Yep. As gun owners, taking people shooting is our best way to preserve our rights too. Seriously, I've never met a person who went shooting for the first time and said, "You know, that really sucked! You couldn't pay me to do that again!"
Originally Posted by It is Fake
I have been trying to get to grips with what is happening in the US with regards to the second amendment because I feel that the erosion of the second amendment will in my mind undoubtedly lead to the erosion of the first for which it was designed to protect and that this will have a significant affect on the world and not just the US given the unbridled power a future government will have over one of it not the most powerful nation on the planet.
Apart from a short spell in South Africa I have never lived in a country were guns are legal but I struggle to see a gun in itself giving somebody the motivation to shoot somebody.
I appreciate it does make it easier to kill but at the same time it is still a difficult thing for a well adjusted human being to do without being attacked themselves in some way so a person with the motivation in a land with many guns is likely to be
a)able to get his hands on one regardless of the written law
b)not give a damn about the law anyway as he intends to commit a worse crime by using the gun.
Im sure antigun lobiests have a 1000's of arguments for anything I might say but in my opinion as an outsider the greater priority is that the US constitution should be protected at all costs in its present form and all problems should be dealt with around that fact.
Hey fucktard, adjust your sarcasmometer.
Originally Posted by PDA
Originally Posted by DerAuslander
It's funny. If you look around on the internet you'll see news outlets discussing a "major breakthrough" on gun legislation, citing a compromise between a couple Senators that may lead to a vote. Please have a reality check:
There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. This has been and continues to be a complete and total curb stomping of the gun grabbers. They know it, but they're still trying to spin anything they can get as a win. But in the end, they're getting jack ****.
Honestly, when this **** started I figured the whole AWB would make it through the Senate before being shitcanned by the House. But let's review where we are at this point. The only thing left on the table in the Senate is a piece of the expanded background check legislation. It already has exceptions and it's subject to further amendments in order to pass the Senate. And that's after it makes it through a Republican filibuster. Then it will go on to disappear in the House. If by some miracle it does get passed in the House, it will only be a tiny little piece of nothingness at that point.
This one goes in the Win column for gun rights. You may get your way at some point but it won't be today, cocksuckers.
14 Senators were talking about a filibuster on Thursday to prevent a vote. Also, the last thing I read was a magazine capacity restriction.
I think the magazine capacity restriction went by the wayside about a millisecond after the rest of the assault weapon ban, but I'll keep reading to see if I can confirm or deny.
Originally Posted by It is Fake
This sums it up pretty well. Nobody's talking about anything except the background checks. The legislation is still there, but everybody knows they don't have the votes for anything except maybe this little piece of background stuff.
I am pretty ambivalent about the expansion of background checks. On the one hand, if they can keep guns out of the hands of even a few criminals and nut jobs who shouldn't guns, then it would appear to be a justifiable restriction. However, that is a really big "if" considering over 70% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally and most of the nut jobs who have committed mass shootings in the recent past would have been able to pass a back ground check. Moreover, even with the current amendment to prohibit the government from using the background check system to create a gun registry that could be used for confiscations in the future, our government has shown a willingness to violate the law in the name of "security" quite frequently. Given many of the most anti-gun politicians admission that they would push for confiscation if they could get the votes, I am worried that the expansion of background checks is just another incremental erosion of the Second Amendment.
At least the current amendment to the bill explicitly states that the Second Amendment is an individual and not a collective right. I'd read that this amendment created a nationwide right to carry provision, but I do not see that in the text anywhere.
Last edited by TEA; 4/13/2013 12:15pm at .
Mushi mo atsui hodo
Originally Posted by chuey
...Well **** if that isn't the most anti-Mr. Miyagi **** I have heard in ages.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but
Three rights make a left.
Like I argued in another thread, the background checks WORKED, for the Sandy Hook shooting. That's what makes this legislation bullshit to me. I do not mind that they want to do expanded background checks. I mind that they sat on their hands for YEARS and used dead kids to push these changes.
Yes, I find that disgusting.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO