Sign In | Sign Up
Politics and World Issues
 
Gun Control II
Today's Activity
 

NickViar
Level 3

Join date: Nov 2006
Location:
Posts: 204

pushharder wrote:
Here you go, Hector. Bone up on your Second Amendment curriculum. To do otherwise makes you an unarmed man.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...45&pageNo=0



I don't know, pushharder, I think us serfs may be better off learning from this.

  Report
 

pushharder
Level 4

Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 32819

Cuomo to N.Y. Sheriffs: Keep quiet about gun law

"It is rapidly becoming a hallmark of anti-gun politicians to view the First Amendment with equal disdain as the Second Amendment. Both are 'inconvenient truths' in their zeal to enact new restrictions on our rights and our industry."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/.../#ixzz2UAIxG6AU

  Report
 

pat
Level 4

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 15065

MaximusB wrote:
We have a law in California that gun control advocates have been asking for, but the government failed to enact it.

"SACRAMENTO ? California authorities are empowered to seize weapons owned by convicted felons and people with mental illness, but staff shortages and funding cuts have left a backlog of more than 19,700 people to disarm, a law enforcement official said Tuesday."


http://articles.latimes.com/...a-guns-20130130

So yet again, a law is only as good as it's enforcement. You have gun control advocates demanding laws like this one above, but even when they get them passed, they aren't even enforced, and gun's rights people get the blame.


My worry is the definition of 'mentally ill'. I think we automatically get a picture in our heads of somebody who is really demented, but if they extend that definition (which is a mental illness' to like depression and mild shit like that then it worries me that they will extend that definition as far as it goes.

The bottom line is that most control advocates are not for 'limits' in as much as anti-abortion advocates are not for limits. Like me with abortion, anti-gun nuts want to make them illegal completely. Control is just an incremental step towards that. Like for me, abortion laws and limits are incremental steps to outlawing it. But I am not going to bullshit you and say "I just think we need to limit and control it." I am flat-out telling you, I want that shit outlawed and stopped completely. The 'gun-control' advocates have the same mindset I do about abortion, have no illusions. The difference is the end game, I want abortion outlawed because I think murdering innocent people no matter how small is just plain murder. They want unarmed citizens so the citizens can be more easily controlled and bullied.
The other difference is the honesty. They will lie about taking your guns, I won't lie about stopping the murder of innocents.

  Report
 

MaximusB
Level 4

Join date: Apr 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 12730

pat wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
We have a law in California that gun control advocates have been asking for, but the government failed to enact it.

"SACRAMENTO ? California authorities are empowered to seize weapons owned by convicted felons and people with mental illness, but staff shortages and funding cuts have left a backlog of more than 19,700 people to disarm, a law enforcement official said Tuesday."


http://articles.latimes.com/...a-guns-20130130

So yet again, a law is only as good as it's enforcement. You have gun control advocates demanding laws like this one above, but even when they get them passed, they aren't even enforced, and gun's rights people get the blame.


My worry is the definition of 'mentally ill'. I think we automatically get a picture in our heads of somebody who is really demented, but if they extend that definition (which is a mental illness' to like depression and mild shit like that then it worries me that they will extend that definition as far as it goes.

The bottom line is that most control advocates are not for 'limits' in as much as anti-abortion advocates are not for limits. Like me with abortion, anti-gun nuts want to make them illegal completely. Control is just an incremental step towards that. Like for me, abortion laws and limits are incremental steps to outlawing it. But I am not going to bullshit you and say "I just think we need to limit and control it." I am flat-out telling you, I want that shit outlawed and stopped completely. The 'gun-control' advocates have the same mindset I do about abortion, have no illusions. The difference is the end game, I want abortion outlawed because I think murdering innocent people no matter how small is just plain murder. They want unarmed citizens so the citizens can be more easily controlled and bullied.
The other difference is the honesty. They will lie about taking your guns, I won't lie about stopping the murder of innocents.



There is no honesty in government.

We are seeing the "I am Bert, you can trust me" train coming to a halt.

Credibility is a limited commodity, especially in government. The moment you show shades of shadiness, you're no better than the guy Bert replaced.


This whole notion of limited gun control is nothing more than getting their foot in the door. The moment they pass any law on it, it will be expanded little by little.

Government's best way to fuck a people over is by nickel-and-diming them, not in one broad swoop, but a little at a time.

  Report
 

pat
Level 4

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 15065

Villalobos wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Villalobos wrote:

...I think you can read this in a number of ways, first a well regulated militia is similar to a states National Guard...



Oh for cryin' out loud, this...this...this tired cliche is so boringly inaccurate it barely deserves a response.



Mr. Push,

How is it a tired cliche? It seems reasonable enough considering the definition of "militia".

"Militia :a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service"

Nowhere in that does it say "Earl, Jim Bob and Kenny in camo shooting up the border". The Militia Acts of 1792 also give a fair description of the purpose of a well organized militia., I am not anti-gun, but I think the issue isn't as cut and dried as you would like.

Hector


Militias are citizen 'armies', the National Guard is an official standing army.
The calling up of militia is still very much possible, you cannot call up a militia of unarmed people.
Whether a militia is called upon or not, or needed or not, the bottom line is that the rights of the citizens to bear arms cannot be infringed upon according to the BOR. That's the more important part of that language.
The founders weren't stupid, they were well aware that a militia was called upon to fight against the ruling government at the time when a self-governed set of colonies was just a movement.

  Report