I Support the 2nd Amendment


On the contrary, if universal registration of a thing that has no protection under the Constitution has not led to confiscation; then arguing that registration of a thing that IS Constitutionally protected will lead to confiscation is illogical -- especially when you proponents of this non-argument argument (registration leads to confiscation) have not once argued or shown that existing gun registration has led to the confiscation of a single weapon. :hmm:




More legalese. Registration only undermines the intent of 2A (as Democrats already know)

Legalese = when you don't have a credible response; when you have nothing worthwhile you can offer; and you just hate to recognize you're wrong -- just call the other guy's argument legalese.

:smh::yes::smh::yes::smh:

 
It won't prevent any tragedy. What would it solve? Adam Lanza 'stole' the guns from his mother. Any 'sensible solutions' would contain theft prevention

Which may or not be true, but it does cancel the argument that "keeping guns away from bad guys." Nancy Lanza was armed to the teeth. Was she a "bad guy"?

What would have help prevent that tragedy was banning "assault weapons" and "high capacity" clips. It had an effect when they were limited to ten bullets from 1994 to 2004.

source: Washington Post

targets-in-mass-shootings-500px1.jpg



Ted Nugent nor the NRA tried to kill me. Another black man did, let me take that back, another nigga tried to stretch me out. From that day forth, I promised myself & my family they would never be in that position again.

And I'm not the type to hide under the table & call 911

:angry:

The fool that stepped to you got that gun from somebody that bought it legally. If it was registered, the trail would lead to the gun seller suppling them.
 
P.S.: Confiscation, A/K/A "They want to take our guns!" is typically the rhetoric of idiots and racists like the Ted Nugents of the world. Are you associating yourself with that kind of thought because you'll say anything to win, or, because those are your kind of people and thoughts ? ? ?


low blow Que but I'll address your attack, if I'm banned I'll accept it! I was a victim of a violent crime, Ted Nugent nor the NRA tried to kill me. Another black man did, let me take that back, another nigga tried to stretch me out. From that day forth, I promised myself & my family they would never be in that position again.

And I'm not the type to hide under the table & call 911

:angry:

You don't get a free pass. You're not dead; you and your family are all alive. And, I am as thankful for that as perhaps you are. The close encounter, however, is no excuse for sticking your head in the sand, foregoing the thought process, and reaching for the racist to make arguments that just make you look like them!

I could make the argument that the attitudes of Ted Nugent and those who follow the NRA's callous thought process do in fact bear some of the blame for your attack. The notion that the 2nd Amendment is absolute; the fear mongering and hate espoused by the Ted Nugent types; and the inability of government to do what needs to be done to get control of the OUR out-of-control gun problem because of the NRA's $$$ -- is arguably a significant contributor to what you and a lot of other Americans, now dead or alive, have experienced.

BTW, I don't care to add personals but suffice to say, while I am truly happy that you made it, my brother wasn't so fortunate at all - leaving us all with a painful and longing void.

For better or for worse, guns are likely to be a part of American culture until the end of time or until technology or a higher being bless us with a force around our bodies capable of repelling bullets. I don't see either on the near-horizon, so to me that means that we must develop sensible ways for us to live in relative safety from the inevitable harm of an armed-up society -- the emotionalism, fear mongering and hate spewing of the gun lobby and other fanatics, notwithstanding.
 
And I'm not the type to hide under the table & call 911

:angry:

Most of that type, who fail to understand the need to take cover when necessary, don't get to type, tweet or tell about it later. They say curiousity killed the cat. Maybe. But I know ignorance and emotionalism have killed a lot of people.

 
I could make the argument that the attitudes of Ted Nugent and those who follow the NRA's callous thought process do in fact bear some of the blame for your attack. The notion that the 2nd Amendment is absolute; the fear mongering and hate espoused by the Ted Nugent types; and the inability of government to do what needs to be done to get control of the OUR out-of-control gun problem because of the NRA's $$$ -- is arguably a significant contributor to what you and a lot of other Americans, now dead or alive, have experienced.

attack? I'm stating facts. F*ck Ted Nugent, don't know him & don't really give a damn whether he's racist or not!

"out-of-control-gun-problem"? Look at Congress, they are the ones who made it illegal to defend oneself with a gun in a school when that is the only effective way of resisting a gunman.

If the WH was so adamant about changing public opinion about guns, why not ban them from TV & movies?

BTW, I don't care to add personals but suffice to say, while I am truly happy that you made it, my brother wasn't so fortunate at all - leaving us all with a painful and longing void.

