CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


that portion of the bill alone will do what Fienstine has been trying to do for decades get rid of all guns in california. i say this because cops have to approve your ccw to get one in ca and how many of them do they actually hand out....oh yeah not many to non politicians/cops,so if this passes the ca law enforcement will basically at will be able to declare your weapon banned( and as you have to bring it with you to show it to them at the police station your odds of doing anything about it would be diminished) and thus at will take peoples guns that way.

thats why its so important we write our legislators and let them know if they vote for this they will never be elected again,im hoping that just the wording on the bill alone will make it not pass and i have some faith in the house to stop this but we will have to wait tell next year to figure it all out

Originally posted by themutant
Well something interesting is happening, quite a few school districts are taking teachers and showing them how to shoot and getting them qualified on the shooting range. I was surprised to see how many are actually doing it, Hell Utah is full speed ahead on the armed teachers and have already started training them.

As far as the Patriot act is concerned yes I agree a 1000% it was the worst and most dangerous bill passed period
Its implications are so far reaching......I just think something else is going to happen to push this gun grab agenda

Well, here is a thought that I had after this most recent tragedy...
With everyone, screaming that this must have been a false flag, by the liberals, to push through their own agendas, I considered another possibility....

What are more than 100,000 metal detectors worth? What is a contract, fulfilling the requirements of training and arming over 200,000 to 300,000 new officers, to be placed in schools across this Nation, valued at? Maybe the Dems, were simply reacting as expected? Perhaps something this sinister came from someone or a group of someones, who had much more to gain from it, than some more legislation under their belt?

Does the Military Industrial Complex own any manufacturers of metal detectors? Or, how about a large private security company, or two? How will we get that "private army" everyone keeps talking about, onto US soil, enmass, under our radar?

What say you?

Good possibility

And the fact that the doors at that school were locked and his Mother was NOT a teacher there amazing they just buzz in a guy who everyone in that town said and knew had issues, and it was confirmed that the mother had spoken or commented to a lot of people(those at the school as well) that she wanted to commit her son.
So amazing they just let him in .................

Deleted - got my answer.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
I have done some more reading and rather than go with hyperbole and what ifs of a financially collapsed government or looters, etc. and let me place this one stark fact about all mass shootings, of which this ban is being trotted out and will only have any legs if voted on in a knee-jerk reaction:

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

source

If this ban is put in place and made Federal Law, the US effectively becomes a quasi gun free zone of limited response to those that have accessed a now illegal gun. Any response is limited to law enforcement and those who might carry J frame sized revolvers (which require closer ranges) at the risk exposing that concealed revolver and charged with "inciting panic" if someone sees the bulge.

edit on 29-12-2012 by Ahabstar because: a little punctuation never hurts

Yes, in limited, small areas where the guns, otherwise legal, are not allowed. But they still have the guns, they can still carry them, just not in those relatively small areas. If those areas were in the middle of hundreds of miles where guns were not allowed, it would be very different.

Having restricted areas where you can't carry them is very, very different from not allowing them to be carried. As you clearly point out, having restricted areas doesn't work, so something else must be done. If people cannot abide by the laws of a restricted area, it is clear that they cannot be trusted to carry them in an unrestricted area. You have provided evidence to support your opposition more than anything else.

It would be great if people could be trusted to be responsible gun owners, but they can't. There are too many crazy people and too many idiots out there who ruin it for the rest of us. Since they choose to abuse the privelege, the privelege gets taken away from all of us. That's the way it works.

My guns are safe, they aren't on the list. I have no use for the types of guns on the list, nor does anyone else. I won't fight the ban, I won't stand against it because there are people out in the world who are idiots and I want the guns to be kept from their hands. If I have to accept a ban on certain types of weapons, then so be it.

It's just like prescription medication. The people who NEED the medication for real medical reasons have to jump through hoops to get it so those who abuse it can't get it as easily. It sucks, nobody likes it, but it has to be done.

Until something is done to address the utter stupidity of those who abuse the priveleges, we have to have the priveleges regulated. If we were without them, then we wouldn't need a ban and we wouldn't have a ban. It's not your fault, it's not my fault, it's the fault of the idiots and until they are held accountable and prevented from the abuse that they dish out everywhere they go, we're stuck with things we don't like, things that limit our "freedoms" in order to curb their stupidity.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


So you have admitted you don't understand the difference between a "privilege" and a constitutionally-protected right.

Great.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

So you have admitted you don't understand the difference between a "privilege" and a constitutionally-protected right.

Great.

A constitutionally protected right is STILL just a privelege whether you like it or not.

The ONLY right you have is to someday die, everything else is merely a privelege whether it is in the constitution or not.

A "right" according to the Constitution is a PRIVELEGE afforded those who are citizens of the US. Privelege comes first, rights are a subcategory of priveleges, not the other way around.

priv·i·lege
[priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, priv·i·leged, priv·i·leg·ing.

noun

any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: "We enjoy the privileges of a free people."

Whether you like it or not, the constitution gives us PRIVELEGES, not "God-given rights".

