Obama: "Weapons of war have no place on our streets".

a reply to: NavyDoc

hmm... very well..
so we can't "fix" the presently existing system of federal background checks because there's nothing to fix, or should be fixed (according to you).
and we can't have citizens in control of background checks because democrats want to push for registration, which may or may not be true or even feasible. and we can't have registration anyway because that would somehow make it easy to pass confiscation laws, despite the stiff resistance it would take to get even a registration system passed.

What is your solution?
Is it do nothing?
Because that's not working.
Think "politically feasible", and make it palatable.

a reply to: macman

Who said that? Are you drunk? Maybe you should have other people read things to you. Comprehension seems to be a bit...challenging for you. It does however explain why you're so confused. Good luck to you. We'll all be hoping for the best.

a reply to: Sunwolf

Laws are changed all the time, as the need arises.

a reply to: TownCryer

Still waiting for you to directly address any of the items I stated.

I would dare you to address even one item directly, but it might hurt some feelings here.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: NavyDoc

hmm... very well..
so we can't "fix" the presently existing system of federal background checks because there's nothing to fix, or should be fixed (according to you).
and we can't have citizens in control of background checks because democrats want to push for registration, which may or may not be true or even feasible. and we can't have registration anyway because that would somehow make it easy to pass confiscation laws, despite the stiff resistance it would take to get even a registration system passed.

What is your solution?
Is it do nothing?
Because that's not working.
Think "politically feasible", and make it palatable.

What problem? For every person who uses a firearm, hundreds of thousands don't. Thus, the problem is not firearms but the few criminals. The vast majority of violent crime centers around the illegal drug trade. Just like prohibition made the 20's roar, the WOD makes the current time roar. End the failed WOD.

We are soft on violent criminals. Instead of releasing rapists to make room for pot smokers, violent criminals need long and hard sentences.

Outside of our large cities, we actually have a crime rate equivalent to the peaceful countries of Europe--deal with the root causes of crime: broken families, dependency on government, lack of discipline.

Secure the boarders form illegal drug trade and an encroaching criminal class.

But of course, the bleeding hearts would never want to punish an actual criminal--just restrict the law abiding.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: Sunwolf

Laws are changed all the time, as the need arises.

And there is a way to change the Constitution through the amendment process. However, until that is changed and changed properly not an end run "regulation" or "interpretation", the words of the second amendment still stand.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I think you're making a false assumption about me; I think violent offenders need to be punished in some way.
Non-violent offenders shouldn't be sent to prison, at most I think addicts need to be sent to a mental-institution in order to recieve rehabilitation treatment for whatever addictions they have.

Frankly the reason there are lower murder rates outside our largest cities is because there are less people living less close together. so think about it in terms of probability.

Europe seems to have some common sense in providing a social safety net, but more importantly seems to have governments that are capable of action.

perhaps that is the problem all along, the inability for our country to implement policy on an effective/national level.

a reply to: NavyDoc

We'll never get to a place where everyone agrees that whatever change we're talking about is correct. So, based on your assesment of how things will be, things will never change, at all. We all know that's not the case. Laws, and Amendments, change when there's enough pressure on law makers to make the change. Usually that pressure comes in the form of money, which is why there're been no changes yet. Gun manufacturers, through the use of their lobbyiest, (like the NRA), are pressuring lawmakers, via money, to not change gun laws. The money of the gun manufactures though is slowly, (very slowly), starting to lose ground to the majority of Americans who want some common sence introduced to our current system. You can deny the changing mind set all you want. But denials won't do a thing to stop the growing momentum.

a reply to: TownCryer

There is a defined method to change the Constitution and you and others know that the correct process to change the 2nd would fall flat on its face. This is displayed for everyone to see, by pressing for restricting of people's rights via other methods.


And there is no momentum for more restriction of rights. You have lost yourself in the echo-chamber of MDA, Code Pink, Daily Kos and the Brady Camp.

Sales numbers prove you wrong in every aspect.


Since you can't address items directly, we know that you have nothing to answer back with.

You may want to reconsider your stance on things, when you have no refuting point to give other then what polls show.

a reply to: TownCryer

WTF are you talking about? We have a legal means to change our Constitution. Not "re-interpretation" not "a living document," but a clearly defined amendment process. If there are enough stupid people who think like you, fine, change it--but USE THE LEGAL PROCESS. Then we'll see what is what.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

And that bolsters my point--that the problem is not guns. Before 1968, you could buy guns through the mail, before 1934, you could buy machine guns from the local hardware store. Thus, logically, guns are not the problem.

For that matter, neither were social safety nets as there were less back then and we had less crime. The great society apparently caused more crime by creating generational poverty and dependence.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: NavyDoc

We'll never get to a place where everyone agrees that whatever change we're talking about is correct. So, based on your assesment of how things will be, things will never change, at all. We all know that's not the case. Laws, and Amendments, change when there's enough pressure on law makers to make the change. Usually that pressure comes in the form of money, which is why there're been no changes yet. Gun manufacturers, through the use of their lobbyiest, (like the NRA), are pressuring lawmakers, via money, to not change gun laws. The money of the gun manufactures though is slowly, (very slowly), starting to lose ground to the majority of Americans who want some common sence introduced to our current system. You can deny the changing mind set all you want. But denials won't do a thing to stop the growing momentum.

