Page 25 of 41 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 500 of 820

Thread: Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

  1. #481
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    2nd Amendment says "arms" which can technically mean anything. Yes, I know semantics but in the late 18th century every house in this country had a rifle and/or pistol - those were the weapons the revolutionary war was fought with and that's the founding father's intent.

    As far as regulating weapons that is fine but people will always find a way. The NRA's silly school tactical special forces commando idea would waste $2 bil in taxpayer money - again that's peanuts for the pseudo fiscal conservative teabaggers but still alot of money. There really is no solution to this problem except society stop worshipping famous people which will never happen.
    We had State Militia's in the 18th century. The Constitution was written to restrict Federal power in order to get the States to join the Union. That changed drastically after the Union won the Civil War. We still have some State Militia's but they are not the defenders of the USA. Right now we pretty much have an army that consists of about half volunteers and half private mercenaries.

    I'm all for a mandatory draft of all men and women and getting rid of private contractors in the military. It would also reduce the need for people having weapons to defend themselves against our Federal army.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 12-27-2012 at 10:44 AM.

  2. #482
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Afghanistan rebels had a little help from the greatest super power in the world. They were armed, trained and financially supported by that superpower. Going by your analogy, the American citizens would have to be funded by China to go against the government; hello end of the world.
    No, they would simply need to remain armed as they are today to act as a deterrant to abuse of Federal Power > Citizens Human Rights.

    Citizens using guns has little correlation with making real changes within a democratic government. Three of the world's greatest agents of change changed the world and they never raised a weapon or committed violence; Jesus Christ, Ghandi and Martin Luther King. The idea that the population needs to be armed to affect change in a democratic country is a lazy lie.
    That isn't the idea.

    The idea is the last resort for protection of rights, not fomenting political change (althouigh it's enlightening that YOU see the role of guns as forcing change, akin to how Socialist nd Communists see guns, as tool for political violence and domination).

    The citizenry has the right to own weapons as a check against Govt. abuse in only the worst-case sceanarios. Not as a tool to change Government in peacetime or over anything less than the most dire of abuses.

    As for the right to own weapons and having restrictions; there already are some restrictions for other rights. The first amendment affords us the freedom of speech but it does not allow you to say anything to anyone. Your rights should never infringe on the rights of others. Having a society which allows mentally ill citizens to amass weapons is the height of stupidity and absolutely infringes on the rights of other citizens.
    So I'll ask again, are you willing to place the same limits on speech, voting and religion that you're willing to put on gun ownership?

    And I'll say this again, an individual opwning a gun does not, in ANY way, infringe upon your rights.

    It is only when an individual chooses to use that gun (or a truck, or a knife, or a pipe, etc.) that your rights have been infringed.

    Your argument appears to be that to protect your rights from a possible (althoughs unlikely) potential infringement, you're willing to infringe upon the rights of everyone else for the mere appearence of added safety.

    Interesting you'd take that position, given the similarity of it with your political opposites when it came to the Patriot Act.

  3. #483
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    The Nazis were left-wing? Someone learned history from Glenn Beck and his chalkboard.
    Of course the Nazis were left wing. They rose to power as a Nationalist Socialist movement. Eventually it became a Facist mix of Socialist policies combined with Nationalistic fervor. If you simply look at the political movement in Austria and Germany we see that they took over the health care system, provided jobs for everyone, wiped out all reference to religion in the countries they occupied. These are left wing tenets. The Communists of USSR did the same types of things. Facism can be left or right wing. The common denominator is the radicalism and extreme control by the government.

    An example of a right wing Facist state would be a place like Iran. Communist Russia by contrast was a left wing Facist state. The Nazis started and behaved like a leftist socialist movement that morphed in to what was a Facist Dictatorship that included principles seen in left and right wing totalitarian regimes.

    In the end of the day I suppose it comes down to how you politically define left versus right wing. That would make an interesting subject for another thread.
    Last edited by chiefst2000; 12-27-2012 at 11:17 AM.

  4. #484
    Quote Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver View Post
    My mom was a few years older than Kitty Werthmann. Unlike Kitty, my mom was in a country that was actually invaded and occuppied by the Germans/Austrians. She had neighbors who were gunned down in the streets and shipped off to die in camps. And I can assure you she would rip this Kitty Werthman. a new ******* for daring to claim she "survived Hitler." Survived? Are you kidding me? Well, she does start right off by admitting that her people and family joyously, overwhelingly voted Hilter into power. Had Kitty been a few years older, she would have voted for him too. To claim she and her people/family, knew nothing about the camps, the persecution? What ***ing balls. The Austrians, likely including a lot of people in Kitty's family, were up to their eyeteeth in murder. The Austrians "survived" Hitler the same way Jefferson Davis "survived" slavery.

    Here's a list of prominent Austrian Nazis (whick, oh by the way, includes Hilter):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Austrian_Nazis


    Here's a nice little summary of anti-semeticism in Austria (hint: Hitler didn't invent it):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ews_in_Austria

    The Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp in Austria was in operation long before the war even started.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauthau...entration_camp



    Anyone who takes her as a victim, or even more astoundingly, somehow sees in her statements a convincing argument for unrestricted weapons ownership in the US...man, I don't know what to do for you. There are lots of good arguments for gun ownership. This isn't one of them.

    Well like your mom my grandparents and family members were also located in countries invaded by the Nazis. Unlike her whom you say watcher her neighbors get gunned down or shipped to concentration camps my relatives were the actual ones being gunned down and shipped off to the concentration camps. The history of antisemitism you posted on Austria is applicable to virtually all European countries. It doesn't shock or surprise me in the least. Hatred and persecution of Jews has been universal in Europe for centuries. It remains as strong as ever today throughout Europe. The story in the OP is not posted to praise this Kitty person for having "survived Hitler". It is a true story of how a seemingly democratic society, given the right mix of circumstances (High unemployment, prolonged depressed economic conditions, etc) can be fooled in to bringing to power a totalitarian regime. Promises of jobs for everyone and free healthcare, housing for all are followed by the loss of basic freedoms and eventually all freedom.

    I personally believe that if the Jews of Europe had the means to defend themselves then the Holocaust would never have happened. There is no way to test and prove or disprove that theory but nonetheless that is what I believe.
    Last edited by chiefst2000; 12-27-2012 at 11:42 AM.

  5. #485
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Of course the Nazis were left wing. They rose to power as a Nationalist Socialist movement. Eventually it became a Facist mix of Socialist policies combined with Nationalistic fervor. If you simply look at the political movement in Austria and Germany we see that they took over the health care system, provided jobs for everyone, wiped out all reference to religion in the countries they occupied. These are left wing tenets. The Communists of USSR did the same types of things. Facism can be left or right wing. The common denominator is the radicalism and extreme control by the government.

    An example of a right wing Facist state would be a place like Iran. Communist Russia by contrast was a left wing Facist state. The Nazis started and behaved like a leftist socialist movement that morphed in to what was a Facist Dictatorship that included principles seen in left and right wing totalitarian regimes.

    In the end of the day I suppose it comes down to how you politically define left versus right wing. That would make an interesting subject for another thread.
    Complete nonesense. The Nazi's rose to power on Nationalism, unification and German Purity. It wasn't in any sense based on liberalism or Communism.

  6. #486
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Of course the Nazis were left wing. They rose to power as a Nationalist Socialist movement. Eventually it became a Facist mix of Socialist policies combined with Nationalistic fervor. If you simply look at the political movement in Austria and Germany we see that they took over the health care system, provided jobs for everyone, wiped out all reference to religion in the countries they occupied. These are left wing tenets. The Communists of USSR did the same types of things. Facism can be left or right wing. The common denominator is the radicalism and extreme control by the government.

    An example of a right wing Facist state would be a place like Iran. Communist Russia by contrast was a left wing Facist state. The Nazis started and behaved like a leftist socialist movement that morphed in to what was a Facist Dictatorship that included principles seen in left and right wing totalitarian regimes.

    In the end of the day I suppose it comes down to how you politically define left versus right wing. That would make an interesting subject for another thread.
    Complete nonesense. The Nazi's rose to power on Nationalism, unification of the German people and German Purity. It wasn't in any sense based on liberalism or Communism.

  7. #487
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Complete nonesense. The Nazi's rose to power on Nationalism, unification and German Purity. It wasn't in any sense based on liberalism or Communism.
    The Nazi's did indeed run on those things (restoration of Nationalism and National Pride after their crushing defeat and harsh terms of Versailles, and the commonly held "stab int he back" idea in Germany at the time), with a deep and strong current of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Democracy spread throughout.

    And they certainly were as Anti-Communist as anyone.

    But to claim they did not run and win on economics is a very poor understanding of history. Germany at the time of the Nazi rise was crushed by a devastated and ineffective economy, massive inflation and currency devaluation, the costly terms of the WWI treaty, and a Wiemar Republic Government unable to do much of anything to stem the worsening economic tide. The Nazi absolutely ran on economics (Economic Nationalism) that included most of the tenants of Socialism and almost no tenants of free market capitalism or democratic principles or individual liberties.

    Describing the Nazi as "right wing" on the same terms as the modern Republican Party is inaccurate IMO. The Nazi had far more in common with the same-era Communists (Totalitarianism, Ethnic Cleansing and Anti-Semitism, Collectivisation of Agriculture, Forced Universal Employemnt and Industrialization, Millitarism, Expansionism, No Respect for Civil Liberties or Human Rights) than with any "right Wing" as Americans would use the term.

    I think the problem is that Totalitarianism is the right descriptor for both regimes, with Communism and Facism being exceedingly similar forms of Totalitarianism.
    Last edited by Warfish; 12-27-2012 at 12:42 PM.

  8. #488
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    The Nazi's did indeed run on those things (restoration of Nationalism and National Pride after their crushing defeat and harsh terms of Versailles, and the commonly held "stab int he back" idea in Germany at the time), with a deep and strong current of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Democracy spread throughout.

    And they certainly were as Anti-Communist as anyone.

    But to claim they did not run and win on economics is a very poor understanding of history. Germany at the time of the Nazi rise was crushed by a devastated and ineffective economy, massive inflation and currency devaluation, the costly terms of the WWI treaty, and a Wiemar Republic Government unable to do much of anything to stem the worsening economic tide. The Nazi absolutely ran on economics (Economic Nationalism) that included most of the tenants of Socialism and almost no tenants of free market capitalism or democratic principles or individual liberties.

    Describing the Nazi as "right wing" on the same terms as the modern Republican Party is inaccurate IMO. The Nazi had far more in common with the same-era Communists (Totalitarianism, Ethnic Cleansing and Anti-Semitism, Collectivisation of Agriculture, Forced Universal Employemnt and Industrialization, Millitarism, Expansionism, No Respect for Civil Liberties or Human Rights) than with any "right Wing" as Americans would use the term.

    I think the problem is that Totalitarianism is the right descriptor for both regimes, with Communism and Facism being exceedingly similar forms of Totalitarianism.
    Thank you. This is spot on.

  9. #489
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    The Nazi's did indeed run on those things (restoration of Nationalism and National Pride after their crushing defeat and harsh terms of Versailles, and the commonly held "stab int he back" idea in Germany at the time), with a deep and strong current of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Democracy spread throughout.

    And they certainly were as Anti-Communist as anyone.

    But to claim they did not run and win on economics is a very poor understanding of history. Germany at the time of the Nazi rise was crushed by a devastated and ineffective economy, massive inflation and currency devaluation, the costly terms of the WWI treaty, and a Wiemar Republic Government unable to do much of anything to stem the worsening economic tide. The Nazi absolutely ran on economics (Economic Nationalism) that included most of the tenants of Socialism and almost no tenants of free market capitalism or democratic principles or individual liberties.

    Describing the Nazi as "right wing" on the same terms as the modern Republican Party is inaccurate IMO. The Nazi had far more in common with the same-era Communists (Totalitarianism, Ethnic Cleansing and Anti-Semitism, Collectivisation of Agriculture, Forced Universal Employemnt and Industrialization, Millitarism, Expansionism, No Respect for Civil Liberties or Human Rights) than with any "right Wing" as Americans would use the term.

    I think the problem is that Totalitarianism is the right descriptor for both regimes, with Communism and Facism being exceedingly similar forms of Totalitarianism.
    The right wing of the Republican party in the US supports nationalism, immigration control, law and order, mandatory sentencing, the stripping of due process, the stripping of habeas corpus, English as the official language, the Patriot act, the privatizing of our army, torture and assassination, the war on drugs, the war on terror, putting Christian prayer and biblical Christian teachings back into the public schools and science classes.

    They are Nationalist light compared to the Nazi's. The idea that the right wing of the Republican Party is a libertarian force in this country is pure nonsense just as much as calling the Stalin regime a commune.

  10. #490
    The right wing of the Republican party in the US supports nationalism
    National Sovreignty is not Nationalism as practiced by the Nazi's. On counter, the U.S. Left supports one world colelctivism and U.S. Rule on a wide variety of legal and Governmental issues. Workers of teh World unite indeed.

    immigration control
    As does every nation on Earth, most FAR harsher than us.

    law and order
    Is this bad in soem way?

    Mandatory sentencing
    Bipartisan issue.

    the stripping of due process, the stripping of habeas corpus
    For Enemy Millitants captured in-action, not for american Citizens.

