Reid determined to have vote on gun control measures, even if Republicans filibuster

reply to post by Hopechest


You are implying that the govt has the authority to tell people which kind of vehicles they can operate.

They cant.

Thats bloombergs way of thinking.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Galvatron
Infringement: To Transgress, violate, trespass, encroach, to make obsolete, to exceed the limits of, to violate.

You are suggesting to infringe only means to completely counter, deny, make obsolete. It can also mean to encroach, violate, or transgress. Limiting certain arms verses other is certainly an encroachment, violation, transgression.

I see what you are saying, but the word is most commonly used to refer to a transgression, encroachment, or violation.

If nation 1 infringes on nation 2's territory, nation 2 doesn't cease to be, it has merely been encroached on.

edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)

Lets try another analogy, suppose you are given the right to drive a motor vehicle and the government bans pick-up trucks. Does that infringe on your right to drive a motor vehicle?

I would say no, you can still operate motor vehicles, just now your choices are limited.

But driving is a man given privilege not a right that can be taken away, our Constitution is based on truths, rights given by birth. The second we give the government rule over our rights to certain weapons we set the precedence that if something is made to cumbersome to deal with by a few than the whole will be punished.

Originally posted by RagnarDanniskjold
Hopechest,

I respectfully disagree with you, I truthfully believe that it was left not implying which weapons on purpose so that the Government had no say at all on how someone defended themselves or their homes. After the revolutionary war people most likely had cannons(the tanks of their time) without so much as a peep from the authorities as long as they hurt no one else. That is the point to our freedom as long as we hurt no one else, take nothing from no one else, and accept the responsibility of those freedoms we are free. I do acknowledge the intelligence that went into your replies and interpretation of these articles, you must be a rather intelligent person.

So would you agree with me that as long as whatever I do has no affect on you or anyone else and I will not ask you or anyone else to hold any responsibility for my wants(that it will cost you nothing other than the acknowledgement that we disagree), I should be free to indulge my wants?

edit on 9-4-2013 by RagnarDanniskjold because: clarified statement

Yes it was a fun debate. But remember that the second amendment was passed as a direct result of the Revolutionary War. The reason being is that the Founders knew we would have had a very hard time beating the British if our populace was not armed.

That was the extent of their thinking. They gave no thought, at least from the historical record that we can find, that they even entertained the notion of having to ban certain types of weapons. If never registered to them so they never addressed it.

This is the reason many people, such as myself, believe the intent of the Framers has nothing to do with gun-control and why they did not specifically address it when the second amendment was written. However, we are faced with the issue now and with no guidance from the framers we must allow Congress and the Courts to decide it.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by RagnarDanniskjold
Hopechest,

I respectfully disagree with you, I truthfully believe that it was left not implying which weapons on purpose so that the Government had no say at all on how someone defended themselves or their homes. After the revolutionary war people most likely had cannons(the tanks of their time) without so much as a peep from the authorities as long as they hurt no one else. That is the point to our freedom as long as we hurt no one else, take nothing from no one else, and accept the responsibility of those freedoms we are free. I do acknowledge the intelligence that went into your replies and interpretation of these articles, you must be a rather intelligent person.

So would you agree with me that as long as whatever I do has no affect on you or anyone else and I will not ask you or anyone else to hold any responsibility for my wants(that it will cost you nothing other than the acknowledgement that we disagree), I should be free to indulge my wants?

edit on 9-4-2013 by RagnarDanniskjold because: clarified statement

Yes it was a fun debate. But remember that the second amendment was passed as a direct result of the Revolutionary War. The reason being is that the Founders knew we would have had a very hard time beating the British if our populace was not armed.

That was the extent of their thinking. They gave no thought, at least from the historical record that we can find, that they even entertained the notion of having to ban certain types of weapons. If never registered to them so they never addressed it.

This is the reason many people, such as myself, believe the intent of the Framers has nothing to do with gun-control and why they did not specifically address it when the second amendment was written. However, we are faced with the issue now and with no guidance from the framers we must allow Congress and the Courts to decide it.

edit on 9-4-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)

I enjoyed our back and forth as well, and agree that no one alive today can lay claim to first hand knowledge of what the Framers wanted. As far as it goes it is just up to all of us to decide and be vocal about what we as a generation want for this country.

Sounds like Reid will still follow the Senate's established rules...not sure what got your panties all in a bunch.

reply to post by Ghost375


Just bringing some discussion to ATS, since that's what the site is for. I like to cover news concerning the potential gun control filibuster, and like to discuss the controversial proposals within these bills. Welcome to the thread.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
I see no reason why the Senate should not vote on each and every one of those gun control measures. Little, if any, of them will pass; however, I believe it is important that each and every one of the 100 senators should be on the record as to where they stand on the issues. What's so wrong with that?

