Shooting in Conn. School

[quote name='Knoell']Aka, you don't have an argument. It's ok though this is cag vs. Just say strawman and you will do just fine[/QUOTE]

Commerce Clause. Rebut away.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's the catch though, it's already been shown people can't responsibly handle them. If you know people are going to use them irresponsibly, the least you can do is limit what they have access to. Most gun owners seem to feel like responsibility has nothing to do with it, it's their right regardless of whether or not they're responsible with them, and while that may be true on paper, that's a really stupid way of thinking.[/QUOTE]

Is it your belief after watching a shooting in a school that you believe people can't responsibly handle guns or did you watch a 10 minute youtube clip of people being stupid with guns?

Back this up please, I would love to know. Maybe it is your all knowing ability to determine what citizens can and cannot handle.

Not holding my breath though, because you blocked me, and won't even elaborate on your own points.
 
[quote name='Knoell']http://news.yahoo.com/school-confis...436269776891":"news.reads"}&action_ref_map=[]

I am sure you guys will be all for this type of stuff. Enjoy.[/QUOTE]

Yep that's pretty similar right enough. Cupcake...assault weapon....

This argument reminds me of a friend i used to argue with. She would adamantly really get protective and fight over stuff that didn't matter and she didn't really care about, just because at the time it was stuck in her head this is what she should do. Banning assault weapons wouldn't have a negative effect on anybody except a couple gun shop owners. So why such opposition to it?
 
[quote name='granturismo']Yep that's pretty similar right enough. Cupcake...assault weapon....

This argument reminds me of a friend i used to argue with. She would adamantly really get protective and fight over stuff that didn't matter and she didn't really care about, just because at the time it was stuck in her head this is what she should do. Banning assault weapons wouldn't have a negative effect on anybody except a couple gun shop owners. So why such opposition to it?[/QUOTE]

Neither would banning sports cars.

I still haven't heard a solid argument about WHY you need to ban them. Give me something/anything besides "we don't need them". I am sorry but that isn't good enough.

That wasn't the point though. The link was related to the OP of this thread. You know....the school shooting.
 
LOL. Necessity trumps the law. You do not need freedom of speech, press or religion. You do not need to be free from random search and seizure by the government or it's agents. You do not need to be able to vote for your leaders, especially if you're black and there have been more amendments made to the Bill of Rights which did not need to be made to curb the wrongly perceived persecution.

Necessity is a bitch, isn't it? Because clearly African Americans needed to be taxed extra to vote and taxed extra on guns, that's why there were laws written by Democrats in favor of that. Because they didn't need their rights defined under the Bill of Rights. Bunch of revisionist hypocrites arguing necessity, this is the path you walk down and it is one paved with racism, inequality and elitism.
 
[quote name='Mad39er']LOL. Necessity trumps the law. You do not need freedom of speech, press or religion. You do not need to be free from random search and seizure by the government or it's agents. You do not need to be able to vote for your leaders, especially if you're black and there have been more amendments made to the Bill of Rights which did not need to be made to curb the wrongly perceived persecution.[/quote]
Please clarify this because it doesn't seem like you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Necessity is a bitch, isn't it? Because clearly African Americans needed to be taxed extra to vote and taxed extra on guns, that's why there were laws written by Democrats in favor of that. Because they didn't need their rights defined under the Bill of Rights. Bunch of revisionist hypocrites arguing necessity, this is the path you walk down and it is one paved with racism, inequality and elitism.
Click to expand...
Just a slight nitpick: what you're ranting about has more to do with regional lines than those of political parties. There's a reason why the Southern Strategy is called the Southern Strategy and not the Dixicrat/Democratic Strategy. If you want to bitch about revisionsim, at least approach it with a nuanced view instead of parroting right-wing memes.

The Republicans don't have a monopoly on racists, but if you're a racist, you'd more likely be a Republican than a Democrat today.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Please clarify this because it doesn't seem like you know what the fuck you're talking about.[/QUOTE] You need to be lead to water and be made to drink, you've demonstrated that clearly enough. If you don't understand something because it's beyond your scope, that's not really my issue.

Just a slight nitpick: what you're ranting about has more to do with regional lines than those of political parties. There's a reason why the Southern Strategy is called the Southern Strategy and not the Dixicrat/Democratic Strategy. If you want to bitch about revisionsim, at least approach it with a nuanced view instead of parroting right-wing memes.

The Republicans don't have a monopoly on racists, but if you're a racist, you'd more likely be a Republican than a Democrat today.
Click to expand...
The reason why the Democrats labelled that the Southern Strategy is because they abandoned that core group of their voters that caused the Battle of Athens among other things. The Republican Party has had on average 50 years to reform 170 years of Democratic hate. Again, you don't grasp that easily, not my problem. Since the Democrats abandoned their White Hate groups the power of those groups has dwindled into what we now experience today, instead of rising to the point of corrupting the government, fixing ballot boxes and writing Jim Crow laws.
 
[quote name='Mad39er']You need to be lead to water and be made to drink, you've demonstrated that clearly enough. If you don't understand something because it's beyond your scope, that's not really my issue.[/quote]
:rofl:

The "Bill of Rights" only refers to the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution, smart guy. Any additional Amendments are considered Amendments to the Constitution, NOT the Bill of Rights. This is pretty basic stuff.

What I'd really like to know is how black people experienced, as you say, "wrongly perceived persecution."

The reason why the Democrats labelled that the Southern Strategy is because they abandoned that core group of their voters that caused the Battle of Athens among other things.
Click to expand...
Ummm...the Southern Strategy was coined by a Republican in the 60's.

Not sure what the Battle of Athens has to do with anything unless there were time-traveling Democrats from the 60's that told Democrats in the 1940's to abandon their racist southern base.

Those elected Democratic representatives didn't abandon their constituents; they became Republicans.

The Republican Party has had on average 50 years to reform 170 years of Democratic hate. Again, you don't grasp that easily, not my problem. Since the Democrats abandoned their White Hate groups the power of those groups has dwindled into what we now experience today, instead of rising to the point of corrupting the government, fixing ballot boxes and writing Jim Crow laws.
Click to expand...
Again, the Democratic Party didn't "abandon white hate groups;" the Democrats that were white supremacists abandoned the Democratic Party to become Republicans and therefore, the Republican party became the party of white supremacists starting in the 1960's.

If the Democratic Party abandoned the Southern Strategy as a way to gain more power as a party, aren't the things you listed, like corrupting government with racist legislation, a good thing? And since the Democratic Party has stopped doing it, is it then fair to characterize the modern Democratic Party and it's members, which tends to be the political party to fight that stuff, as the some ones that did it 50 years ago?

I'm as against racism as anyone, but if the Republican Party started trying to get reparations and wore dashiki's in solidarity in 2030 with the Democratic Party becoming racist Randian theocrats, I'd have a hard time hammering Republicans for being racists in 2030, you dig?
 
[quote name='dohdough']:rofl:

The "Bill of Rights" only refers to the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution, smart guy. Any additional Amendments are considered Amendments to the Constitution, NOT the Bill of Rights. This is pretty basic stuff.[/QUOTE]This is technically correct, you're absolutely right to point out my mistake there. Even though the Government archive site lists 1-10 on the same page as 11-27, it's a simple mistake. I have been humbled.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

What I'd really like to know is how black people experienced, as you say, "wrongly perceived persecution."
Click to expand...
Woosh! That's the sound of it going over your head. The entire first paragraph was dripping in sarcasm.

Ummm...the Southern Strategy was coined by a Republican in the 60's.

Not sure what the Battle of Athens has to do with anything unless there were time-traveling Democrats from the 60's that told Democrats in the 1940's to abandon their racist southern base.
Click to expand...
Lovely deflection, I almost fell for it. I had to actually look at what I wrote because quite clearly the words say...
they abandoned that core group of their voters that caused the Battle of Athens among other things.
Click to expand...
Because corrupt Democrats caused the event to happen, when a white Deputy shot a black voter named Tom Gillespie.


Those elected Democratic representatives didn't abandon their constituents; they became Republicans.

Again, the Democratic Party didn't "abandon white hate groups;" the Democrats that were white supremacists abandoned the Democratic Party to become Republicans and therefore, the Republican party became the party of white supremacists starting in the 1960's.