How dare you employ the word "COMMON with SENCE"...

You have shown us neither as if you head was full of Jell-O!
Sorry I did want to say "Manure for brains".
To be stupid is not a crime, but to be stupid and not think logically should be a crime.

a reply to: NavyDoc

lol, okay sure...

I don't agree with you but I think I mght get your reasoning.

Fair enough.a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

Fair enough.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: NavyDoc

We'll never get to a place where everyone agrees that whatever change we're talking about is correct. So, based on your assesment of how things will be, things will never change, at all. We all know that's not the case. Laws, and Amendments, change when there's enough pressure on law makers to make the change. Usually that pressure comes in the form of money, which is why there're been no changes yet. Gun manufacturers, through the use of their lobbyiest, (like the NRA), are pressuring lawmakers, via money, to not change gun laws. The money of the gun manufactures though is slowly, (very slowly), starting to lose ground to the majority of Americans who want some common sence introduced to our current system. You can deny the changing mind set all you want. But denials won't do a thing to stop the growing momentum.

The growing momentum that I see is there are more states passing laws to allow canceled carry permits to stop the crime wave in their states.

No more mister nice guy in my hood will put up with the Polar Bear hunting "Game".

The rules are about to change!

May the odds be forever in your favor!

Let the new games begin...

Precisely, first hyper-patriotism and nationalism are outdated false egoic boundaries that don't have any transcendental truth to them. In the eyes of the universe, God if you like, or time, the exact boundaries of random countries do not mean anything, and won't exist in 1000 years. What matters is humanity, global cooperation, protecting this world for future generations (sustainability), etc.

And that can only be done, as is being recognized by almost all global leaders , through cooperation with other countries. Hyper-nationalists are terrified by this, partly because of their own false egoic identification with temporary national identity, and partly because paranoid similarly small-minded leaders brainwash them that globalism, cooperation, and using international law and justice are negative. This needs to end and is gradually.

(Waiting for cries of "government" or "globalist NWO shill" in 3.....2......1)

In regards to 'Murica and majority rules, obviously there is a democratic element to that. However, part of the point of a Constitutional Republic is to have a balanced democracy where the majority cannot form a mob that oppresses a minority. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy.

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Hey, newcommer, Majority Rules is what this counrty was founded on. Look it up. You don't like it? You don't have to stay. Another flag waving American who doesn't like American values/tradition. Hilarious, and sadly, not all the unusual...

Ummm. No, it's not.

Regardless it's still a horrible system even if it were what Amerika was founded on, which it wasnt.

I can honestly say I've never waved a flag. Burned a few but never waved.

Love it or leave it, huh? How about I just ignore it? Nation-states are obsolete and 'patriotism' is a cancer.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Although I disagree with a large chunk of your post I must, in due honesty, say that you were right on the mark with us being a Constitutional Republic. The whole point of the Constitution is that the rights of the minority be protected from the will of the majority. Certainly there are many examples where we failed to live up to that standard, but even so the principle remains valid and just.

Perhaps new information...

www.nbcnewyork.com...
I stared the thread.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: NavyDoc

We'll never get to a place where everyone agrees that whatever change we're talking about is correct. So, based on your assesment of how things will be, things will never change, at all. We all know that's not the case. Laws, and Amendments, change when there's enough pressure on law makers to make the change. Usually that pressure comes in the form of money, which is why there're been no changes yet. Gun manufacturers, through the use of their lobbyiest, (like the NRA), are pressuring lawmakers, via money, to not change gun laws. The money of the gun manufactures though is slowly, (very slowly), starting to lose ground to the majority of Americans who want some common sence introduced to our current system. You can deny the changing mind set all you want. But denials won't do a thing to stop the growing momentum.

The Brits have a name for what is to come in the way of warfare toys and it is called Sapper.

For every action there will be an equal but opposite reaction, and the same will be with all the new high tech toys of war that our government is building today.

A simple sticky thermite device thrown on to a armored car should do the job well.

Working within an urban environment is what the new vehicular weapons are made for, and it is also they flaw.

The air support needed to cover the roof tops will be in danger from API 50BMG rounds or rocket launched cables to entangle the rotors.

That is how the sapper thinks and has been planning to counter the new threat.

There are many ex military folks that dwell in the city that have the will as well as the building anger to risk all just to get a bit of the hair of the dog that bit them!

I do believe that you are right in your comment that he says this # just to piss people off! At least I know his comments on civilians owning guns sure gets me fired up. Everyone has their own idea as to the cluster f**k that is to come in our future. My husband and I fully believe that it will be martial law, in some sort of definition to which. They are already limiting the purchase of ammunition. A little late for some of us gun lovers because we've been stocking up like a bad episode of Hoarders! Survivalists are all preparing for whatever their version of the next big uprising will be. We have collected weapons of every size, shape and style. If the military or police (active officers or not) come kicking in my door, they better be ready for a fight of the century. I feel citizens, responsible citizens, need to be armed and ready. You can't walk into a gun fight with a knife, and this old gal is going down in a blaze of glory should it happen. a reply to: Sublimecraft