United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!

[LDSman]

Then he should join the army.

And now the Court has ruled, any store owner caught selling guns to 18-year-olds will go to jail.

Oddly enough, it is legal for an 18 year old to own a handgun. We trust 18 yr olds to do many things. Why can't they buy a handgun? They can buy a shotgun or a rifle but not a handgun? It's stupid.

This this will come up again? One of these court cases started in 2008, and now the NRA is going to have to explain to its donors about the waste of money that went to fighting the law in three different courts. I doubt they'll be able to convince them to donate for another four-year battle when the opportunity ever comes up again...

Two of the cases were NRA backed, not three. People will donate. It helps to protect their Constitutional Right.

IF it does. Even Scalia is pro-gun control, and he's getting old. I doubt that the next Justice will favor lax gun laws, especially since the GOP's first goal is trying to come to a situation where they control Congress and the White House enough to appoint a pro-life Justice will be nominated (and for over forty years, they've failed to tip the Court fully in their favor on that one).

Gun Control types have also failed to tip the courts fully in their favor as well. And lax would be the wrong word. It's sensible gun laws.

They're going to be in for a big disappointment when a Justice actually has to retire.

We'll see.

As for the Ukraine, LDS, you do know, of course, that their president was just ousted in a coup and he's a fugitive now? Yanukovych was as different from our President as night is to day.

And some of the people behind the coup want to add a 2nd Amendment type law to their constitution. They recognize the importance of it.

 

[Maedar]

Oddly enough, it is legal for an 18 year old to own a handgun. We trust 18 yr olds to do many things. Why can't they buy a handgun? They can buy a shotgun or a rifle but not a handgun? It's stupid.

Well, three courts now say they can't, and the Supreme Court won't hear the case, which means, they can't. And the NRA will just have to live with it now.

Two of the cases were NRA backed, not three. People will donate. It helps to protect their Constitutional Right.

The Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution. This means, as of today, you do NOT have the Constitutional Right to sell guns to 18-year-olds.

Don't believe me? The authority of the Supreme Court is in Article III of the Constitution.

And the Republican supporters have been saying "we will see" since 2008, and they keep losing on issues. They said "we will see" about this one, and now we see.

Forgive me if I sound skeptical at this point.

 

[LDSman]

Well, three courts now say they can't, and the Supreme Court won't hear the case, which means, they can't. And the NRA will just have to live with it now.

And once again, what sense does it make to prevent an adult who is legally able to own a firearm, from buying a handgun?
What purpose does it serve?

The Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution. This means, as of today, you do NOT have the Constitutional Right to sell guns to 18-year-olds.

Please point out in the Constitution where there is an age restriction on Rights.

And the Republican supporters have been saying "we will see" since 2008, and they keep losing on issues. They said "we will see" about this one, and now we see.

Forgive me if I sound skeptical at this point.

Keep in mind the general trend towards sensible gun laws. There have been more laws supporting gun owners than there have been restricting owners.

 

[Maedar]

Please point out in the Constitution where there is an age restriction on Rights.

That is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has decided, that the laws are not unconstitutional and what they say goes. Period. There is no higher court.

Sure, the NRA can try to start over, but I tend to doubt their chances. (Don't forget, one of the lower courts that struck one of these laws down was in Texas.)

 

[LDSman]

That is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has decided, that the laws are not unconstitutional and what they say goes. Period. There is no higher court.

They didn't say anything. They choose to not take a case. There is a vast difference. And the Supreme Court also changes their rulings from time to time.

Sure, the NRA can try to start over, but I tend to doubt their chances. (Don't forget, one of the lower courts that struck one of these laws down was in Texas.)

The 9th court in CA ruled in favor of gun owners. Big surprise there.

No response to the age question or to Ukraine wanting a 2nd Amendment of their own?

 

[Maedar]

Okay, LDS, why don't we say that it should be legal for them to sell them to 16-year-olds? The Constitution doesn't forbid THAT either.

In fact, let's go further, and make it 14.

Why stop there? Let's make it legal for 10-year-olds to buy assault rifles, let them emulate their favorite cartoons early.