If the Democratic Party abandoned the Southern Strategy as a way to gain more power as a party, aren't the things you listed, like corrupting government with racist legislation, a good thing? And since the Democratic Party has stopped doing it, is it then fair to characterize the modern Democratic Party and it's members, which tends to be the political party to fight that stuff, as the some ones that did it 50 years ago?
Click to expand...
The Democratic party signed away the core of their hate groups by signing into law the Voters Rights Act in 1965. This is the definition, the very heart at how they abandoned their hate groups. Lyndon B Johnson acknowledged by doing so he caused the Democrats to "lose the South" for generations. They did not become Republicans because Republicans were racists and appealed to ALL of their views, they became Republicans because their party no longer supported their hate and the Republicans supported the rest of their Southern culture, of Christianity and Conservative views. There is racism in the party but if it were allowed to grow at the same rates as the Democrats who fed it like a mushroom, keeping them in the dark and shoveling all their nasty shit at it, it would be overflowing like it was back then.

What you have is a history of support for Democratic hate applied up until that point in time, there is cause and there is effect. With that however you have a lot of voters, voters who did make their decisions in elections. You would fault the Republicans for picking up those voters because the Democrats don't want them any more? But the Republicans haven't catered to the hate, there has been no re-emergence of old guard hate groups with the same goals of restricting civil liberties of minorities. When the Democrats stopped supporting the restrictions on civil rights, everybody was a lot happier. Now we're restricting civil rights again and again and again.

I'm as against racism as anyone, but if the Republican Party started trying to get reparations and wore dashiki's in solidarity in 2030 with the Democratic Party becoming racist Randian theocrats, I'd have a hard time hammering Republicans for being racists in 2030, you dig?
Click to expand...
I normally wouldn't reply to something obviously rhetorical but that may just be the icing on your ignorant cake, may the Public School system bless you.
 
[quote name='IRHari']You can't trust gov't websites, those marxist gun grabbers want to grab your guns![/QUOTE]

Proposed in the new assault weapons ban.

3Wr3HVgl.jpg


No, they don't want to take any guns. Not at all.
 
[quote name='Mad39er']This is technically correct, you're absolutely right to point out my mistake there. Even though the Government archive site lists 1-10 on the same page as 11-27, it's a simple mistake. I have been humbled.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

Woosh! That's the sound of it going over your head. The entire first paragraph was dripping in sarcasm.[/quote]
Yeah...about that sarcasm? Maybe you should learn to write better if you want it to come across more clearly and effectively. You went from saying that you didn't need protections from bad things that happened and then you went to things that you needed protections from to bad things that Didn't happen. The problem isn't with my understanding; it's your prose.

Lovely deflection, I almost fell for it. I had to actually look at what I wrote because quite clearly the words say... Because corrupt Democrats caused the event to happen, when a white Deputy shot a black voter named Tom Gillespie.
Click to expand...
So all Democrats, past and present, are responsible for this because a town run by Democrats did a bad thing. Gotcha.

So what would it mean if a Republican run town did the same thing?

The Democratic party signed away the core of their hate groups by signing into law the Voters Rights Act in 1965. This is the definition, the very heart at how they abandoned their hate groups. Lyndon B Johnson acknowledged by doing so he caused the Democrats to "lose the South" for generations. They did not become Republicans because Republicans were racists and appealed to ALL of their views, they became Republicans because their party no longer supported their hate and the Republicans supported the rest of their Southern culture, of Christianity and Conservative views. There is racism in the party but if it were allowed to grow at the same rates as the Democrats who fed it like a mushroom, keeping them in the dark and shoveling all their nasty shit at it, it would be overflowing like it was back then.

What you have is a history of support for Democratic hate applied up until that point in time, there is cause and there is effect. With that however you have a lot of voters, voters who did make their decisions in elections. You would fault the Republicans for picking up those voters because the Democrats don't want them any more? But the Republicans haven't catered to the hate, there has been no re-emergence of old guard hate groups with the same goals of restricting civil liberties of minorities. When the Democrats stopped supporting the restrictions on civil rights, everybody was a lot happier. Now we're restricting civil rights again and again and again.
Click to expand...
It's almost as if you're applying the same mentality of the 1960's to today. Lee Atwater would be so disappointed in you. HUGE hint there, holmes.