Hiding behind a filibuster to avoid going on the record is about as cowardly an act there is.

edit on 9-4-2013 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)

May have been said already, flat and simple there is a mechanisim to change the Constitution and no vote by senators or congressmen is that method.

They can vote up, down, left, right and center and still they have no right whatsoever to vote anything about an amendment to the Constitution period.

Anything they debate, legislate or pass is moot.

There's no reason to have a 30 round magazine. If you can't kill what your shooting at in one or two shots, you're most likely in desperate need of firearm training to begin with.

When "law abiding gun owners " say things like "It's time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" it's a direct threat to our nation. These people are talking about killing their own countrymen, which makes them domestic enemies.

There's been enough blood shed in this country. It's obvious that "law abiding gun owners " aren't stemming the tide of violence and are only expanding the violent culture of this nation.

Originally posted by HauntWok
There's no reason to have a 30 round magazine. If you can't kill what your shooting at in one or two shots, you're most likely in desperate need of firearm training to begin with.

When "law abiding gun owners

" say things like "It's time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" it's a direct threat to our nation. These people are talking about killing their own countrymen, which makes them domestic enemies.

There's been enough blood shed in this country. It's obvious that "law abiding gun owners

" aren't stemming the tide of violence and are only expanding the violent culture of this nation.

So you think it's impossible to use 3 ten round magazines instead?

reply to post by HauntWok

If you can't kill what your shooting at in one or two shots, you're most likely in desperate need of firearm training to begin with.

Please tell me how many firefights you've been in to make this determination.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7

 

The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.

No.. you couldn't be more wrong. The U.S. Congress does not have ANY authority when it comes to guns and gun control. The bill of rights was written by THE STATES to the Federal Government. It is a list of things that the Federal Government is not allowed to do under any circumstances whatsoever, and the 2nd amendment says.... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That means that the U.S. Congress can't pass a single law regarding guns. Period. End of story. Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8 lists the enumerated powers of Congress. Those powers are THE ONLY THINGS CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO DO (and guns aren't in there). That's it. Period. End of story. EVERYTHING ELSE not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 is left to the individual states as per the 10th amendment. It really isn't that hard to understand... the Constitution is written in plain English and in very simple terms.

Actually you are the one that is incorrect. The second amendment, written by the States as you falsly claim, does not say that people can bear any arms ever invented. It simply states that the people have the right to bear arms. Therefore, as long as the Congress allows arms to be owned, there is no infringement. Blame the States, as you claim, for not being more specific in their language but regardless, nothing is saying that Congress cannot regulate them.

Also, as we've discussed, Congress also has "implied" powers as well as their enumerated powers so their reach extends beyond what is in the Constitution. You learn that in poly sci 100.

As for the States pushing the Bill of Rights, that is false. It was pushed by a certain segement of delegats, led by Jefferson and not by any specific State in itself. Many States did not even want the Bill of Rights for two reasons. The first is that they thought everything was fairly well addressed in the Constitution already and that it was too soon to start changing it and secondly, and more importantly, they felt that if you clearly outlined the rights of the States that only those rights would apply and nothing else.

They knew you couldn't possibly list every right that belonged to a State and by defining what those rights were, a State would forego anything not listed. However, Jefferson had convinced enough delegates to hold up the Constitution so Hamilton was forced to give in to his demands.

Poly Sci 100... oh I see what the problem is... you believe that what you learned in your progressive indoctrination center about the Constitution is correct and true. I learned what I know from reading the Federalist Papers, written by the very people who wrote and framed the Constitution for the purpose of explaining their intent. Gee, I wonder who is correct? It amazes me at how clueless you are in regards to the relationship between the Federal Government and the individual, sovereign states that make up the Union known as the United States of America. The Constitution created the Federal Government... the individual states created the Constitution... the logic really isn't that hard to understand. Congress doesn't allow me to own arms... God does, or if you're an Atheist, Nature does. I have the sovereign, natural right to own arms by virtue of being born a free and sovereign human being. I have the right to defend myself by any means of my choosing (I know, here comes the nuke, tank, etc.. straw man argument). "We hold these truths to be self evident... that all men are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR (not Congress) with certain INALIENABLE rights" That is the end of the story. You are wrong. Your illogical, uninformed and emotionally based, indoctrinated opinion is wrong. The word INALIENABLE means that my natural rights are OFF LIMITS. Congress is made up of imperfect human beings, and they have been charged by the people (also imperfect human beings) with the duty and responsibility of creating laws to govern the citizens of this country. The laws that they create MUST adhere to the Constitution, and the Constitution sets rights as being derived frrom God aka Natural Law. Natural Law is superior to any and all man made law. There is no argument... let me refrase that... there is no logical argument that can defeat that, but I'm sure you will try. You may as well argue that gravity isn't real, or that the Earth has three moons.