    Counterpoint, Obama simply kills every one, including U.S. Citizens.

    English as the official language
    Which it already is in every meaningful way outside of a federal declaration of such.

    the Patriot act
    Funny, I havn't seen Obama or the (D) mention that in any bad way int he past 4 years, nor do I expect to hear about it int he enxt 4.

    the privatizing of our army
    Millitarism is a better term, and I agree. But again,. (D) has been in total millitary control for 4 years....have you noticed a de-privatization in that time?

    torture and assassination
    The right tortured.

    The left has assassinated.

    Both have overthrown countries of late.

    the war on drugs
    I must have missed the Obama "Legalize It!" Rally declaring the end of the Federal War on Drugs (you know, like his fiat-decision to end immigration enforcement).

    putting Christian prayer and biblical Christian teachings back into the public schools and science classes.
    No defense of that, but of course, the american left (if it had it's way) would teach the religions of environmentalist extremism and collectivism in schools (and already does).

    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    They are Nationalist light compared to the Nazi's.
    In the same way a BB Gun is the "light" version of the entire U.S. Nuclear Arsenal.

    If we used your criteria on the American Left, they'd be far FAR closer to Stalinism/Communism than (R) is to Hitler and Facism Winston. I'm sorry, but history shows that rather clearly. The modern American left is effectively running the old Communist playbook, only with less power to force their desires and no abillity to simply jail or kill their political opposition.

    You should take a listen to Left Wing radio one of these days Winston, or the many Union Leader/Govt. Officals they have on, and listen to all the calls for single-leader-by-fiat rule, racial social justice, abolishment of Congress, discussion of how no individual has rights, only society does, and how collectivism (by force) is the only rightious path to take. Maybe you'd be surpised, maybe you'd support it, who knows.

    The idea that the right wing of the Republican Party is a libertarian force in this country is pure nonsense just as much as calling the Stalin regime a commune.
    The idea that the collectivist left wing in America (i.e. the (D) Party) is a libertarian, individual liberty or anti-Totalitarianist force in thsi country is ALSO pure nonsense, sadly.

    Neither party works for or protects, IMO, the individual rights and liberties of Americans over their own colelctivist/corporatist interests.
    Last edited by Warfish; 12-27-2012 at 01:32 PM.

  11. #491
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    The right wing of the Republican party in the US supports nationalism, immigration control, law and order, mandatory sentencing, the stripping of due process, the stripping of habeas corpus, English as the official language, the Patriot act, the privatizing of our army, torture and assassination, the war on drugs, the war on terror, putting Christian prayer and biblical Christian teachings back into the public schools and science classes.

    They are Nationalist light compared to the Nazi's. The idea that the right wing of the Republican Party is a libertarian force in this country is pure nonsense just as much as calling the Stalin regime a commune.
    This response is ridiculous. The "Right Wing" supports law and order? Really. WOW that is a revelation. Immigration control? I'm not sure what you mean there. Most Republicans are very much in favor of legal immigration.

    Many of the things you posted were almost too ridiculous to respond to in depth (patriot act, habius corpus for terrorists, assassinations etc all going in full force under a progressive liberal regime) but I would address the crux. What you refer to as the "right wing" of the party are actually social conservatives. At least that's what the school prayer diatribe is referring to. Interestingly for convenience the media refers to the Tea Party wing which is much more libertarian in principle as the "right wing" of the party. Espousing smaller government and free market principles.

    So how is it then that a party whose "extreme elements" promote smaller government and free market principles is in your mind comparable to fascist Socialists like the Nazis that used the concept of nationalism to implement their totalitarian ideals? I suppose it is that same lack of understanding of the motivations of the two sides in American politics that leads to the division we have today in this country. How do you reconcile the fact that the party of smaller government is in your eyes the party of big government fascism? Is it that you think people that rail on about the size and scope of government are lying to distract you from their real motivation of getting a priest in every classroom?

  12. #492
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,038
    In a tit for tat response, The address phone #'s and other info of the reporter and editors of the papers has also been published.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New York newspaper faces backlash after publishing map of gun permit holders

    A local New York newspaper is drawing the ire of its readers after publishing an interactive map that shows the names and addresses of thousands of residents who have handgun permits.
    The online map was published by The Journal News along with an article under the headline: "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood."
    The newspaper obtained, and then published, the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties through a Freedom of Information Act request.
    The article, in explaining the decision to publish the information, pointed to the school massacre in nearby Newtown, Conn., and the concerns of some residents about which of their neighbors might have firearms.
    But readers swiftly condemned the move. They pointed out that the interactive map could make the gun owners a target, but also make clear to would-be robbers which homes do not contain a gun.
    "Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves?" one reader wrote on Facebook.
    "You have just destroyed the privacy of these law abiding citizens and by releasing this list, you have equated them to that of sex offenders and murders," wrote another. "These are law abiding gun owners, they are no danger to anyone except for criminals. And with this information you have made them targets for both criminals and anti gun lobbyist who i am sure are going to treat them like monsters."
    The newspaper, in a written statement, defended the decision to run the names.
    "The massacre in Newtown remains top-of-mind for many of our readers," the statement said. "In the past week, conversation on our opinion pages and on our website, LoHud.com, has been keenly focused on gun control.
    "Our readers are understandably interested to know about guns in their neighborhoods. We obtained the names and addresses of Westchester and Rockland residents who are licensed to own handguns through routine Freedom of Information law public-records requests."
    The map showed the locations of pistol permit holders -- though did not specify whether those shown actually owned a weapon. Since rifles and shotguns can be bought without a permit, that information was not included.
    The newspaper separately noted that the reporter on the story "owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011."


    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2GHLdaxlK

  13. #493
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,038
    Wish I could edit out some of the language printed at the end of the video, may not be suitable for work.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=k1SZurGArxE

    So what this video is, is an edit of gun control commercial done by Hollywood celebreties, so the Celeb says something about stop the violence or whatever and then the edit shows the Celeb being violent with guns in one of there movies. In a nutshell.
    Last edited by gunnails; 12-27-2012 at 01:59 PM.

  14. #494
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Congress is prohibited in regards to making laws prohibiting speech they aren't in regards to guns or ammo. You simply have a right to bear arms. Congress can regulate guns and ammo as can the States.

    That's not a straw man that's a fact and gun law regulation has been backed up by the SC throughout the history of this country.
    No, you do not "simply" have a right to bear arms, you have a right that can not be infringed upon. Incidentally, if not legislatively, what other way do you imagine government might infringe upon rights anyway? What other explicitly defined "rights" are subject to legislation in the way you suggest the right to bear arms is?

    It is clear why you differentiate between the right to free speech, and the right to bear arms. You like the former, you'd rather the latter wasn't a tenant of our constitution.

  15. #495
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    No, you do not "simply" have a right to bear arms, you have a right that can not be infringed upon. Incidentally, if not legislatively, what other way do you imagine government might infringe upon rights anyway? What other explicitly defined "rights" are subject to legislation in the way you suggest the right to bear arms is?

    It is clear why you differentiate between the right to free speech, and the right to bear arms. You like the former, you'd rather the latter wasn't a tenant of our constitution.
    The right to any gun or amo isn't explicit in the US Constitution speach is. You want to see a right that doesn't exist. There are a several rights in the Constitution that are explicit that are being abridged and the NRA hasn't done **** about it.

    You are correct I'm for a strict limit on guns and not speach.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 12-27-2012 at 07:00 PM.

  16. #496
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    The right to any gun or amo isn't explicit in the US Constitution speach is. You want to see a right that doesn't exist. There are a several rights in the Constitution that are explicit that are being abridged and the NRA hasn't done **** about it.

    You are correct I'm for a strict limit on guns and not speach.
    =================================================

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  17. #497
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    No, you do not "simply" have a right to bear arms, you have a right that can not be infringed upon. Incidentally, if not legislatively, what other way do you imagine government might infringe upon rights anyway? What other explicitly defined "rights" are subject to legislation in the way you suggest the right to bear arms is?

    It is clear why you differentiate between the right to free speech, and the right to bear arms. You like the former, you'd rather the latter wasn't a tenant of our constitution.
    Read the Patriot act if you want to see explicit rights that have been taken away by legislation. The right to bear arms has only been taken away by legislation in Chicago and DC (that I'm aware of) and the SC has restored that right while confirming in those decisions the right to regulate arms.

  18. #498
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Read the Patriot act if you want to see explicit rights that have been taken away by legislation. The right to bear arms has only been taken away by legislation in Chicago and DC (that I'm aware of) and the SC has restored that right while confirming in those decisions the right to regulate arms.
    I know.


    Look at all the school shootings in Chicago and DC


    Sent from a phone using an app

  19. #499
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,538
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    I know.


    Look at all the school shootings in Chicago and DC


    Sent from a phone using an app
    You got that right


    http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...-gun-violence/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...7738_blog.html

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...-haven-program

  20. #500

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us