Here's another hint: There were Republicans in the south that supported the same thing as those Democrats and still do. ohshitmindblown

I normally wouldn't reply to something obviously rhetorical but that may just be the icing on your ignorant cake, may the Public School system bless you.
Click to expand...
It's isn't rhetorical, but hypothetical, which is the word I think you're looking for. I guess my public schooling was good enough to know what the Bill of Rights is and the difference between rhetorical and hypothetical. But I guess I'm the ignorant one.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah...about that sarcasm? Maybe you should learn to write better if you want it to come across more clearly and effectively. You went from saying that you didn't need protections from bad things that happened and then you went to things that you needed protections from to bad things that Didn't happen. The problem isn't with my understanding; it's your prose.[/QUOTE]The fact that you can't read the sarcasm from this: [quote name='Mad39er']LOL. Necessity trumps the law. You do not need freedom of speech, press or religion. You do not need to be free from random search and seizure by the government or it's agents. You do not need to be able to vote for your leaders, especially if you're black and there have been more amendments made to the Bill of Rights which did not need to be made to curb the wrongly perceived persecution.[/QUOTE] Is really telling about how shameful you are at baiting.

So all Democrats, past and present, are responsible for this because a town run by Democrats did a bad thing. Gotcha.

So what would it mean if a Republican run town did the same thing
Click to expand...
Actually if your ADD didn't direct your conversation elsewhere, you'd realize that I was staying on topic with what I posted while you deflected towards your happy zone of blissful ignorance.
It's almost as if you're applying the same mentality of the 1960's to today. Lee Atwater would be so disappointed in you. HUGE hint there, holmes.

Here's another hint: There were Republicans in the south that supported the same thing as those Democrats and still do. ohshitmindblown
Click to expand...
LOL. Somehow you think you're making a point but all you're doing is saying water is wet. Racism exists, for 170 years the Democratic party enabled it to reach the highest of heights of it in the South and promptly, with the passing of one set of laws in 1965 suddenly decided they were going to be on the winning side. If the racist Republicans were or are as bad as you're making them out to be, there would be more hate. There isn't. What there is however is celebrities screaming racism all the time, liberals screaming racism all the time, you have black liberals denouncing conservative blacks because they're not toe-ing the "black" party line. You have Russel Simmons attacking the new NRA spokesman for promoting violence when Russel Simmons Rush Card fleeces the poor people his prepaid card is targeted and marketed towards helping.

The racist culture right now is the creation of the Liberals focused on nurturing the specific conditions in which it has become acceptable culturally for people of color not to move up in status, to worship villians as heroes, to drop the n-bomb and every profanity in every piece of popular urban music as much as possible. Liberals have lowered the standards on acceptable speech and defended it by citing Freedom of Speech, stunting the growth of a whole culture of urban youths into gangster worship and violence. The real racism is that this culture is now accepted and promoted where the status quo is the height of success and anybody who improves themselves beyond that is treated to their xenophobic zeal.

It's isn't rhetorical, but hypothetical, which is the word I think you're looking for. I guess my public schooling was good enough to know what the Bill of Rights is and the difference between rhetorical and hypothetical. But I guess I'm the ignorant one.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that I did not take you seriously and start laughing harder. I'll correct that now, lol.
 
[quote name='Mad39er']The fact that you can't read the sarcasm from this: Is really telling about how shameful you are at baiting.[/quote]
That's nice and all, but you still haven't defined "wrongly perceived persecution" and the nature of that statement is inconsistent with the rest of the context of the "sarcasm."

Actually if your ADD didn't direct your conversation elsewhere, you'd realize that I was staying on topic with what I posted while you deflected towards your happy zone of blissful ignorance.
Click to expand...
The only topic you're interested in is pointing out how Democrats, the Democratic Party, and liberals are the REAL racists. Now if you led with that and called it a day, you would've saved us both some effort.

