The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

reply to post by AfterInfinity


no I honestly do not. However, infringing on the rights of others is not a solution. Sometimes bad stuff happens. Thats the way it is. You punish the moron that committed the crime, you grieve for the families and help if you can. You do not punish those that had nothing to do with the crime. My guns have never been used in a crime and I have never been arrested for anything. Why should I have to be a financial loss and lose the ability to protect my family because some whacko lost his marbles?

reply to post by SM2

infringing on the rights of others is not a solution.

When others cannot handle their rights properly, sometimes all must sacrifice their rights for the greater safety. To not do so would be the greater crime. But I see what you're saying.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Given that all people have the undeniable right to keep and bear arms there should be no reason at all for any "CCW" advocates to speak up at all. Of course, because there are so damned many shameless gun control advocates and anti-2nd Amendment advocates who so distastefully use incidents to push their agenda, you have the other side defending their rights, as well as yours. So, yes. It is more shameless. Much more. Much, much more.

There is a little part of the 2nd Amendment that references the "well REGULATED Militia".

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.

It says right there in the text...well regulated...so why is it so "shameless" for people to advocate we follow the Constitution.

I understand you and others don't believe that this text suggest any type of regulation...but me and others do. We will never agree...but it doesn't help when you pretend to be the only one that has the "right" position and others are just anti-American "shameless" gun control freaks.

Both sides used this tragic event, and other tragedies, to try to push their agenda. This thread is a perfect example...you are shamelessly using this tragedy to try to push your agenda...you are as guilty as you are accusing others of being.

well, to be frank, yo are wrong. Look up the definition of infringe....well on second thought here, I will just do it for you

in·fringe/inˈfrinj/
Verb:

1 Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

So regulating gun ownership is infringing on gun ownership. Seeing as though the supreme court finally ruled that the second amendment does protect the individual right to own firearms, and to ban any type of firearm would be unconstitutional, your arguments are noted, and filed under obsolete and irrelevant.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by SM2

 

infringing on the rights of others is not a solution.

When others cannot handle their rights properly, sometimes all must sacrifice their rights for the greater safety. To not do so would be the greater crime. But I see what you're saying.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin 1772

how do you come up with that? When do you lose freedom of speech? Or the press? Some people can not handle freedom that well, so we should repeal the 13 amendment? Some people vote stupidly so lets get rid of voting because they can not their rights correctly? That is a non starter argument, sorry. No one should be forced to sacrifice anything simply because someone else committed a crime.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Excuse the wrong wording. Guns are not going away anytime soon. People will try to morph it into that it doesn't allow people to keep firearms.

Many people do not carry guns around with them but keep them at home for protection. That not a threat to you unless you show up there to do a crime.

reply to post by SM2

So regulating gun ownership is infringing on gun ownership. Seeing as though the supreme court finally ruled that the second amendment does protect the individual right to own firearms, and to ban any type of firearm would be unconstitutional, your arguments are noted, and filed under obsolete and irrelevant.

Regulation does not necessarily infringe.

Look...I'm sure you are for regulation of arms as well...you just have a different level of regulation than I do.

Simple question...do you think every American citizen should be able to own a nuclear missle???

If the answer to that is "no"...then you are for the regulation of "arms" as well. The 2nd amendment says nothing about "guns" or "firearms"...simply "arms".

At some level, every person is in favor of regulating what "arms" private citizens can own. After that, it just comes down to a discussion to what level that regulation is implemented.

SCOTUS decisions only declare current state...future state is still open for discussion.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Well, see, do I think every American citizen should own a nuclear missile? No, I do not. Do I think every American should be able to if they have the means to be able to purchase them? Yes. The whole point of the second amendment is for protection, not only against the burglar or criminal, but from the government. the intention was for the populace to be as armed as the government. That said, I do understand that there are some people out there that do not need to own a squirt gun much less heavy ordinance. However, denying the responsible, rational American their right based on what some nut job does it asinine

Just look at some of the quotes and the documents of the founding fathers for supporting evidence to my statements.

by the way, regulation is limiting the access of some items to some people, therefore, by definition it is infringing.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Don't confuse apathetic with incapacity. The apathetic bother to speak up all the time. Whining and whining and whining, usually, but the apathetic are quite vocal.