Hauntwok,

That is an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Someone who owns a 30 round magazine has no burden to prove to someone else that they need it. That is the definition of a right. Just like you have no burden to prove that what you just said is free speech.

There's no reason to have a 30 round magazine. If you can't kill what your shooting at in one or two shots, you're most likely in desperate need of firearm training to begin with."

Right now, does anyone need a 30 round magazine? Except for sport shooting like 3-gun, nope they don't. The point is to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Do you think the Libyan people would have been successful in ridding themselves of Qaddafi if they faced his military with single shot or bolt action firearms? What about Syria? Heck what about Afghanistan? Do you really think Coalition forces would have such a tough time if these guys didn't have comparable small arms?

"There's been enough blood shed in this country. It's obvious that "law abiding gun owners " aren't stemming the tide of violence and are only expanding the violent culture of this nation."

There is no coincidence that the places that treat firearms the most immaturely and ignorantly have the worst gun crime. Census and DOJ reports indicate that there are over 800,000 violent crimes deterred a year by the presentation (not firing) of a firearm by a citizen who legally owns that firearm. That's 1.5 a minute. Violent crime: Murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, assault. The top 10 cities with the strictest gun control account for 80% of the gun crime in the country.

The refutation of fact with opinion is appalling. The whole "I don't think you need it, therefore your natural rights ought to change" argument is bogus, destructive, and wholly ignorant. You have a statistically higher chance of getting stuck by lightning than being harmed by a terrorist. You have a statistically higher chance of being harmed by a terrorist than being shot with an "assault weapon" and you want to turn your back on what made this country so livable for two statistical anomalies. If half the energy spent on this whole gun control debate was spent on cutting military spending then I'd be satisfied. This is more about the legitimacy of the constitution rather than just the 2nd amendment. Ignoring one for the sake of expediency means one might as well ignore all for the sake of expediency.

Firearms have never been subject to more laws, importation restrictions, criminalizing statutes, background checks, and other forms of oversight. Please read the National Firearms Act of 1934. Please read the gun control act of 1968, please read the FOPA of 1986. Yet the impact of these laws on crimes, violent or otherwise, committed with a firearm has been of such statistically small influence that the DOJ publicly says there's no correlation. I implore you. Please read on the sheer number of governments that have turned on their people in the 20th century alone, and tell me that it can't happen here. There are plenty of elected governments on that list.

What bothers me the most is the lack of critical thinking by the general populace on this subject (the authority of the constitution) and the prevalence of emotional knee-jerk reactions that not just try to ignore the facts of the situation, but refute them with opinion.

Originally posted by HauntWok
There's no reason to have a 30 round magazine. If you can't kill what your shooting at in one or two shots, you're most likely in desperate need of firearm training to begin with.

When "law abiding gun owners

" say things like "It's time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" it's a direct threat to our nation. These people are talking about killing their own countrymen, which makes them domestic enemies.

There's been enough blood shed in this country. It's obvious that "law abiding gun owners

" aren't stemming the tide of violence and are only expanding the violent culture of this nation.

Considering our most violent regions and cities are those with the strictest gun control and most "nanny state" type governments, the "sincere gun control advocates" are not doing a very good job of it either. In fact, since violence is up in our contry compared to when there was zero gun control, it seems that "sincere gun control advocates " don't really care about really reducing crime, just the control aspect. Since "sincere gun control advocates " frequently call for their fellow citizens to be murdered and imprisoned "Charleton Heston should be shot" "all gun owners should be in jail," we can see how little regard they have for their fellow citizens.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Navydoc,

I've noticed that, too. There is a certain immaturity about firearms that people who haven't been informed on or exposed to them have. There is a phenomenal book. It is called "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" It discusses the balance between emotional immaturity and being jaded when it comes to anything violent or sexual. This includes the use of firearms.

I have found that people who are ignorant to firearms, have never used one, have never even really been informed about them, have an incredibly immature outlook on them and treat them like a novelty, a toy, something to be trifled with. Likewise their views on violent crime are extremely immature. You see this is major cities that endorse gun control. The very communities that suffer the worst violence also vote heavily in favor of gun control.