For better or for worse, guns are likely to be a part of American culture until the end of time or until technology or a higher being bless us with a force around our bodies capable of repelling bullets. I don't see either on the near-horizon, so to me that means that we must develop sensible ways for us to live in relative safety from the inevitable harm of an armed-up society -- the emotionalism, fear mongering and hate spewing of the gun lobby and other fanatics, notwithstanding.

Life is what you make it, this incident changed my whole life. I'm truly sorry about your loss or anyone elses. One thing i must keep in mind everyday is the fact that bad things happen to good people all the time. I learned a valuable lesson about "stupidity" & my left-leaning upbringing. NEVER again
 
The fool that stepped to you got that gun from somebody that bought it legally. If it was registered, the trail would lead to the gun seller suppling them.

the first thing anyone that steals a gun is gonna do, is grind the serial numbers off. c'mon bruh!
 
the first thing anyone that steals a gun is gonna do, is grind the serial numbers off. c'mon bruh!


With today's technology, an identification can be made very difficult to tamper with.

You and the gun nuts constantly offer all of these excuses why 100% of the issues won't be solve with gun registration. Using that logic, since all auto thefts are not stopped by registering cars, should we stop registering cars?
 
You and the gun nuts constantly offer all of these excuses why 100% of the issues won't be solve with gun registration. Using that logic, since all auto thefts are not stopped by registering cars, should we stop registering cars?

I consider you a bigger 'nut' for putting all your trust in 911 & all those looking like Dick Cheney.

Registration leads to confiscation, stop being stupid.
 
Are you questioning their professionalism?

Would a cop give himself a ticket?

Lets say that this gun control movement reaches it's extreme limit *confiscation of guns*, how many ATF agents would follow orders to go into every house to confiscate guns?

Most law enforcement agents I know have family members who are gun owners. If you were to pass a bill that allows confiscation on a mass level, you would have to do a purge of government agents. Then, find a whole new crop of willing participants to carry out the law. You would also have a lot of push back overall if this happens. A lot of resources *resources we do not have* would go into policing this situation. You could also have a black market problem reminiscent to the 1930's.

If you really wanna see push back, let the UN come run this situation. That would be the fastest way to end up in a civil war.
 
With today's technology, an identification can be made very difficult to tamper with.

You and the gun nuts constantly offer all of these excuses why 100% of the issues won't be solve with gun registration. Using that logic, since all auto thefts are not stopped by registering cars, should we stop registering cars?

Hell yeah. It's only a matter of time before they confiscate our cars to make us ride buses. Don't you know?
You need to use your third eye and live in fear and foolishness and you would get that.
 



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LORVfnFtcH0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



 
That's your mayor tho...


I have no idea what you're talking about.


Car registration is a poor analogy simply because my right to own a firearm is protected by the Bill of Rights! Owning a car is nowhere to be found in that document.

Second, registration is clearly an infringement on that right.


How does registration stop you from buying a firearm?


Third, a registration does absolutely nothing to prevent the next 'Sandy Hook'
As far as the other dialog, I just hate responding on this cellphone keyboard.

It would not. But it would be easier to find out who sold Boston Marathon bombing suspects their guns. That person is just as culpable for the death of the police officer they killed as they are.
 


Just my opinion, but:

Every citizen of the United States has the right under the Second Amendment to possess a firearm -- and that right should be re-enforced, re-affirmed and "Protected" - - by a "National Registration Appreciation" law, the "NRA" under which:

  1. There should be a background check on EVERY transfer (whether by sale, gift or inheritance) of a gun in the United States.

  2. By February 1, 2014, every owner of a gun in these United States should be required to register that gun (each gun); and be issued a Certificate of Registration for that gun.

  3. A Certificate of Registration can only be issued if the person (A) produces certified evidence that he/she has undergone a background check, or (b) submits to a background check prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Registration.

  4. After February 1, 2014, it should be a felony punishable under Federal Law - to possess an unregistered gun.









bump_signs.jpg



 
So how do people define mental illness then? Dyslexia, ADHD, and Asperger's Syndrome are considered mental illnesses, but neither cause people to kill. Borderline personality disorders, alcoholism and sociopathy can cause people to kill but are not classified as mental disorders. Up until 40 years ago homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, but that doesn't make a person homicidal or accident prone either.

All the government has to do is find a relatively harmless personality defect, classify it as a mental disorder, selectively diagnose black people with it and now you have the legal means to disarm an entire race of people. This will be similar to the "literacy tests" states used to use to keep black people from voting.

People don't commit reckless homicides because they're sick. They commit them because they're evil. The mental illness is besides the point.
 
So how do people define mental illness then? Dyslexia, ADHD, and Asperger's Syndrome are considered mental illnesses, but neither cause people to kill. Borderline personality disorders, alcoholism and sociopathy can cause people to kill but are not classified as mental disorders. Up until 40 years ago homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, but that doesn't make a person homicidal or accident prone either.

All the government has to do is find a relatively harmless personality defect, classify it as a mental disorder, selectively diagnose black people with it and now you have the legal means to disarm an entire race of people. This will be similar to the "literacy tests" states used to use to keep black people from voting.

People don't commit reckless homicides because they're sick. They commit them because they're evil. The mental illness is besides the point.

Your argument pertains to the broader, so called insanity defense.
 
All the government has to do is find a relatively harmless personality defect, classify it as a mental disorder, selectively diagnose black people with it and now you have the legal means to disarm an entire race of people. This will be similar to the "literacy tests" states used to use to keep black people from voting.



I expected better and more intelligent argument, hypotheticals, postulates, etc., from you. :(


The above does not form a basis for serious debate, comment, contemplation, potential problem solving, etc.


 


I expected better and more intelligent argument, hypotheticals, postulates, etc., from you. :(


The above does not form a basis for serious debate, comment, contemplation, potential problem solving, etc.



The problem is that you have too many people on both sides of the gun control issue, for and against, that agree guns should be taken out of the hands of the mentally ill. Since the definition of mental illness is relatively fluid almost anyone can be defined as crazy.

We're dealing with a government that took guns out of the hands of felons while simultaneously criminalizing black people at record levels. Now you have cops murdering these same people partially because they no longer have the right to defend themselves.

At least with criminalizing black people there are certain steps you can take to make it less likely that you'll be arrested and convicted. But how do take steps against being crazy?

There's already sociologists arguing that growing up in the "hood" gives people PTSD. How hard would it be for our White Supremacist government to use these findings as a way to deny black people the right to own guns? How hard would it be to get PTSD redefined as a spectrum disorder to label people that would otherwise be considered sane? They already did it with autism back in 1978.
 
How hard would it be for our White Supremacist government to use these findings as a way to deny black people the right to own guns?


Source; The Root

Fear of a Black Gun Owner

Ironically, the NRA used to support gun control -- when the Black Panthers started packing.


huey_newtown_black_panthers_12313575bj.jpg

Huey Newton of the Black Panthers at a Revolutionary People's Party Convention in 1970


It may seem hard to believe, but the modern-day gun-rights debate was born from the civil rights era and inspired by the Black Panthers. Equally surprising is that the National Rifle Association -- now an aggressive lobbying arm for gun manufacturers -- actually once supported, and helped write, federal gun-control laws.

In light of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre that claimed the lives of 20 children as well as escalating violence in cities like Chicago, which saw 500 homicides in 2012 alone, President Barack Obama recently unveiled his plan for stricter gun control. The proposal calls for a universal background check and a ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, along with 23 executive orders. But these efforts -- no matter how reasonable -- are not without their critics.

In a statement released last week, the NRA expressed its disappointment that "the task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearm owners." Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) went so far as to threaten impeachment if President Obama used executive action. The conservative entertainment complex -- from Fox News and the Drudge Report, which likened gun control to Nazi Germany, to talk-radio host Alex Jones, who invoked the Tea Party insurrection of 1773 -- employs propaganda tactics to convince Americans that Obama wants to take away their guns. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the history of this debate is a curious one.

It is ironic that the modern-day argument for citizens to arm themselves against unwarranted government oppression -- dominated, as it is, by angry white men -- has its roots in the foundation of the 1960s Black Panther movement. Huey Newton and Bobby Seale became inspired by Malcolm X's admonishment that because government was "either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property" of African Americans, they ought to defend themselves "by any means necessary."

UCLA law professor Adam Winkler explores this history in his 2011 book, Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "Like many young African Americans, Newton and Seale were frustrated with the failed promise of the civil-rights movement," Winkler writes. In their opinion, "the only tangible outcome of the civil-rights movement had been more violence and oppression, much of it committed by the very entity meant to protect the public: the police." Winkler goes on to say, "Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms." Guns became central to the Panthers' identity, as they taught their early recruits that "the gun is the only thing that will free us -- gain us our liberation."

The Panthers responded to racial violence by patrolling black neighborhoods brandishing guns -- in an effort to police the police. The fear of black people with firearms sent shockwaves across white communities, and conservative lawmakers immediately responded with gun-control legislation.

Then Gov. Ronald Reagan, now lauded as the patron saint of modern conservatism, told reporters in California that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Reagan claimed that the Mulford Act, as it became known, "would work no hardship on the honest citizen." The NRA actually helped craft similar legislation in states across the country. Fast-forward to 2013, and it is a white-male dominated NRA, largely made up of Southern conservatives and gun owners from the Midwest and Southwestern states, that argues "do not tread on me" in the gun debate.