I guess we speak English differently up here, but wiki bears out my particular definition of the word apathy"

Apathy (also called impassivity or perfunctoriness) is a state of indifference, or the suppression of emotions such as concern, excitement, motivation and passion. An apathetic individual has an absence of interest in or concern about emotional, social, spiritual, philosophical and/or physical life. en.wikipedia.org...

The apathetic don't care enough to make noise.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Your pointing out of your residential status is disingenuous. I didn't bring it up, nor did I argue that you had no business offering your opinion in a US Political Madness debated. You are merely deflecting, hoping to avoid addressing directly the arguments I've made.

No disingenuity here...merely establishing context..and I regard it as my nationality, not my 'residential status'. I Am Canadian, to coin a phrase ...I don't just live here.

Again, I am referring to the core of your thread - The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates. The pro-gun lobby is just as busy here trying to score points over a very American tragedy. To deny that is to be disingenuous, at the very least.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Isn't a tad disingenuous of you to bring up "a well regulated militia" without offering up any substantive interpretation of that and credible source to back up that substantive opinion? How is it you have come to believe "well regulated militia" means gun control? It is just too easy to argue that there are two sides to this debate and that it can never be resolved and there will always be two side. It is quite arguable that one side is wrong.

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

~Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322~

Let us take Thomas Jefferson's words to heart and take with the gravitas of seriousness his advice, my good friend.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America"

~Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789~

Here we have a newspaper from the time the Second Amendment was adopted declaring both the right to keep and bear arms and a "well regulated militia" as meaning the ability of the People to defend liberty. My dear friend, perhaps you could explain how limiting the ability to keep and bear arms accomplishes this end.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

~Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334~

While I have no doubt you are aware that Jefferson was a slave holder, and it is fairly argued that when Jefferson speaks of "Free" men, he is distinguishing himself from his slaves, it should also never be in doubt that the use of arms is equated with freedom.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."

~Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169~

Of course, the most zealous progressive would probably take this thought and defend the federal governments right to regulate people in every aspect of life, and indeed, such arguments are being made today, but again, "a well regulated militia" is the people. At this point what should be emerging for any critical thinker is that militia's are clarified as being what can be regulated, not the arms of which militias would rely upon.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 [August 17, 1789]]~

Here, Representative Gerry is arguing that "well regulated militias" are intended to prevent governments proclivity to establish standing armies. Standing armies do not replace militias. Between militias and standing armies, the best defense of liberty remains in the hands of "well regulated militias".

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"

~Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)~

Again standing armies are distinguished between "well regulated militias" and that distinguished view is argued to make the point that militias are necessary to keep government just. How would your arguments of limiting the use of arms and under the pretense of "well regulated militias" help keep government in check?

There are many more founders to consider on the issue, and of course, there is the Supreme Court of the United States to consider on the matter of "well regulated militia" but your argument that amounts to "agree to disagree" regarding the Second Amendment is only used to justify your own advocacy of suppression of the right to keep and bear arms.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


All you have shown, by quoting a wiki source, is how remarkably disingenuous the apathetic can be. What you cited does not in any way refute what I have stated, nor does it bear out your assertion that you wouldn't have posted because of apathy. I think you speak the same English I speak, but lack the necessary critical thinking skills to understand the English you read.

No one needs your off topic "context". It does not matter where you hail from and you were most certainly being disingenuous as you made your argument of not being American as if it were some bitter medicine defending your right to post in this thread as if that right had been challenged. It had not been challenged, and your "context" remains deflection.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Regulation does not necessarily infringe.

Yes, yes it does. Just not to degrees that seem to bother you.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Look...I'm sure you are for regulation of arms as well...you just have a different level of regulation than I do.

Simple question...do you think every American citizen should be able to own a nuclear missle???

The Brady Camp called, they want their tired/old retreaded talking point back.
Nuclear missiles are not small arms.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
If the answer to that is "no"...then you are for the regulation of "arms" as well. The 2nd amendment says nothing about "guns" or "firearms"...simply "arms".

