Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

It's not free. You said yourself - single payer at the expense of higher taxes. That doesn't sound free to me.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
[...]
They have been content to chip away for years so why would they stop now? Will they take bigger chunks when and if they can? Probably. But it's obviously working. The chip away method works. They have more people arguing over whether or not guns should be banned than at any time I can remember in my lifetime. And they've done this in just a few years by simply keeping a steady drumbeat in the media.

this.

As an engineer, I see the big picture- and I see exactly what they're doing, how they're doing it, and why they're doing it.

I also hate them for it. Leave me alone, gub'ment. I've got enough problems.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, some people will do anything to get a gun. But why shouldn't there be some common sense measures in place to at least make it more difficult for a deranged person to obtain a weapon? For every road block a person might face, that's another opportunity for them to think it over, and maybe decide that's not what they really want.

Well, because you don't impede--well, let's use the right word for the Second Amendment: Infringe--the rights of the many in order to make a few feel safer.

Here's a common-sense measure for ya--why not allow victims of domestic abuse, after reporting it, have the option of an immediate CCDW permit to increase their safety and lessen the likelihood of a violent interaction from the abuser?

Don't advocate the removal or impeding of rights in the name of safety, advocate the increase of freedoms to empower the victims instead.

I understand the whole "Obama's trying to take your guns away" thing, but until the jackbooted thugs come knocking at your door to take your guns away, I think the fear is unfounded. And trust me, no sitting president will EVER order the confiscation of your firearms in America. That would trigger a full on civil war overnight. And I guarantee you 90% of the military would turn on the government should that ever come to pass.

I don't think you understand how disarming the general public works. It would do you well to research how Hitler did it--it wasn't one massive, all-of-a-sudden order, but it was done in small incriments, starting with something like convicted felons, then moving on the mentally ill, then to convicts of domestic violence--all the while whittling away at the overall number of citizens allowed to have firearms. All the while, maybe make certain types of firearms illegal, or ban certain ammo, or certain materials from which ammo can be produced. At the same time, let glorify the horrific effects of gun violence while downplaying the good that gun ownership can do for private citizens in hopes that maybe it'll make the majority of people think the inanimate object--the gun--is an evil thing with nefarious intent.

Once you say the mentally ill and felons can't have guns, it's pretty easy to change laws to make them felonies, or to change the definition of "mentally ill" to include more people.

You make claims like a president "would never" and that "90% of the military would turn on the government," but what you fail to see is how this could all come about. I really doubt that, in Germany in 1930, the majority of its people were walking around just eagerly waiting for their chance to give up their guns and join a government with the goal of exterminating races of people. Fast forward a decade from that point and tell me what was happening.

Most things in life are best achieved using baby steps to get there. Government officials are not ignorant to this fact.

a reply to: intrepid

I have to say you think very differently than me.......You mention the gun argument being weak.......It is a constitutional right for a reason and you should just say you want to amend the constitution and take away gun rights.........Right or wrong? Or are you Ok with some but not other.....If that is the case your argument is going to lose.



The argument for citizens owning guns is the same today as it was 300 years......It is a check and balance to tyranny.

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Do you lose your constitutional rights for having a mental disease? How would you feel if they wanted to limit your freedom of speech because you had issues with depression 20 years ago......Simple logic guys. I wonder how many people fighting for this will change their minds when they are labeled mentally unfit.....LOL.

My freedom of speech doesn't put bullet wounds in children. I can yell at someone until I'm blue in the face but it will never send them to emergency rooms or the morgue.

Words are powerful things and have caused countless deaths over the ages and that is why the founders of this country put it number 1 on the list. My point is sound and correct.


Like I said before I wonder how many people will change their collective tunes when they are labeled mentally ill and unfit. I find it so ironic many of the people arguing this point do not trust the government unless it is about issues they support..........Sad really.

Have I said I want to give Carte Blanche to the government to decide who is mentally unstable?

No. In fact, should such measure even make it to the point where specifics can be hammered out, I'd prefer it if the government had ZERO say on who is mentally unstable, and leave that in the hands of medical professionals. ACTUAL doctors, not drinking-degree psychologists, who can say 100% that these people are unfit for firearm ownership.

a reply to: intrepid

THE TRAGEDIES ARE CAUSED BY THIS!!!! We wouldn't even be talking about this if it wasn't for these tragedies. Is the gun argument so weak that it can't deal with the fallout of this?

And yet the solution to all tragedies that happen in 'gun free zones' is to call the 'Good guys' with guns to deal with the bad guys with guns.

Gun regulations didn't stop Lanza, and they will never stop the 'psychos'.

Other than labeling all gun owners as 'mental cases'.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

You do realize the government controls the health care and will continue to do so even more in the future.......Look at the bigger picture and see simple truths. Maybe it is part of bigger plan?



Also the government will set the standards and doctors will get little if any choice.....This is a fact.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid

THE TRAGEDIES ARE CAUSED BY THIS!!!! We wouldn't even be talking about this if it wasn't for these tragedies. Is the gun argument so weak that it can't deal with the fallout of this?

And yet the solution to all tragedies that happen in 'gun free zones' is to call the 'Good guys' with guns to deal with the bad guys with guns.

Gun regulations didn't stop Lanza, and they will never stop the 'psychos'.

Other than labeling all gun owners as 'mental cases'.

OK, do what then?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You don't really study History do you?

Or you'd know that the Weimar Republic, the government that immediately preceded Hitler's Nazi Regime, had stricter gun laws before Hitler came to power.

a reply to: intrepid

Even with extremely tight gun regulations, Australia continues to suffer mass killings on a similar scale to the US. While a couple were accomplished with guns, several utilized fire and even knives as the method.

Countries like Sweden, by way of comparison, have very liberal gun regulations and very low murder rates.

In short, where you live seems to be much more of a factor than simply being armed. The countries with higher incidents of mass violence tend to be the ones with the least social consciousness.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Where shall I send the "Dirty Progressive" badge to?

a reply to: intrepid

There is nothing anyone can do.

Society already has laws against going around killing people.

Society already made 'gun free zones' that make places not so gun free.

Society already has over 80 years of gun regulations that doesn't stop bad people from getting guns.

Society has for centuries tried to legislate human behavior. At least over 200 years in Merika.

And has been an epic failure. Simply because you simply can NOT do it.

People are people.

The Good. The bad, The damn right ugly.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
. I support the right of every law-abiding citizen to own a gun.

Except those that the Govt deem as "mentally ill".

again, I get it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid

There is nothing anyone can do.

That's what I thought. At least one person had the balls to say it.

Rights trumps life. The next mass killing we have, which we're probably due for, and the argument is, "It mental issues, not guns." Well this thread will come in handy.

a reply to: intrepid

Rights trumps life.

People don't have a problem with that when it comes to another hot political issue: abortion.

Women's rights after all.

a reply to: macman

No, I'm just done playing nice with someone so firmly in their little conservative hugbox that they can't see outside of it or even entertain ideas that don't coincide with their "Us vs Them" worldview.

single payer healthcare system government (agenda) controlled...all doctors, physical AND mental controlled by the govt... who now can say who is good and who is not....sheer pure BS. again, we already have laws in place, and judges rule on this stuff all the time.....this is just another play from the progressives (new wave morons) to gain power and control...anyone can see this....right???

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid

Rights trumps life.

People don't have a problem with that when it comes to another hot political issue: abortion.

Women's rights after all.

Different issue but it's interesting that fetal rights are important to some when the rights of the living don't matter to the same people.