LOL. Somehow you think you're making a point but all you're doing is saying water is wet. Racism exists, for 170 years the Democratic party enabled it to reach the highest of heights of it in the South and promptly, with the passing of one set of laws in 1965 suddenly decided they were going to be on the winning side. If the racist Republicans were or are as bad as you're making them out to be, there would be more hate. There isn't. What there is however is celebrities screaming racism all the time, liberals screaming racism all the time, you have black liberals denouncing conservative blacks because they're not toe-ing the "black" party line. You have Russel Simmons attacking the new NRA spokesman for promoting violence when Russel Simmons Rush Card fleeces the poor people his prepaid card is targeted and marketed towards helping.
Click to expand...
The modern Republican Party is no longer the party of Lincoln and the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the KKK. This is NOT a complicated concept and neither is looking at voting trends to notice that they're split more on regional than party lines.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is more complicated than Democrats wanting to "be on the winning side." They could've just as easily told black people to get fucked and no one would've really given a damn. In matter of fact, that's what everyone was doing and Kennedy deemed it too much of a political risk. It wasn't until a couple of assassinations and Johnson twisting the arm of everyone in Congress to get that bill passed. I'm not the one ignoring the differences between northern Democrats and Republicans with southern Democrats and Republicans. But please go on about how ignorant I am with these issues.

You want to talk about black celebrities that prey on the poor? Go right ahead! You forgot Sean Combs, Master P, and Jay Z. In matter of fact, I welcome it because they need to be called out on it. You know why? Because I'm not an ideologue.

The racist culture right now is the creation of the Liberals focused on nurturing the specific conditions in which it has become acceptable culturally for people of color not to move up in status, to worship villians as heroes, to drop the n-bomb and every profanity in every piece of popular urban music as much as possible. Liberals have lowered the standards on acceptable speech and defended it by citing Freedom of Speech, stunting the growth of a whole culture of urban youths into gangster worship and violence. The real racism is that this culture is now accepted and promoted where the status quo is the height of success and anybody who improves themselves beyond that is treated to their xenophobic zeal.
Click to expand...
Yeah, white flight, red-lining, job discrimination, loan discrimination, wage discrimination, segregation, and disenfranchisement have absolutely nothing to do with anything...especially since they didn't stop in 1964.

I'm sorry that I did not take you seriously and start laughing harder. I'll correct that now, lol.
Click to expand...
WTF does this even mean? Like, I get your point, but is it really THAT hard to come up with a coherent and biting insult? I don't even care if you do as long as you come up with something that isn't lame. That attempt you just made? It's one step above the mimicry game and hackish...it's almost as if you don't understand how sarcasm works. It's like someone handing you a twinkie, you saying in a sarcastic tone "I really hate twinkies," and then you tossing it on the ground to stomp the hell out of it. Sarcasm doesn't work that way.

fuck it. I'm playing FF13-2
 
[quote name='Knoell']Proposed in the new assault weapons ban.

3Wr3HVgl.jpg


No, they don't want to take any guns. Not at all.[/QUOTE]

That's a list of weapons that will be confiscated? I said 'gun grabber'
 
[quote name='IRHari']That's a list of weapons that will be confiscated? I said 'gun grabber'[/QUOTE]

I would assume they would be confiscated from manufacturers, sellers, etc... or forced to destroy them.

a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons
Click to expand...

Notice the "military-style" Feinstein throws in there. That is the "scary black gun" part i was talking about. What exactly is a military style assault weapon?

So the assault weapons ban in it's entirety is to stop 1% of gun related homicides by preventing more assault weapons from being sold. Lolz.

Congrats, they may save 120 lives with this "must have or the union will implode" legislation. That is assuming that none of the murders will come from the assault weapons they aren't "grabbibg" as you put it.

Of course this is going by your logic that legislation like this would be effective, I don't believe it would be. You also probably believe that the majority those 120 murders were people who wanted to murder with the ease of a gun and wouldn't do it with a different weapon of choice.

There are just too many variables to blame murder on "having a gun".
 
I never heard that before, show me where that bill specifically advocates the government coming to manufacturer's/sellers & taking the specified guns away.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
fuck it. I'm playing FF13-2[/QUOTE]

Just as long as you don't go off playing MW2 cause there's derpy hackers there :cool:
 
[quote name='dohdough']That's nice and all, but you still haven't defined "wrongly perceived persecution" and the nature of that statement is inconsistent with the rest of the context of the "sarcasm."[/QUOTE]Are you so dense that you want me to define something so sarcastic that it went past your head? You're holding onto one tidbit like it's actually an argument that I truly believe that there was "wrongly perceived persecution". I don't know what to tell you, you just want to argue with three words taken completely out of context for your own idiotic reasoning. You only confirm that you need to be hand held through the discussion in every step of the way. What I will enjoy is you telling me I'm flip flopping or backing out on what I said, simply because you've got a hard on for taking things out of their context and making an argument where none exists.