Again, they are not small arms.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
At some level, every person is in favor of regulating what "arms" private citizens can own. After that, it just comes down to a discussion to what level that regulation is implemented.

The least amount by the Federal Govt is the goal. Least meaning what the Constitution Declares.
The Amendment was placed to allow the People to be ready for when the Govt becomes to over reaching. And spare me the whole "well the Govt has tanks blah blah blah" crap. WE are discussing Small Arms, not Fighter Jets, Tanks and so on.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
SCOTUS decisions only declare current state...future state is still open for discussion.

Spoken like a true Progressive. Hope your BS doesn't infect others.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
The pro-gun lobby is just as busy here trying to score points over a very American tragedy. To deny that is to be disingenuous, at the very least.

I believe this is wrong. Why? Its the Gun enthusiasts that have to ALWAYS prove its people that kill people, not guns killing people. I am 100% sure that if EVERY gun, was eliminated from the world, The Sticks and Stones Control Advocates, would be the next biggest advocates, out there.

Best form of preparation is to hit the books.

Even if you don't have time to read about the subject much, I highly suggest people have armory machinist literature around, just in case.

Hell, if the gun control lobby even knew what an armory machinist was, and how just about anyone can become one with meager resources, they would realize the futility of their entire agenda.

Our problem here is clearly ignorance and lack of logical reasoning, and by informing others of the facts it will be made apparent that rather than denying people's rights, we need to instead deny ignorance itself.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Regulation does not necessarily infringe.

Regulation like what a gun looks like?
Regulation like how many rounds a gun can hold?
Regulation like how many rounds can fire at the pull of a trigger?

Those regulations do not infringe?

And then a person could walk in to a local hardware store and buy a full auto machine gun without a second look from anyone back in the day something no person can do today how many mass murders were running around?

Gun control/laws happen because far too many people are afraid of their own shadows, and oh damn that might be dangerous so they need a law to protect the people from them the pyschos.

simple fact criminals still kill and have those things they are so scared of and people still get killed by the deranged lunatics.

So what have all the "regulations" laws accomplished?

reply to post by muzzleflash


Here you go......

Great start, actually.

Advanced Gunsmithing.pdf

Can we regulate free speech the same way the anti-gun crowd wants to regulate the 2nd amendment?

Lets.

Outkast, I don't like the way you post, I deem it harmful, not only to me but to others as well. You could, at any time just *snap* and say something that might hurt my feelings so badly that fatal harm could occur to my self-esteem.

Therefore, in the interest of public safety, I must ask you not to post anything anymore. Not because you HAVE said something fatal, but because you have the potental to.


(see how that works?)

reply to post by neo96

Gun control/laws happen because far too many people are afraid of their own shadows, and oh damn that might be dangerous so they need a law to protect the people from them the pyschos.

I suspect that gun control legislation happened because of the very thing you address above the remark of yours I just quoted:

And then a person could walk in to a local hardware store and buy a full auto machine gun without a second look from anyone back in the day something no person can do today how many mass murders were running around?

The US federal government has long established a skill of competent incompetency and this skill, I believe, has been to establish chaos. That chaos is then used to argue why the Constitution is obsolete.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yeah they do, and then those same people who deem explosives, and guns are "too dangerous" for the American citizen turn out and sell them to "cartels" in Mexico and Middle East dictators.

The insanity of the topic is not lost on those who pay attention.

reply to post by beezzer


The same anti-gun crowd does try to regulate free speech.

You can't say the word girls without being called a misogynist.
You can't criticize black people without being called a racist.
You can't criticize homosexuals without being called a homophobe.
You can't criticize Islam without being called an Islamophobe.
You can't express conservative values without being insulted or ridiculed or being called racists.

If they had their way these things would be legislated.

Oh wait, there already is hate crime legislation.

Silly me.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


he same anti-gun crowd does try to regulate free speech.

And they defend abortion right to the death.

Quite the hypocritical lot the anti gun crowd wonder how many people have been killed because the "Regualtion of life".