It's not what the Constitution says, it's what it doesn't say. The Second Amendment says, and I quote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That short - 27 word - sentence is vague, much like all of the Bill of Rights, and that was the point, due to the Elastic Clause nature of the Constitution. Thus, it can be interpreted by the Court as saying, a law that puts a mandatory age of 21 on purchase - which is also drinking age - is acceptable.

You and the other Republican supporters say, "a kid can serve in the military when he's 18, so why can't he buy a gun?" Well, if he wants to join the Army, fine! Better he be trained to use it as a soldier.

No response to the age question or to Ukraine wanting a 2nd Amendment of their own?

No, because this is NOT the Ukraine, and trying to compare the United States to a country that is in the process of adapting a new government after deposing its corrupt leader really stretching things. If Ukraine does get a very liberal Second Amendment - that's a BIG if - and gun owners like the Ukraine better than America because of it, I'll be happy to give them directions to LaGuardia, because like I keep telling people who compare this country to real dictatorships, they are free to leave at any time.

 

[LDSman]

Okay, LDS, why don't we say that it should be legal for them to sell them to 16-year-olds? The Constitution doesn't forbid THAT either.

In fact, let's go further, and make it 14.

Why stop there? Let's make it legal for 10-year-olds to buy assault rifles, let them emulate their favorite cartoons early.

Didn't answer the question. Instead you tried to turn it onto a strawman. Pointing out the stupidity of a law that restricts a purchase of a handgun, when they can purchase rifles and shotguns already does not equal 10 year olds buying "assault rifles." And where would this imaginary child get the hundreds of dollars necessary to buy such a rifle?

What is the difference between a 21 year old and an 18 year old? Why can someone be trusted to buy a shotgun or rifle before 21 but not a handgun? Plenty of children are quite capable of properly handling a firearm. They often hunt or target shoot with their family. Many have their own firearms. This odd belief you have about 10 year olds emulating their favorite cartoon is not reality.

It's not what the Constitution says, it's what it doesn't say. The Second Amendment says, and I quote:

Legally an adult? Yep. Able to buy a handgun? Nope. Sounds like infringement to me.

That short - 27 word - sentence is vague, much like all of the Bill of Rights, and that was the point, due to the Elastic Clause nature of the Constitution. Thus, it can be interpreted by the Court as saying, a law that puts a mandatory age of 21 - which is also drinking age - is acceptable.

It's not vague at all. Why would you think any of the Bill of Rights is vague?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militias are necessary to keep a state free. To make a militia, you need people who are able to keep (have) and bear (use) arms. To do so, the laws can not infringe(stop, hamper, impede) this.

No, because this is NOT the Ukraine, and trying to compare the United States to a country that is in the process of adapting a new government after deposing its corrupt leader really stretching things.

I wasn't making a comparison. You do have a point. Ukraine just got rid of the corrupt gov't using....weapons. The US got rid of the english using...weapons! The US made an Amendment so that if the gov't tried to become corrupt, the people could fight back. The Ukrainians want a similar amendment. There are absolutely no similarities there.

So the Ukrainians shouldn't be able to protect themselves against a corrupt gov't?

Hah. I wonder how those people were able to fight back. Everyone knows that militias or civilians can't stand up to militaries.

If Ukraine does get a very liberal Second Amendment - that's a BIG if - and gun owners like the Ukraine better than America because of it, I'll be happy to give them directions to LaGuardia, because like I keep telling people who compare this country to real dictatorships, they are free to leave at any time.

Yeah, that's a valid solution. Instead of fixing the problems, people should just leave the country. I wonder how many liberals left when Bush got re-elected.

edit: As far as joining the military? Owning a firearm is not dependant on military service. Some people would not be able to pass the physical fitness qualifications. Should their Rights be restricted? We trust 18 yr olds to do many different things. Vote, serve on juries, run for political office in some areas, join the military. Become a police officer. Why can't an 18 yr old be trusted to buy a handgun he is already legally allowed to own?

Edit: So did MLK throw away his guns? Did he get rid of his armed bodyguards? Was it wrong of the Civil Rights movement to openly defy laws?