The only topic you're interested in is pointing out how Democrats, the Democratic Party, and liberals are the REAL racists. Now if you led with that and called it a day, you would've saved us both some effort.
Click to expand...
No, I stated quite clearly that the road to gun control is paved in Democratic hate backed by years of it. You gave the age old "Democrats switched sides" and they haven't. They support ghettos, inner city violence and controlling the actions of those who cherish their rights.

The modern Republican Party is no longer the party of Lincoln and the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the KKK. This is NOT a complicated concept and neither is looking at voting trends to notice that they're split more on regional than party lines.
Click to expand...
That's half accurate, the Dems graduated well beyond the openly atrocious KKK. From ACORN rebranding it's self to OFA soliciting "donations" at the $500k mark to have quarterly meetings with the President, they're still trying to pursue gun control at every cost, including drudging up false racism in a class war that pits the black urban liberals versus the black conservatives. It's straight out black on black racism which makes no sense at all.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is more complicated than Democrats wanting to "be on the winning side." They could've just as easily told black people to get fucked and no one would've really given a damn. In matter of fact, that's what everyone was doing and Kennedy deemed it too much of a political risk. It wasn't until a couple of assassinations and Johnson twisting the arm of everyone in Congress to get that bill passed. I'm not the one ignoring the differences between northern Democrats and Republicans with southern Democrats and Republicans. But please go on about how ignorant I am with these issues.
Click to expand...
Your revision of history is simply amazing, the Democrats were facing increasing armed resistance and black voters started voting Republicans, they had to do something. The easiest and quickest thing was to abandon their hate groups, which they magically did once they started losing black voters. They took a hit in voters that they would recover in generations by revising history that removed political parties and affiliation from the history books taught in Public Schools.

You want to talk about black celebrities that prey on the poor? Go right ahead! You forgot Sean Combs, Master P, and Jay Z. In matter of fact, I welcome it because they need to be called out on it. You know why? Because I'm not an ideologue.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, however they're not picking on other black conservatives. On the flipside of that coin you also have intelligent black rappers, some convicted criminals, that acknowledge that gun control is not the answer. They don't get interviewed and when they do they get railroaded into an argument filled with gun control misinformation. T.I. got interviewed on Hot 97, it absolutely highlights the way this class war is being waged because they thought because he has money, because he was one of them, he'd fall in line.
http://youtu.be/6qpj0I5TF5s skip to 2:25.


Yeah, white flight, red-lining, job discrimination, loan discrimination, wage discrimination, segregation, and disenfranchisement have absolutely nothing to do with anything...especially since they didn't stop in 1964.
Click to expand...
Except they have everything to do with the racist class war that's being waged by the Democrats on their own constituents. The fact that any conservative points this out and they get attacked in such a way that demonizes their support of the victims.


WTF does this even mean? Like, I get your point, but is it really THAT hard to come up with a coherent and biting insult? I don't even care if you do as long as you come up with something that isn't lame. That attempt you just made? It's one step above the mimicry game and hackish...it's almost as if you don't understand how sarcasm works. It's like someone handing you a twinkie, you saying in a sarcastic tone "I really hate twinkies," and then you tossing it on the ground to stomp the hell out of it. Sarcasm doesn't work that way.fuck it. I'm playing FF13-2
Click to expand...
I don't need to make a biting insult, I'm laughing at your bait/humor/flailings. I'm satisfied that I don't need to lower myself to fit your stipulations of how somebody should interact with you.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I never heard that before, show me where that bill specifically advocates the government coming to manufacturer's/sellers & taking the specified guns away.[/QUOTE]

During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This provision for pre-ban firearms created higher prices in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adopting their own assault weapons bans.
Click to expand...

The new ban may be different but this is how the old ban did it.

So sure you are right. Noone is going to grab your guns. I still believe that removing my ability to purchase one is technically taking the gun away if I am a prospective buyer. But following your logic of a law like this being effective, it won't be at all. So I guess the fear of the government taking the guns comes from the fact that following gun control logic, is that you have to control guns to be effective.

