1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[Gun Control] Obama: "Examine Your Conscience"

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by roxxfan, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. Commodore

    Commodore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    33,572
    Likes Received:
    17,547
    By this reasoning the internet and radio and television are not protected by the 1st amendment, since that technology could not have been foreseen at the time it was written.

    Instead of twisting yourself in knots trying to argue a right to bear arms isn't protected, why not acknowledge it and call for its repeal?
     
  2. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    60,020
    Likes Received:
    133,315
    Ehh I seriously doubt an assault rifle ban will do much and believe there are bigger fish to fry... BUT ... To label this as a liberal tactic is foolish. Rush Limbaugh among others do the same thing...
     
  3. Svpernaut

    Svpernaut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    8,446
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    We are arguing about guns and rifles, so I used it in the CONTEXT of guns. It's called staying on topic, and how debates usually work...

    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xwdba9C2G14" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    The basic mechanical properties of semi-automatic weapons haven't changed all that much since their inception, just like the combustion engine.

    As Commodore so eloquently put it after me, if modern guns aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment why should free speech on radio, television and the internet be protected by the 1st Amendment? The founding fathers could have predicted advancement in guns a hell of a lot better than they could the coming of YouTube.
     
  4. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    55,682
    Likes Received:
    43,473
    Why? Because the 2nd amendment explicitly states "arms", not just small arms which would just be non crew served weapons. Again, the founding fathers were great men but were not perfect. They had flaws(like not being strong enough to fight racial injustice such as slavery) and sometimes vague wording that causes these heated debates we have today. But lets just assume that the founding fathers had some lick of common sense. We then can assume that 2nd amendment neither states or denies regulation on weapons, which means there is a legitimate way to instill regulation of certain weapons without infringing on the 2nd amendment. And Commodore's analogy to the 1st amendment is silly. Free speech cannot kill or threaten public safety like weapons can unless someone threatens to kill or screams "fire" or "bomb" in a public setting which IS restricted.
     
  5. Svpernaut

    Svpernaut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    8,446
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    [​IMG]
     
  6. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    55,682
    Likes Received:
    43,473
    Umm... Where is the contradiction?
     
  7. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    55,682
    Likes Received:
    43,473
    Nevermind I see where you see it but only a fool would think its a contradiction. Let me guess...
    You think its the person not the free speech or weapon that kills. And you think from that one line that is what I was also stating? First lets get this clear. The soul purpose of a weapon is to inflict physical damage. There are many reasons for speech. Second there ARE restrictions on free speech that can threaten public safety... thus there should be the same on weapons.
     
  8. Red Chocolate

    Red Chocolate Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,576
    Likes Received:
    309
    the founding fathers also did not want a standing army which we obviously have now... of course they saw the emergence of technology. The point is Americans have fallen for the exact same tricks that these guys warned us about, and will continue to until the next mass genocide.
     
  9. Tom Bombadillo

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    29,091
    Likes Received:
    23,992
    The majority of statistics show that total gun control does pretty much nothing, in the states and abroad.

    http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

    Regulations are another story.

    Background checks are a must. We need to improve the database for background checks in all states. And obviously, nuclear bombs are a no no... :)
     
    #69 Tom Bombadillo, Jan 15, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2013
  10. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    It's not a red herring to talk about larger weapons. We have come to just think of "guns," but "arms" in the dictionary means "weapons."

    At the time of writing the 2nd amendment, they had blades, muskets and cannons. They clearly meant for citizens to own blades and muskets, and if they had a position on cannons, I don't know about it. It is currently, to the best of my knowledge, legal to own a "black powder," or muzzle-loading cannon. You can build it, buy it, sell it on the internet, etc.

    So we've drawn a line, and we have to admit it. It's nothing to mock or make fun of.

    You can own: muskets, revolvers, pistols, rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic small arms in totality, (including large magazines), and muzzle-loading cannons.

    You cannot own: automatic weapons (thank God in heaven, but it's totally arbitrary), 20th-century and modern artillery, tanks, drones*, WMD.

    We've drawn a line and sorry, it's like abortion, people will argue the line 'til their blue in the teeth, and that's what we're doing here. Don't say tanks are ridiculous if our laws let you own a hummer with a mounted semi-automatic large caliber assault rifle or similar. There's a line separating those and we've decided which is a legal weapon and which is not. It is a line clearly not covered in the brief text of the 2nd Amendment, when a lot of this crap didn't exist. Hence, unless we want to reduce it to muskets and black powder cannons, or just make everything legal, we have to decide these things together.

    Most of us believe the line probably exists because some weapons are considered "too dangerous" or capable of inflicting too much harm (e.g. a modern tank or an automatic weapon.) If there is some other possible reason, enlighten me. (Automatics create too much pollution? LOL)

    * = if I fit a drone with a remote-controlled semi-auto rifle, that might be totally legal. Sweet! I know I can own my own remote-controlled aircraft, so this is food for thought. Look out, ROXRAN.... MWAHAHAHAHA. ;) Naw, just kidding. I will name it after you and let it help keep our families safe.
     
    2 people like this.
  11. Classic

    Classic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,101
    Likes Received:
    608
    Good post B-Bob. I've been withdrawn from the topic but reading the opinions of others. I think this comes down to what weapons are allowed to be sold by the MFG'er. I think secretly (or maybe openly) gun mfg'ers like the fact that semi auto matic weapons can find their way into the hands of criminals. this forces more orders to combat this problem by the purchase of individuals as well as police task forces & govt agencies. So...violence is good for the mfg'er as well as fear & paranoia as they get orders from middle class/swat/fbi/dea/ice/whoever.

    I would support guns sale legislation if it were coupled with a decriminalization of marajuana & other hard drugs. All the statistics being cited to support this issue are not Sandy Hook incidences but are in fact inner city or rural drug or drug turf issues. Cut off the appeal and underground $ flow of drugs, tax them & at the same time provide more treatment help for drug users & then overhaul what weapons are sold and I think we'd have some progress. Unfortunately, special interests won't allow this all to happen but it should.
     
  12. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,864
    Likes Received:
    41,391
    Commodore, casting you and the rest of the gun nuts as an extremist idiot hardly requires any editorializing - go back and read any of your posts from about 3 months ago when you were educating us all on the Science of "unskewed polling" - it should be incredibly embarrassing for you and would cuase a logical person to reexamine what he deems to be reality. But you stand undeterred...

    Our buddy Supernavt over here didn't even wait till the last 6 year old had bled out in Newtown in order to storm the internets and issue forth the standard NRA proclamations, consisting of the same tired, flimsy, and in many cases mutually exclusive arguments - go read the thread.

    What need is there to caricature that? None at all. The newly-minted MEMBERS OF THE INTERNET CON LAW BAR that have been admitted since Newtown caricature themselves- the suggestion that one needs merely to read the second amendment to necessarily understand that contemplated gun control reform measure X is per se illegal ludicrous on its face and is not an argument that can be made in good faith, and even though I do actually have an active law license, a la the great Star Jones - I don't need one to know this.
     
  13. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    I have a question for those arguing the pro-gun side. If you are holding the 2nd Amendment as an absolute even if we just limit the discussion of arms to small arms (hand held and fired) then should things like fully automatic weapons, bazooka's and RPG's be legal?
     
  14. tallanvor

    tallanvor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    18,724
    Likes Received:
    11,844
    what do you mean by 'absolute'?
     
  15. tallanvor

    tallanvor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    18,724
    Likes Received:
    11,844
    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wt1Zy_ASNyA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

     
  16. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,810
    Likes Received:
    20,466
    No, that's not what I'm saying at all. As has been pointed out countless times before...

    The second amendment says a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

    The founding fathers agreed and wrote in that there should be regulation. Unless you believe that people should be able to carry nukes, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. then you are fine with some regulation.

    But you aren't fine with other regulation like high capacity magazines and assault rifles. Because you aren't fine with that has nothing to do with what's actually in the constitution.
     
    1 person likes this.
  17. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,810
    Likes Received:
    20,466
    Hahaha! You're using a story by James O'Keefe.

    You've already lost.
     
  18. leroy

    leroy Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Messages:
    27,373
    Likes Received:
    11,250
    Here's another thing I can't stand from you gun nuts. Least deadly round? It won't kill an elephant. Fine. Didn't seem like it was less deadly that day, though, did it?
     
  19. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    18,199
    Likes Received:
    8,598
    Bazooka's and RPG's (and WMD's) would be considered high explosives.

    I would argue that semi automatic rifles are more dangerous than fully automatic weapons, unless you think someone is going to whip out a deployable .50 cal.
     
  20. Anticope

    Anticope Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,020
    Likes Received:
    1,217
     

Share This Page