 

[Maedar]

I wasn't making a comparison. You do have a point. Ukraine just got rid of the corrupt gov't using....weapons. The US got rid of the english using...weapons! The US made an Amendment so that if the gov't tried to become corrupt, the people could fight back. The Ukrainians want a similar amendment. There are absolutely no similarities there.

So the Ukrainians shouldn't be able to protect themselves against a corrupt gov't?

Hah. I wonder how those people were able to fight back. Everyone knows that militias or civilians can't stand up to militaries.

LDS, you know, sometimes I think you conservatives are actually looking for a fight. As I've said before, even if you had these "sensible" gun laws, an attempt to oust the US government by a small group who deemed them corrupt would likely last a day at most, ending with the more sensible half surrendering to the better-armed National Guard after the suborn and foolish half (who refused to throw down their guns) were gunned down.

Even one unit of our National Guard could defeat the entire Ukrainian army on our worst day. I'd bet any amount of money on it.

Edit: Rant and rave all you want, but you can't undo the decision.

 

[LDSman]

LDS, you know, sometimes I think you conservatives are actually looking for a fight. As I've said before, even if you had these "sensible" gun laws, an attempt to oust the US government by a small group who deemed them corrupt would likely last a day at most, ending with the more sensible half surrendering to the better-armed National Guard after the suborn and foolish half (who refused to throw down their guns) were gunned down.

Being prepared for a fight is not the same as looking for one. Undoubtably a small group would eventually lose to the larger military. Losing quickly to NG groups? Debatable.

And it's not about a small group fighting the gov't. It's a general rebellion.

Even one unit of our National Guard could defeat the entire Ukrainian army on our worst day. I'd bet any amount of money on it.

Not a bet I'd make. A unit is about 900 people or so. At least as far as I can tell. Not all of them are combat forces. Vs somewhere around 150,000. Not sure what their combat numbers are. Still a great way to get a NG unit killed.

Also, our civilians would be a lot better in a fight than their civilians. Ours are better fed, better educated, we have more resources to tap, etc.

Edit: Rant and rave all you want, but you can't undo the decision.

I'm hardly ranting and raving. I could point out that you can rant and rave all you want, but you won't be able to get rid of a Constitutional Right.

So to recap.

Can't or won't support the law on selling to 18 year olds. Can't or won't support your MLK claims. Can't or won't support your claim that the Bill of Rights is vague.

And that doesn't even cover any of the other claims you've made. Ie muggers, crime stats, "wild west" scenarios, etc.

 

[Maedar]

Not a bet I'd make. A unit is about 900 people or so. At least as far as I can tell. Not all of them are combat forces. Vs somewhere around 150,000. Not sure what their combat numbers are. Still a great way to get a NG unit killed.

We wouldn't need to use even one soldier. If we had to, we would take them all out with a missile silo from a hundred miles away. (We wouldn't even need a nuclear missile in this case, remember the bunker-busters we used in Desert Storm? We have better ones now. You Republicans complain about the drone strikes, but they would save the lives of countless soldiers if worse came to worst.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a pacifist who hated guns, he stopped using one, and if you refuse to read the article and see the point it was making, I will not discuss it with you. You can't support any of your claims either, because they are nothing more than opinions and scenarios that are unlikely to ever happen.

Can't or won't admit that the Supreme Court struck down these laws and that it's a blow to the NRA.

 

[LDSman]

We wouldn't need to use even one soldier. If we had to, we would take them all out with a missile silo from a hundred miles away. (We wouldn't even need a nuclear missile in this case, remember the bunker-busters we used in Desert Storm? We have better ones now. You Republicans complain about the drone strikes, but they would save the lives of countless soldiers if worse came to worst.

So instead of using a National Guard unit, you'd use missiles? Good luck with the civilian casualties. I wasn't aware the US had silos a hundred miles away from the Ukraine. What is the name of this silo? I'm not against drone strikes. They have their uses.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a pacifist who hated guns, he stopped using one, and if you refuse to read the article and see the point it was making, I will not discuss it with you. You can't support any of your claims either, because they are nothing more than opinions and scenarios that are unlikely to ever happen.

Please quote where MLK says he hated guns. Please show where MLK stopped his followers from having weapons. I have supported the majority of my claims with facts. Actual citations and studies. Guns are used to stop crimes more than they are used to cause crime. Fact. There is a Constitutional Right to have and bear a firearm. Fact.