That isn't to say that I believe that if they did confiscate the assault weapons it would be effective though, because these weapons account for less than 1% of gun related homicides. And of that 1% you are assuming that someone won't kill with another type of weapon if they didn't have the assault weapon.

This is also ignoring other emotional/vindictive reactions that take advantage of tragedies such as the New York SAFE act that now requires the registration of all assault weapons and limits magazines to 7 rounds (from 10). Because you know, the police would have been all over these past shootings if the person had registered the guns. :roll:

Funny part was that in their haste to pass the legislation without proper time constraints, they forgot to include Police as exempt in the SAFE act so they were all criminals as well. I wonder if they would have arrested each other had it not been corrected?

Edit: Now I am on a rant with the SAFE act. How many of you agree with this?
The law would require therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to tell government authorities if they believe a patient is likely to harm himself or others. That could lead to revoking the patient’s gun permit and seizing any guns.
In interviews Tuesday, one expert called the new law meaningless and said he expects mental health providers to ignore it, while others said they worry about its impact on patients.
Dr. Paul Appelbaum at Columbia University said the prospect of being reported to local mental health authorities and maybe the police might discourage people from revealing thoughts of harm to a therapist, or even from seeking treatment at all.
“The people who arguably most need to be in treatment and most need to feel free to talk about these disturbing impulses, may be the ones we make least likely to do so,” said the director of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia. “They will either simply not come, or not report the thoughts that they have.”
“If people with suicidal or homicidal impulses avoid treatment for fear of being reported in this way, they may be more likely to act on those impulses,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The law would require therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to tell government authorities if they believe a patient is likely to harm himself or others. That could lead to revoking the patient’s gun permit and seizing any guns.
In interviews Tuesday, one expert called the new law meaningless and said he expects mental health providers to ignore it, while others said they worry about its impact on patients.
Dr. Paul Appelbaum at Columbia University said the prospect of being reported to local mental health authorities and maybe the police might discourage people from revealing thoughts of harm to a therapist, or even from seeking treatment at all.
“The people who arguably most need to be in treatment and most need to feel free to talk about these disturbing impulses, may be the ones we make least likely to do so,” said the director of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia. “They will either simply not come, or not report the thoughts that they have.”
“If people with suicidal or homicidal impulses avoid treatment for fear of being reported in this way, they may be more likely to act on those impulses,” he said.


My issue with this argument is that the reasoning has many flaws. If somebody is issuing remarks and behavior that indicates they could possibly harm others, and at home they have a dozen firearms or assault weapons, surely it's just irresponsible not to report this person or take some sort of precaution?
 
[quote name='renique46']Just as long as you don't go off playing MW2 cause there's derpy hackers there :cool:[/QUOTE]
Hahaha...yeah. And we all know that it's only the kids of DemoRats swearing all over the place and calling people n****rs. Hell, I can hardly keep myself from doing it because that's how liberals roll!:rofl:

[quote name='Msut77']From KKK to Acorn how?[/QUOTE]
Cause DemoRATS are the REAL racists and ACORN is the Black KKK aka the NEW Black Panthers.
 
[quote name='renique46']Just as long as you don't go off playing MW2 cause there's derpy hackers there :cool:[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dohdough']Hahaha...yeah. And we all know that it's only the kids of DemoRats swearing all over the place and calling people n****rs. Hell, I can hardly keep myself from doing it because that's how liberals roll!:rofl:[/QUOTE]You do realize that both actually happen? Right? MW2 had and has a bad reputation for being the most hacked/cheated/exploited multiplayer game with the typical racist CoD kiddies that scream all sorts of random things. I guess when you're being clever and all you have is a title to make fun of someone by, that's all you really have.
 
[quote name='Knoell']That isn't to say that I believe that if they did confiscate the assault weapons it would be effective though, because these weapons account for less than 1% of gun related homicides. And of that 1% you are assuming that someone won't kill with another type of weapon if they didn't have the assault weapon.[/QUOTE]

Show me where I argued in favor of this new assault weapons ban.
 