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


Well, since apparently this worked for educating 5th graders, I'm assuming it might help you.

www.casperjournal.com...

If not, I don't know what to tell you other than the advice I've already given you.

GUNS do not kill people. PEOPLE kill people. Period. If you take away the guns, people will use knives and swords, take away the knives and swords, people will use sticks and stones. I am so sick of hearing this "ban guns" bull$hit. You dont need a gun to kill alot of innocent people. Timothy Mcveigh remember? Dont get brain washed by the main stream media and the pundents trying to convince you other wise. ANY politician that talks about banning ANY type of gun is a traitor to their oathes to the constituition and should be charged with treason. Responsible gun owners dont go on shooting rampages. All this talk of getting rid of guns makes me weep for america, because it is the stupidest thing i have ever heard, if not the most dangerous.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

Well, since apparently this worked for educating 5th graders, I'm assuming it might help you.

www.casperjournal.com...

If not, I don't know what to tell you other than the advice I've already given you.

It was clearly explained to you above. I would assume you are beyond the level of a 5th grader in order to be here, but who knows. Rights are special forms of priveleges held for citizens of the US. They are priveleges that non-citizens don't get and are referred to as "rights". It is a sub-category of a privelege, not the parent category.
Your failure to comprehend it doesn't change the meaning of it.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


I claim my rights. And i dare anyone to dispute them to a degree that they would try to inhibit them.

it is not the role of the government, nor any other "official" body, to strip what was given to me by virtue of being alive.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ

It's just like prescription medication. The people who NEED the medication for real medical reasons have to jump through hoops to get it so those who abuse it can't get it as easily. It sucks, nobody likes it, but it has to be done.

Talk about making your opponent's point for them...

I don't recall any BANS, on prescription meds, because a few individuals, abuse them and obtain them illegally...But, based on your analogy, that's what needs to be done, though, right?

Your logic, is once again flawed! Why don't you just admit that you FEAR guns, and despise ALL gun owners because you fear, and don't understand them! That is the only sentiment that anyone can glean from your posts, anyway....

That would save us all some time, from here on out...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

I claim my rights. And i dare anyone to dispute them to a degree that they would try to inhibit them.

it is not the role of the government, nor any other "official" body, to strip what was given to me by virtue of being alive.

The government gave what you see as your rights and the government can take them away. The only "right" you have by virtue of being alive is to, at some point, die. That's it, that's all you get. Rights are nothing more than special priveleges given to you as a citizen of that nation. That nation can change those priveleges (rights) by measures lined out in the document granting them.

There are ways they can be taken from you other than through the ammendment process. That's the process you need to be focusing on if process is what's important to you. The bigger problem to solve is the idiots who abuse those priveleges/rights to the point that the party giving them wants to take them away. They are what are causing the problem, they abused what they had as they always abuse what they have and are endangering it for everyone else.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


You cannot abuse a right. A right is something that you are able to do by virtue of being alive. Free speech....cannot be abused. People may say stupid stuff, but that is not abusing their right. That is them saying stupid stuff.

The right to protect ones self....that cannot be abused. There is no time that someone protects themself, but does so inappropriately.

Government may take rights away, but that doesn't make the right a "privilege". Rather, it just makes the government tyrants.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

It's just like prescription medication. The people who NEED the medication for real medical reasons have to jump through hoops to get it so those who abuse it can't get it as easily. It sucks, nobody likes it, but it has to be done.

Talk about making your opponent's point for them...

I don't recall any BANS, on prescription meds, because a few individuals, abuse them and obtain them illegally...But, based on your analogy, that's what needs to be done, though, right?

Your logic, is once again flawed! Why don't you just admit that you FEAR guns, and despise ALL gun owners because you fear, and don't understand them! That is the only sentiment that anyone can glean from your posts, anyway....

That would save us all some time, from here on out...

You aren't aware of the war on drugs??
You aren't aware of illegal substances???
What do you think an illegal substance is? It's a BANNED medication. Opium, heroin, morphine, the list goes on and on.

www.drugs.com...

www.drugfreesport.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by itbenickp


Yes, indeed. McVeigh used ANFO, ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. Did you know that you can make ammonium nitrate from cow manure. I don't think the feds are able to trace cow poo with any reliability yet.

I gave them the idea now, I suppose that farmers will have to register their cows with the BATFE and account for the poo.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

You cannot abuse a right. A right is something that you are able to do by virtue of being alive. Free speech....cannot be abused. People may say stupid stuff, but that is not abusing their right. That is them saying stupid stuff.

The right to protect ones self....that cannot be abused. There is no time that someone protects themself, but does so inappropriately.

Government may take rights away, but that doesn't make the right a "privilege". Rather, it just makes the government tyrants.

Sorry, you are incorrect. A right is a special privelege given to you for being a citizen of a country. It's not above priveleges, it's a special class of priveleges. They are abused, that's why they are taken away.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


I would also add to this that banning a substance is the quickest way to drive its inappropriate use.

All these millenia have passed, and humans have yet to learn that they will never be capable of controlling one another.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


When are we going to declare the War on Ignorance? Now there's a cause I would enlist for...