The gun-rights movement has been co-opted in the post-civil rights era. Loud voices both inside and outside the NRA use the claxons of government tyranny and fear of supposed "street thugs" to justify deregulation. The Second Amendment text that calls for a "well-regulated militia" is often ignored in favor of the ambiguous phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The framers never could have imagined the sophisticated artillery available in 21st-century America, yet despite military-style assault weapons being used by the likes of Jared Loughner in Tuscon, Ariz.; James Holmes in Aurora, Colo.; or Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn., the gun lobby and their most ardent supporters remain obstinate.

It seems the arguments and the players have been reversed. At its founding in 1871, the NRA was an organization dedicated to promoting marksmanship, firearms-safety education and shooting for recreation. Today it promotes utter irresponsibility and unfettered access to deadly weapons.

In just a few short decades, what was once a reasonable debate in Washington has become corrupted. In 1989, Republican President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order banning the importation of semiautomatic weapons. Bill Clinton followed suit in 1998 and, in 2001, banned the importation of assault pistols. Today the inmates are in control of the asylum, with Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee refusing to entertain any civilian restriction to military-style assault rifles.

But unlike Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, the NRA and their GOP allies find it hard to justify unbridled support of gun ownership and access. As MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry brilliantly described in a recent segment, the Black Panthers may not have been what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they described "a well-regulated militia" taking up arms against the tyranny of the state, but that is exactly what they represented.

The Panthers sought to protect themselves and other law-abiding citizens against indiscriminate violence perpetrated by police forces. But firepower in the hands of black men was -- and still is -- seen as dangerous and wildly inappropriate. Unless, of course, that violence is intraracial. When black males from Baltimore to Chicago shoot each other, policymakers hardly notice. Apathy breeds inaction, and big business encourages that the status quo be maintained.

The justified anger that informed decisions by the likes of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers to fully embrace their Second Amendment rights has been bastardized by contemporary arguments for lax gun control. And as money continues to corrupt, it only gets worse.

Last week, just one month after the Newtown massacre, the NRA released an iPhone app that teaches children age 4 and up how to shoot at targets. With gun sales at record highs, the NRA and its client roster profit at the cost of innocent lives. This prize of profits over people should make Obama's decision to bypass Congress and issue gun restrictions by executive order all the easier.

As arguments over gun rights continue and the debate about what constitutes "well-regulated" becomes clearer, perhaps history will inform policy and remind Americans of a time when the tyranny wasn't colorblind.
 
The problem is that you have too many people on both sides of the gun control issue, for and against, that agree guns should be taken out of the hands of the mentally ill. Since the definition of mental illness is relatively fluid almost anyone can be defined as crazy.

We're dealing with a government that took guns out of the hands of felons while simultaneously criminalizing black people at record levels. Now you have cops murdering these same people partially because they no longer have the right to defend themselves.

At least with criminalizing black people there are certain steps you can take to make it less likely that you'll be arrested and convicted. But how do take steps against being crazy?

There's already sociologists arguing that growing up in the "hood" gives people PTSD. How hard would it be for our White Supremacist government to use these findings as a way to deny black people the right to own guns? How hard would it be to get PTSD redefined as a spectrum disorder to label people that would otherwise be considered sane? They already did it with autism back in 1978.


I'd rather be debating an actual piece of legislation aim at solving the problem and focused on protecting the privacy and liberty interest that you rightfully raise. Your arguments seem to be aimed at maintaining the bloody status quo because of "what they could, or might do."

You think we've made it to this point being too afraid to take on the challenges because of "what they could, or might do? I salute you for raising the issues, but anybody can raise issues; how about ways to remedy what you see as the downsides ???​


 

I'd rather be debating an actual piece of legislation aim at solving the problem and focused on protecting the privacy and liberty interest that you rightfully raise. Your arguments seem to be aimed at maintaining the bloody status quo because of "what they could, or might do."

You think we've made it to this point being too afraid to take on the challenges because of "what they could, or might do? I salute you for raising the issues, but anybody can raise issues; how about ways to remedy what you see as the downsides ???​



Start by banning the use of all automatic weapons on domestic soil, except for the purpose of military training, national defense or strictly defined acts of terrorism. Get rid of any laws that prevent or hinder the private possession or individual sale of any weapon except for weaponized vehicles, gasses, biological, nuclear and non-commercial explosives. Enforce stricter criminal punishments and police resources for aggravated assault, murder, robbery, brandishing and firearm negligence.

This way you uphold all but the most ludicrous definitions of the second amendment and even the balance of power between the police and the publc. You also ensure that anyone who misuses a weapon is less likely to see the outside of a cell for a very long time.
 
Back
Top