• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

More on Gun Control

Grammatron:
Wow, I never knew that someone else I never met before can tell me what I am/was thinking :)
Click to expand...
You live and you learn. :)
Anything that has to do with gun ownership or restrictions on that ownership inevitably goes back to the 2nd amendment since with out it there would be no rights of gun ownership.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Even if arms weren't mentioned in the Constitution, there could still be laws concerning their availability, use, etc.
It's funny how you accuse people who go back to constitution of being "fundies" like creationist.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use the word "accuse". "Imply" would be more accurate. ;)
However, I bet if tomorrow someone in the state government forbid reporters of using certain words and critiquing certain people, I'm sure you would have no problem with that assault of free speech, you'd merely call it a correction of what free speech was suppose to be.
Click to expand...
No. The difference, you see, is that strong arguments can be made for "freedom of speech" without any reference to some Bible. I would like to see similar strong arguments made for free access to guns.
 
DanishDynamite said:
I would like to similar strong arguments made for free access to guns.
Click to expand...

Then, again, I would suggest you start a thread specifically devoted to that issue rather than attempting to mandate what is or is not relevant here. The threadstarter has spoken. Live with it.
 
Tony:
Getting butt-fuct by the state is in our best interests?
Click to expand...
I'm sure some people (no names) would enjoy the experience.
Just because europeans roll over when their rights are abused, doesnt mean americans will.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example of this illusion?
 
Wolverine:
Then, again, I would suggest you start a thread specifically devoted to that issue rather than attempting to mandate what is or is not relevant here. The threadstarter has spoken. Live with it.
Click to expand...
Indeed, he has spoken. Just like letters and other communication between the holy Founding Fathers "have spoken". The question is: What can actually be determined by what is stated in the binding posts/documents?

[Edited to change relevant to binding]
 
DanishDynamite said:

Can you give an example of this illusion?
Click to expand...


Plenty...

European "anti-racism" and "anti-hate speech" laws, intrusive and extreme gun control, excessively high taxes, and (something new I just learned about) requiring people to get TV licenses.

These are a few examples.
 
Tony:
Plenty...

European "anti-racism" and "anti-hate speech" laws, intrusive and extreme gun control, excessively high taxes, and (something new I just learned about) requiring people to get TV licenses.

These are a few examples.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you have to be more explicit. Which of our fundamental rights are being violated in each case?
 
DanishDynamite said:
Which of our fundamental rights are being violated in each case?
Click to expand...

Free speech, free thought, the right self ownership and the right to defend yourself.
 
The history of European governments is pretty much that people have the rights allowed by the government.

Here in the United States we formed a Constitution that limits the power of government. The Constitution is in fact a covenant between the people and the government. It allows for changes and prescribes the way changes can occur. People in other countries do not understand this and are often curious at our lack of trust in government. Perhaps it began with the autocratic and tyrannical governments of Europe in 17th and 18th centuries. Certainly they have come a long way since then but still have not a contract limiting the powers of their governments.
 
Hi there, Shiny. :)

Shinytop:
The history of European governments is pretty much that people have the rights allowed by the government.
Click to expand...
No. We have rights decreed in our Constitutions.
Here in the United States we formed a Constitution that limits the power of government. The Constitution is in fact a covenant between the people and the government. It allows for changes and prescribes the way changes can occur. People in other countries do not understand this and are often curious at our lack of trust in government.
Click to expand...
I understand it perfectly but still don't understand this endemic mistrust of the evil Guvmint.
Perhaps it began with the autocratic and tyrannical governments of Europe in 17th and 18th centuries. Certainly they have come a long way since then but still have not a contract limiting the powers of their governments.
Click to expand...
In principle, I think you may be right. In practice, we have no Patriot Act in this neck of the woods.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Please explain how this is an unlimited right in the US.
Click to expand...

Explain how you think its not.

Every European state has this right.

You equate defense of self with defense of state? I knew europe was more fascistic, but this unbelievable. I guess when the state is supreme; individuals’ protecting themselves is irrelevant.
 
Shinytop said:

If you are indeed a California resident you know the confiscation I speak of was only by type of gun, not for felonies as you have stated twice. The confiscation was done by declaring types of guns illegal after the legislature had promised no such law would occur. The types of guns were chosen by cosmetic reasons, not by ability to fire auto as that was already regulated. The thrust of my post was the breaking of promises by the legislature. Do you declare that false? Please stick to the subject this time.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what confiscation you are talking about, guns are confiscated from criminals in CA all the time. If you are discussing specifically the SKS confiscations that was due to a court ruling that clarified one particular aspect of the law. It had nothing to do with cosmetic changes, the illegal weapons were SKS sportsters that had been converted from a fixed magazine (legal in CA) to a removeable one (illegal in CA). The former AG had apparently said such conversions would be legal, but the Court determined otherwise.

As usual the paranoid gun-nuts ran around flapping their arms and screaming that the gummint was disarming the public. According to them it would only be a matter of time before the King of England would take advantage of the situation and start quartering troops in private homes.

In reality, the CA state government has zero interest in disarming the public. They are only interested in upholding the law as ruled by the local legislature. Owners of the illegal fireams were offered a cash settlement to turn in the illegal weapons. If you have a problem with that, complain about the assault rifle laws, not the registration initiative.
 
Tony:
Explain how you think its not.
Click to expand...
Sorry Tony boy. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
You equate defense of self with defense of state?
Click to expand...
No. Where did you get that idea?
I knew europe was more fascistic, but this unbelievable. I guess when the state is supreme; individuals’ protecting themselves is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
DanishDynamite said:

No. The difference, you see, is that strong arguments can be made for "freedom of speech" without any reference to some Bible. I would like to see similar strong arguments made for free access to guns.
Click to expand...

Go ahead, make a strong argument for "freedom of speech" without any reference to "some Bible."
 
Tony:
I never made any claim.
Click to expand...
Of course you did. You said that europeans roll over when their rights are abused, as opposed to Americans. Herre are your claims:
European "anti-racism" and "anti-hate speech" laws, intrusive and extreme gun control, excessively high taxes, and (something new I just learned about) requiring people to get TV licenses.
Click to expand...
In regard to your other misconception: when I said that every European state had the right of self-defense, I was obviously refering to the fact that every European state had the personal right of self defense on their books. Any thinking individual would have grasped this. :rolleyes:
 
Tony said:
No more amusing than when atheists gripe about the separation of church and state. Or when the ACLU refers to the first amendment. Or when defense lawyers bring up that pesky trail by jury.

If you hate the constitution so much, you could move to Mexico.
Click to expand...

I'm defending the consitution and the second amendment as they were written by the founding fathers. Its right-wing nutjobs like yourself that are trying to pervert it for your own political agenda.

Which is fine and dandy. Why don't you and your buddies take your capguns to Washington and stage a nice revolution? Then you could write a nice new consitution however you see fit. That would be much more effective (and patriotic) than crying on a web forum.
 
Grammatron:
Go ahead, make a strong argument for "freedom of speech" without any reference to "some Bible."
Click to expand...
You are being silly, Grammatron. F**cking books have been written on this subject.

Anyway, it is way past my bedtime. See you in about 18 hours.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Tony:
Of course you did. You said that europeans roll over when their rights are abused, as opposed to Americans. Herre are your claims:
Click to expand...

Thats not the "claim" you were talking about.

In regard to your other misconception: when I said that every European state had the right of self-defense, I was obviously refering to the fact that every European state had the personal right of self defense on their books. Any thinking individual would have grasped this.

I ask again, you equate defense of your person to defense of the state?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom