Schism in the Democratic Congress over the Second Amendment

[WhoDat1]

Yes, it does. Again, from Hamilton, the ak47 loving wackjob, "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights". If you want serious debate, see post #63. You might also want to rectify how gun control is controlling violent crime in Europe. I know it's much easier to characterize those of us that support limited government control as wackjobs, rednecks, juvenile, and sexual deviants, but carry on if you like.

some folks can't disagree without name calling. It just swings those of us who are largely undecided away from their trane of thought. ;-)

 

[6thGen]

I think a Constitutional amendment that banned 'quiet people who kept to themselves' would probably be just as effective (and easy to enforce) as a ban on 'assault rifles' in the effort to eliminate spectacular gun crimes.

Redneck.

 

[Matt J]

It's funny how those that are unaffected by gun violence proudly display their NRA cards until they are moved to the victim column. Suddenly they have a change of heart.

James Brady - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[6thGen]

It's funny how those that are unaffected by gun violence proudly display their NRA cards until they are moved to the victim column. Suddenly they have a change of heart.

James Brady - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So anecdotal emotion should weigh in when redefining our governing document? There are a lot of people who proudly support limited government spending until they lose their job. That doesn't make expanding the welfare state sound policy.

 

[Matt J]

So anecdotal emotion should weigh in when redefining our governing document? There are a lot of people who proudly support limited government spending until they lose their job. That doesn't make expanding the welfare state sound policy.

You're missing my point. It's easy to sit back and say that restrictive gun laws aren't needed when you are currently unaffected by violent gun crimes. I'm sure if you were shot and left in a wheel chair you might change your mind. Of course you can go ahead and post your response that you would still be a proud defender of the 2nd amendment with a holster on your wheel chair, but I'm still doubtful that response would hold true if it actually happened.

 

[6thGen]

You're missing my point. It's easy to sit back and say that restrictive gun laws aren't needed when you are currently unaffected by violent gun crimes. I'm sure if you were shot and left in a wheel chair you might change your mind. Of course you can go ahead and post your response that you would still be a proud defender of the 2nd amendment with a holster on your wheel chair, but I'm still doubtful that response would hold true if it actually happened.

I got your point, but you are missing mine. Policy based on "how does this affect me" is often counterproductive for civilized society as a whole, much less for the aforementioned me. Providing expanded welfare gives little incentive for those out of work to quickly get back to whatever work they can find (see Uncle Eddie's holding out for a position in management). Stricter gun control laws are shown to increase violent crime.

 

[Bob]

I got your point, but you are missing mine. Policy based on "how does this affect me" is often counterproductive for civilized society as a whole, much less for the aforementioned me. Providing expanded welfare gives little incentive for those out of work to quickly get back to whatever work they can find (see Uncle Eddie's holding out for a position in management). Stricter gun control laws are shown to increase violent crime.

why not have unlimited gun ownership? shall i order you an m4 with a pistol grip? your arguments are dated , as the reality of the moment involves 20th century gun technology and a population of 300 plus million. kalishnikov's and stoner's masterpieces make it far too easy for any single shooter to use jungle clips and easily kill dozens of innocents.

 

[WhoDat1]

most ( dare I say 90%) of the guns I have come across in dealing with criminals were stolen or untraceable due to serial numbers being altered (a crime in itself).

However, if stricter laws are enacted....I will comply. I AM a law abiding citizen.

As for those with criminal tendencies, well................

 

[6thGen]

why not have unlimited gun ownership? shall i order you an m4 with a pistol grip? your arguments are dated , as the reality of the moment involves 20th century gun technology and a population of 300 plus million. kalishnikov's and stoner's masterpieces make it far too easy for any single shooter to use jungle clips and easily kill dozens of innocents.

If you'd actually read what I told you to read in post 63, I conceded some limits on what the public can own. Since the argument is so outdated, you won't have trouble getting 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate make the changes to send to the states for ratification.

 

[Bob]

most ( dare I say 90%) of the guns I have come across in dealing with criminals were stolen or untraceable due to serial numbers being altered (a crime in itself).

However, if stricter laws are enacted....I will comply. I AM a law abiding citizen.

As for those with criminal tendencies, well................

go get a job working for greenspan...he's not into regulation either