Can't or won't admit that the Supreme Court struck down these laws and that it's a blow to the NRA.

The SC didn't strike down a law. They chose to not take up an appeal of the mentioned cases. And it's only a "blow" to those that have an odd hatred of the NRA. Setback? Just a little. There will be more cases.

Edit: Speaking of MLK. Any reply to your claim that openly defying the law is wrong as it applies to the civil rights movement?

Edit:

Teen saves woman, kills attempted kidnapper.

http://www.kotatv.com/story/24790904/teen-kills-attempted-abductor-in-wright-wyo

Tell me how a 15 year old could have stopped this abduction without a firearm?

 

[Maedar]

Please quote where MLK says he hated guns. Please show where MLK stopped his followers from having weapons. I have supported the majority of my claims with facts. Actual citations and studies. Guns are used to stop crimes more than they are used to cause crime. Fact. There is a Constitutional Right to have and bear a firearm. Fact.

You didn't even read my link, did you?

And the Supreme Court has refused to hear those cases, which means the challenges to those three laws are defeated.

Fact.

You Republicans want to have your cake and eat it too. You laugh in our faces and gloat when the Supreme Court rules in your favor, like in the case of Citizens United, but you scream and cry foul when they rule against you, like in the cases of DOMA and the ACA. Bachman's speech when DOMA was struck down was rather entertaining (in a pathetic way) but Ms. Pelosi's two-word response really took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[LDSman]

You didn't even read my link, did you?

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/20/when_martin_luther_king_jr_gave_up_his_guns_partner/

Ultimately, he never embraced the complete pacifism of A. J. Muste; later, in the Black Power years, King made a distinction between people using guns to defend themselves in the home and the question of “whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized protest.” But, for himself, King claimed nonviolence as a “way of life,” and he maintained his resolve under conditions that would make many others falter.

No mention of hating guns or any mention of having the armed guards in his home give up theirs.

And the Supreme Court has refused to hear those cases, which means the challenges to those three laws are defeated.

There will be more challenges.

You Republicans want to have your cake and eat it too. You laugh in our faces and gloat when the Supreme Court rules in your favor, like in the case of Citizens United, but you scream and cry foul when they rule against you, like in the cases of DOMA and the ACA. Bachman's speech when DOMA was struck down was rather entertaining (in a pathetic way) but Ms. Pelosi's two-word response really took the words right out of my mouth.

And you don't consider this "gloating?"

Times they are a changing, LDS...

Seems that the NRA is finally losing their monolithic power.

Georgia House passes Bill to allow more concealed carry areas.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...uns-In-Schools-Churches-Certain-Gov-Buildings

On February 18 the Georgia House overwhelmingly passed a bill to allow guns at schools, churches, bars, and certain government buildings.

The measure passed by a margin of 119 to 56.

Titled the "Safe Carry Protection Act," the legislation not only expands the number of places in which concealed carry permit holders can carry guns but also reduces the punishment permit holders face for carrying in a no-carry area unaware.

According to the Associated Press, the bill "could allow teachers to carry firearms, while others with licenses could take their guns into houses of worship, more bars and government offices."

The Georgia General Assembly homepage explains that the allowance to carry in government offices--or a "government building"--applies only to such buildings which are "not restricted or screened by security personnel during the hours the government building is open for business."

Part of the impetus behind the "Safe Carry Protection Act" is to reduce the danger posed by gun free zones, which bill sponsor Rep. Rick Jasperse (R-Jasper) said "are gun free to the good guys only."

State Rep. Al Williams (D-Atlanta) criticized the bill, describing it as a "voter mobilization bill...[that] ain't got nothing to do with gun control."

 

[Maedar]

No mention of hating guns or any mention of having the armed guards in his home give up theirs.

The "exact words" thing again? Honestly, LDS, I tell you again and again, judges are impressed by that, but voters don't care.

 

[LDSman]

The "exact words" thing again? Honestly, LDS, I tell you again and again, judges are impressed by that, but voters don't care.

If you make a claim in a debate, you need to back it up. You claim MLK hated guns. Prove it.

