a force for liberty but is definitely a detriment to security.
A few hundred religious zealots have flummoxed that same military. I'm not giving up hope or my rights.
A few hundred religious zealots have flummoxed that same military. I'm not giving up hope or my rights.
Obama on gun control
Hoss;976374 wrote: I'm sorry that has nothing to do with my right under the constitution to keep and bear arms. I'm not the criminal. Why do you limit the law abiding citizen? I have done nothing wrong and you’re infringing on my right to keep and bear arms.
You’re punishing me on my potential to commit a crime not punishing me for committing a crime. That’s not fair.
Let’s take your pornographic magazines away; they might lead you to commit rape. No one would stand for that.
Well I don't know who you're talking to...Have you been reading my posts?...
Could you tell me in what context you're using the word "you"?...
You’re punishing me on my potential to commit a crime not punishing me for committing a crime. That’s not fair.
Let’s take your pornographic magazines away; they might lead you to commit rape. No one would stand for that.
Well I don't know who you're talking to...Have you been reading my posts?...
Could you tell me in what context you're using the word "you"?...
Obama on gun control
Hoss;976407 wrote: I disagree, keeping guns for me and my family’s protection as my right and not a detriment to our security.
We don't need to overthrow them, just resist tyranny when it emerges even at the loss of life and we will have fought the good fight to protect and defend our constitution.
The word spreads fast when American rights are trampled on. Never forget the shot heard round the world.
You people cannot understand what consensus is...
You'd obviously allow your family to be murdered to keep your right to bare arms.
We don't need to overthrow them, just resist tyranny when it emerges even at the loss of life and we will have fought the good fight to protect and defend our constitution.
The word spreads fast when American rights are trampled on. Never forget the shot heard round the world.
You people cannot understand what consensus is...
You'd obviously allow your family to be murdered to keep your right to bare arms.
Obama on gun control
Hoss;976401 wrote: Risk? Now you’re getting into speculation. We cannot take rights away from people if they have not committed a crime.
I see the risk, and it causes me to want to secure better weapons and be more proficient in the use of them. But if criminals were punished properly then living in a safer environment would decrease my heartfelt need to garner more weapons and train with them.
I know we both want a safer place to live, but in that process I need a way to keep myself safe, which my constitution guarantees me.
Let's take the question away from the emotive. Think back to the cold war and the US / Russian arms race. If you were the World Government of that time would you consider it safer for your people to remove access to those weapons due to the risk of their use?
Why is the constitution inviolate? It was written in other times to deal with other circumstances. Where it is no longer applicable, it is correct to take rights that are no longer justifiable away from people who abuse them.
I see the risk, and it causes me to want to secure better weapons and be more proficient in the use of them. But if criminals were punished properly then living in a safer environment would decrease my heartfelt need to garner more weapons and train with them.
I know we both want a safer place to live, but in that process I need a way to keep myself safe, which my constitution guarantees me.
Let's take the question away from the emotive. Think back to the cold war and the US / Russian arms race. If you were the World Government of that time would you consider it safer for your people to remove access to those weapons due to the risk of their use?
Why is the constitution inviolate? It was written in other times to deal with other circumstances. Where it is no longer applicable, it is correct to take rights that are no longer justifiable away from people who abuse them.
Obama on gun control
Accountable;976403 wrote: There are things important enough to close one's mind to, then.
No, all beliefs must be justifiable at all times.
Accountable;976403 wrote:
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... 240&page=4
Post 34. I don't know if you've been following the thread.
Sorry, I thought you were confirming Hoss's change of mind :p
No, all beliefs must be justifiable at all times.
Accountable;976403 wrote:
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... 240&page=4
Post 34. I don't know if you've been following the thread.
Sorry, I thought you were confirming Hoss's change of mind :p
Obama on gun control
Accountable;976406 wrote: A few hundred religious zealots have flummoxed that same military. I'm not giving up hope or my rights.
For three days - how many survived?
For three days - how many survived?
Obama on gun control
Hoss;976407 wrote: I disagree, keeping guns for me and my family’s protection as my right and not a detriment to our security.
We don't need to overthrow them, just resist tyranny when it emerges even at the loss of life and we will have fought the good fight to protect and defend our constitution.
The word spreads fast when American rights are trampled on. Never forget the shot heard round the world.
Do not understand - the government overstep their bounds, you rebel and are shot to hell (sorry, heaven), what has been gained?
As opposed to the immediate gain to the whole of society in a peaceful, gun free, environment.
We don't need to overthrow them, just resist tyranny when it emerges even at the loss of life and we will have fought the good fight to protect and defend our constitution.
The word spreads fast when American rights are trampled on. Never forget the shot heard round the world.
Do not understand - the government overstep their bounds, you rebel and are shot to hell (sorry, heaven), what has been gained?
As opposed to the immediate gain to the whole of society in a peaceful, gun free, environment.
Obama on gun control
Hoss;976421 wrote: I mean that, what the criminal mind is or is not going to do has nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms.
My point is that we hold other rights in high regard but not the right to keep and bear arms,... I realize this...As defined by the constitution...The difference is there are those willing to give up their arms to prevent all lives being killed whereas there are those willing to sacrifice the lives of all people, with exception to themselves, to keep a right given to a people by their government. There is a middle ground. I personally do not give that much credit to the right rather I do not feel that a ban on guns would be prudent in the legislature of the United States of America...Not under todays' circumstances more than other specific instances...
Hoss;976421 wrote:
its ridiculous to tell someone he can’t have his porn magazine because it can lead to rape. We don't punish someone for a crime they can commit, we punish people for a crime they have committed.The difference being that magazines are not the instrument that rapes a victim...If such were prevalent I could just as easily say that a bible has murdered countless amounts of people while has saved just as many.
My point is that we hold other rights in high regard but not the right to keep and bear arms,... I realize this...As defined by the constitution...The difference is there are those willing to give up their arms to prevent all lives being killed whereas there are those willing to sacrifice the lives of all people, with exception to themselves, to keep a right given to a people by their government. There is a middle ground. I personally do not give that much credit to the right rather I do not feel that a ban on guns would be prudent in the legislature of the United States of America...Not under todays' circumstances more than other specific instances...
Hoss;976421 wrote:
its ridiculous to tell someone he can’t have his porn magazine because it can lead to rape. We don't punish someone for a crime they can commit, we punish people for a crime they have committed.The difference being that magazines are not the instrument that rapes a victim...If such were prevalent I could just as easily say that a bible has murdered countless amounts of people while has saved just as many.
Obama on gun control
Hoss;976427 wrote: The US constitution does not cover the world.
If we need to change it there is process, until its changed it is the law of the land where I live.
Would you or would you not change the constitution for the betterment of it's citizens' majority?...
If we need to change it there is process, until its changed it is the law of the land where I live.
Would you or would you not change the constitution for the betterment of it's citizens' majority?...
Obama on gun control
Hoss;976434 wrote: I don’t like middle ground if it means I’ve given up something that means a great deal to me. I’m not a compromiser when it comes to the US Constitution. I'd asked yo a question which will address this...I hope you find it...
Hoss;976434 wrote:
My point with the magazine isn’t the example itself; it’s the fact that we do not punish someone who hasn’t committed a crime. We punish people for committing a crime.
My point is is that guns serve to kill by their physical nature which means all should amend a piece of legislature from which serves the best interests of said countries' majority and the statement so many feel is more important than the preservation of life renders the entire cause not only hypocritical but biased and uneducated...
Hoss;976434 wrote:
My point with the magazine isn’t the example itself; it’s the fact that we do not punish someone who hasn’t committed a crime. We punish people for committing a crime.
My point is is that guns serve to kill by their physical nature which means all should amend a piece of legislature from which serves the best interests of said countries' majority and the statement so many feel is more important than the preservation of life renders the entire cause not only hypocritical but biased and uneducated...
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976412 wrote: No, all beliefs must be justifiable at all times.It's not a belief, it's a right. While I agree I should be expected to use discretion in exercising my right, I cannot imagine any scenario at all that justifies losing them. Got an example? Speech, perhaps. When would you be willing to cede your right to speak as you wish? Worship?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Sorry, I thought you were confirming Hoss's change of mind :pI think we both changed that time.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Sorry, I thought you were confirming Hoss's change of mind :pI think we both changed that time.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Obama on gun control
Bryn Mawr;976413 wrote: For three days - how many survived?
Are you referring to a battle? I'm talking about a war.
Are you referring to a battle? I'm talking about a war.