I'm a fairly liberal guy. Actually, on political surveys that use an X/Y graph with Conservative on the extreme right, Liberal on the extreme left, Libertarian on the bottom and Authoritarian on the top, I land on the 0,0 coordinate. But I have had left wingers tell me that firearms owners are "itching" to use them, as though they were some murderous loon just waiting for an excuse. Everyone I have met who owns a firearm has the same nightmare, having to use that firearm on another human being. It's not some fantasy, it's a nightmare.
But as stated previously, there is a maturity and understanding to that nightmare. There's nothing glorious, fun, or thrilling about it. It's exciting, in the same way that a car accident is exciting. It's also a tragedy in the same way.

reply to post by eXia7

Why do we need a congress? Why don't we just have Harry Reid and dictator Obama make decisions for us instead.

If I'm not mistaken, Harry Reid is asking for a VOTE.

That is the way we do things in a Democracy.
Not voting and shoving your agenda through is a dictatorship.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by eXia7

 

Why do we need a congress? Why don't we just have Harry Reid and dictator Obama make decisions for us instead.

If I'm not mistaken, Harry Reid is asking for a VOTE.

That is the way we do things in a Democracy.
Not voting and shoving your agenda through is a dictatorship.

Well, clearly it's going to be voted on. The filibuster is being used to bring awareness. Of course he wants a VOTE, because it contains limiting factors on the 2nd amendment.

Originally posted by eXia7
Why do we need a congress? Why don't we just have Harry Reid and dictator Obama make decisions for us instead. So Reid says he plans to get a vote on his gun control proposal no matter what, despite the outcry of 14 senators that will participate in a filibuster.

What is the problem with a vote? The idea of allowing an actual vote being equal to dictatorship??? Do you realize how ironic and tyranical that sounds?

That said...this vote is centered on expanding background checks for the sale of guns. This is already law, and unless these Senators feel that background checks are unconstitutional, there is no rational basis for thier filibuster beyond pandering to thier lobbyists.

Lets stop the BS and misinformation..

"The deal would close the so-called gun show loophole, requiring that background checks are conducted on all commercial gun sales in the country. ... When a sale occurs, the buyer and seller would meet at a licensed dealer, who would conduct the check. ...

"The fact sheet stresses that the dealer records would help law enforcement trace guns recovered at crime scenes. However, person-to-person sales — the 'friends and neighbors exceptions' would not be subject to a check."

www.npr.org...

reply to post by Indigo5

Well, clearly it's going to be voted on. The filibuster is being used to bring awareness. Of course he wants a VOTE, because it contains limiting factors on the 2nd amendment.

I merely used the term as a general statement, considering all of the crazy dictator moves Obama and his goon squad have been trying to pull off. I think using an agenda to limit freedoms is pretty much a dictatorship.

You seem to be hung up on the background check idea, considering it still wouldn't improve the system if people don't report it to the actual database. Harry Reid is calling for limits on magazines, and of course an "assault weapons ban". This is infringement.

Originally posted by Indigo5
What is the problem with a vote? The idea of allowing an actual vote being equal to dictatorship??? Do you realize how ironic and tyranical that sounds?

Absent the current issue, were you taking the same stand on other issues that you didn't agree with or did you agree with the Constitutional practice of Congress establishing their own rules. As it is now, there are rules in place to proceed to an "up or down" vote.

That is more of the question. Senator Reid is known for this. He was for "pro forma" sessions before he was against them. Now, he is for circumventing rules (in which he helped to create).....

To me, that is the issue at hand. I have no problem with a vote but you cannot pick and choose the Senate rules because you aren't on the side of power in the issue at hand.

Lets stop the BS and misinformation..

"The deal would close the so-called gun show loophole, requiring that background checks are conducted on all commercial gun sales in the country. ... When a sale occurs, the buyer and seller would meet at a licensed dealer, who would conduct the check. ...

For clarification purposes, since we are dealing with 2nd Amendment; do I need to seek the OK of the Government before I sell you: a knife? a bat? a sling-shot? a baton? etc, etc. Why only firearms when there are a multitude of other "arms" that can be just as lethal?

Originally posted by newcovenant
If I'm not mistaken, Harry Reid is asking for a VOTE.

That is the way we do things in a Democracy.
Not voting and shoving your agenda through is a dictatorship.

Except when it isn't in Senator Reid's political sphere of ideology of course. A man known to brandish Senate rules when they are in favor and ignore when they are not. The man plays the political scene with mastery but is speaking from both sides of his mouth.