 

[Maedar]

I shouldn't have to, because everyone knows it. I mean, if I say that Mr. Obama is supports gay rights, I shouldn't have to provide links to prove it, because it's obvious.

And the reason I get so upset with gun rights advocates is, you make fiery speeches whenever gun control is considered, but you seem coldly uncaring whenever a story like this shows up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/man-shoots-himself_n_4853983.html

...which seems to happen more and more lately, for some odd reason.

 

[LDSman]

I shouldn't have to, because everyone knows it.

Then it should be easy to prove.

And the reason I get so upset with gun rights advocates is, you make fiery speeches whenever gun control is considered, but you seem coldly uncaring whenever a story like this shows up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/man-shoots-himself_n_4853983.html

...which seems to happen more and more lately, for some odd reason.

Drunken stupidity does not concern me and is impossible to stop. He violated any number of gun safety rules. The family has my sympathies. Why should my rights be affect by this?

Do you not care that 1 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by gun owners every year? You like to mention things like this but you won't comment on the 15 year old saving the woman from being kidnapped. Why is that?

Where is the proof that this is happening more and more? Accidental death rates are falling. Your own article had to go back to previous years to find similar events.

 

[Maedar]

Do you not care that 1 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by gun owners every year? You like to mention things like this but you won't comment on the 15 year old saving the woman from being kidnapped. Why is that?

I'll be perfectly honest, I don't care in the least, and it terrifies me, because stories like yours lead to tragedies like mine. Your stories mislead the public into thinking that guns and violence are the answer to everything, and people are turning into gun-crazed fools. Your attempt to show me that Rev. King approved of gun use is a horrid perversion of his message. It's as if you guys WANT violence.

See THIS?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/dick-cheney-obama_n_4853523.html?1393342722

Sure Mr. Cheney, let's reduce the budget we use to feed the poor and spend it on weapons so we can kill more people and get into more wars like the two your old boss dragged us into, great idea!

I'm being sarcastic, or course, that was the stupidest thing that the chicken-hawk ever said.

Okay, I said it... I feel better.

 

[LDSman]

I'll be perfectly honest, I don't care in the least, and it terrifies me, because stories like yours lead to tragedies like mine.

Self defense against criminals leads to drunken idiots killing themselves? That's an interesting view. Completely wrong, but interesting. It looks like the alcohol lead to his bad decision. We should try to get rid of alcohol again. (sarc) Drunken idiots will always find a way to kill themselves.

It's interesting that the drunken fool is more important than the woman saved from probable rape and death.

Your stories mislead the public into thinking that guns and violence are the answer to everything, and people are turning into gun-crazed fools.

And yet the crime rate drops, the accidental gun death rate drops, while the gun ownership rate rises. And I have never said that guns and violence are the solution to everything.

Your attempt to show me that Rev. King approved of gun use is a horrid perversion of his message.

Ultimately, he never embraced the complete pacifism of A. J. Muste; later, in the Black Power years, King made a distinction between people using guns to defend themselves in the home and the question of “whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized protest.” But, for himself, King claimed nonviolence as a “way of life,” and he maintained his resolve under conditions that would make many others falter.

It kind of looks like King thought it might be a viable option for some people. It wasn't an option he'd choose but he wasn't a gun hater.

It's as if you guys WANT violence.

That's the liberal belief about gun owners talking. Most gun owners want to be left alone. If no one tries to rob them, then there won't be a reason to shoot them.

political rant

off topic. Take it to a politics thread.

 

[Maedar]

And yet the crime rate drops, the accidental gun death rate drops, while the gun ownership rate rises. And I have never said that guns and violence are the solution to everything.

You said that violence is sometimes the answer, and if you deny it, I will search this whole Forum until I find it.

Violence should always be a last resort. Always. Fighting is what civilized men do when all else fails.

And as for gun safety? Maybe Sarah Palin, who posed for a photograph with a rifle pointed at her face - breaking one of the most important rules of gun safety - can explain how much people are obeying gun safety rules. People tried to excuse this by saying that "it probably wasn't loaded", but it makes no difference. You never, EVER leave a gun pointed at your face, no matter HOW sure you are it isn't loaded. Even the NRA handbook says so.