[quote name='Mad39er']You do realize that both actually happen? Right? MW2 had and has a bad reputation for being the most hacked/cheated/exploited multiplayer game with the typical racist CoD kiddies that scream all sorts of random things. I guess when you're being clever and all you have is a title to make fun of someone by, that's all you really have.[/QUOTE]
Weren't you insulting me in every reply? Don't get all butt hurt because I'm showing you what sarcasm is supposed to look like.:rofl:
 
[quote name='IRHari']Show me where I argued in favor of this new assault weapons ban.[/QUOTE]

Let's not play any games and ask you if you are or aren't.

The snide remarks you have made throughout the thread lead me to assume you are.
 
Interesting game. The stupid remarks you have made throughout the thread lead me to assume you are a dipshit.

This is fun! Am I winning?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Interesting game. The stupid remarks you have made throughout the thread lead me to assume you are a dipshit.

This is fun! Am I winning?[/QUOTE]

Only you and your cronies would think an insult is comparable to an actual inquiry into what you think.
 
It's not an inquiry, you have no evidence to prove that's what I believe. I've made no indication that I believe an assault weapons ban is a good idea, yet, like the mouth-breather you are, you automatically assume that since I ask you important relevant questions, I must be on the 'other side'.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Weren't you insulting me in every reply? Don't get all butt hurt because I'm showing you what sarcasm is supposed to look like.:rofl:[/QUOTE]
Butt hurt? You're now resorting to really girlish personal attacks that fly by because they're actually true, using something that's so witty that you have no idea where it spawned from. I'm disappointed, for somebody setting the bar high on me you just walked around it. For people that posture they know better, they are better, it's hard to be impressed.
 
[quote name='IRHari']It's not an inquiry, you have no evidence to prove that's what I believe. I've made no indication that I believe an assault weapons ban is a good idea, yet, like the mouth-breather you are, you automatically assume that since I ask you important relevant questions, I must be on the 'other side'.[/QUOTE]

It is an inquiry, I am straight up asking you instead of playing the "prove it" game.

The fact that you won't engage in debating about the assault weapons ban shows you have nothing to add.

Also they are confiscating guns from people. At least in NY. After Sandy Hook, a friend of mine had a gun, and there was a record of him having some sort of mental issue, that wasnt too serious. They came to his house and took his gun. Why did they take his gun you ask? Because in NY he had to register it.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Also they are confiscating guns from people. At least in NY. After Sandy Hook, a friend of mine had a gun, and there was a record of him having some sort of mental issue, that wasnt too serious. They came to his house and took his gun. Why did they take his gun you ask? Because in NY he had to register it.[/QUOTE]
http://www.examiner.com/article/n-j...cated-by-attending-property-tax-dispute-forum
Basically cops said turn in your guns or your bail is going to be high, woman has no criminal history and is a legal owner of two registered guns. She turned them in to avoid the high bail.
 
Great, give the guy that's a neuroscience graduate student and probably an expert of the stuff, a "truth serum". What happens when he's able to "truthfully" tell them he was "The Joker" during that time? What then, do they still have the ability to execute him?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/12/judge-approves-truth-serum-james-holmes

Obviously I'm not even mentioning the 5th amendment issues here which are obvious to everyone and mentioned in the article.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Great, give the guy that's a neuroscience graduate student and probably an expert of the stuff, a "truth serum". What happens when he's able to "truthfully" tell them he was "The Joker" during that time? What then, do they still have the ability to execute him?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/12/judge-approves-truth-serum-james-holmes

Obviously I'm not even mentioning the 5th amendment issues here which are obvious to everyone and mentioned in the article.[/QUOTE]

You really don't expect that from a judge or court. Lie detectors cannot be used so how can this be? Especially to a mentally unbalanced person. He could say anything. I think it's clear he's guilty & Insane.
 
What a country...kill 12 people and plea "I was insane" and get a nice cushioned cell and taken care of for the rest of your life.

This is what the death penalty was designed for, even if he is or was insane.
 
Responsible gun owners? Now 2 on 1 is almost never a fair fight but if you instigate the fight and then get your ass kicked do you really have the right to then take a gun to "defend" yourself? Add to that you leave and then return to fire that gun into the truck of those you attacked in the first place. Sounds like the law is doing its job here and both these knuckleheads are being charged. Should they?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BARiP9Hyw4U
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top