ABC does it again... gun control.

**Jim_Jude** · Posted On: 4/15/2009 9:31pm

Originally Posted by hapkido_keith

Of course I'm more than a little pissed off that I can't find ammo for my 9mm anywhere, which I blame on right-wing hysteria (ZOMG! the liberals are coming! buy all the gun **** you can before the liberals ban it all! ZOMGWTFBBQ the liberals! the liberalssssss!!!!!!!!!111one eleven) so it may color my opinion.

Yeah, & obviously all of those ammo manufacturers can't possibly make more ammo, right? You think it's all "supply & demand"? We have one hell of a demand, so where's all the supply? Some bitch tried to sell me .45 BALL AMMO at Big 5 for over NINETY CENTS A ROUND!!! Trying to tell me,"Oh, it's a 'special home defense round'". If I could have slapped her & got away with it, I would have.

Ammo makers could be making a killing right now, but no ammo to be found? yeah, that's NOT a "right-wing thing". NOT selling ammo to people who want it is something else entirely; it's a GUN CONTROL THING. If you can't get away with controlling the guns overtly, you control them covertly by what goes IN THEM.

**BadUglyMagic** · Posted On: 4/16/2009 3:01pm

Originally Posted by 1point2

I agree, Mr. Tripp, that it is counterproductive and disingenuous to enter the political space while deliberately disguising one's purposes. Banning bullets (or, to grab another stupidity, banning "assault weapons") based on bad information and with the purpose of gaining political points is stupid. Laws need to be based in reality.

Because no one in SoCal, Arizona or Texas has anything to fear from armed drug gangs, social discord or the associated spillover effects, they should stop the flow of firearms to those states first. You know, as a sign of good faith by the U.S.

From the AP off Yahoo today:
A U.S. military report just five months ago raised the specter of Mexico collapsing into a failed state with its government under siege. It named only one other country in such a worst-case scenario: Pakistan. The assertion incensed Mexican officials; Obama's team disavowed it.

**Jim_Jude** · Posted On: 4/16/2009 3:26pm

Originally Posted by HappyOldGuy

...All we can say is that guns from the US are confirmed as a small part of mexico's problem, that some folks in the US want to exagerate that for their political end, and that others want to minimize it for theirs.
[...]
*(if you care, the largest slice by far were revolvers, although you actually have to research the topic to find that out)

I'll have to hunt for the stats, but if a criminal is using a revolver, it's almost always STOLEN. So, our gun laws have little to no bearing on it's acquisition or use by criminal elements ...

AND if such guns are making their way down into Mexico, they're being pipelined in by Mexican gangs over here, gangs that are populated primarily by ILLEGALS.

So, you wanna fix the problem? Take care of the illegals, & leave American civil rights alone... AGAIN!

**CannibalCrowley** · Posted On: 4/25/2009 3:27pm

Originally Posted by JohnnyCache

Originally Posted by CannibalCrowley

That's been proven to be a bad idea for the same reasons that voting tests are a bad practice.

Please elaborate. It's my understanding we've managed to license operation of dangerous machines without significant destruction of civil rights.

What part of the Constitution deals with "dangerous machines"?

Originally Posted by JohnnyCache

Also, has it be PROVEN that it's a bad idea or ARGUED that it's a bad idea?

Yes it has been proven, and that's why the issue of voting tests was brought before the Supreme Court and declared unconstitutional.

***JohnnyCache*** · Posted On: 4/25/2009 4:43pm

which part of the constitution deals with crowded theaters? Please don't make a radical constitutional argument you don't understand.

The constitution had almost nothing to do with personal arms, actually - the fathers would no more bother enumerating the right to own a personal pistol or rifle then they would the right to own a wrench.

Note:No, I am not at all saying the 2nd amendment refers to the national guard.

also, does all case law pertaining to voting now apply to guns or are they sensibly partitioned under the law because of, you know, how little they have to do with each other?

**The Twitcher** · Posted On: 4/28/2009 8:54pm

Originally Posted by Mtripp

Well... NEVER forget that the People's Republic of MA tried to ban all "non-sporting" martial arts, years ago.

The push is "you can't take care of yourself, you need the Government to do it for you."

If you think guns scare them, which is why they want to take them away from you; what to you think legitimate martial skill does do them? You can't take that away from people.

I have spoken to people from the old USSR who told me they did combat sambo in the dark with the lights off.... so they would not be seen or caught.

Nuff said.

I always knew mASSachusetts was a really gay (no homo) place, but that part about "non sporting martial arts" really just makes me want to beat up some of their law makers. Where did you hear about this? Is there an article?

P.S. Did you know they required (maybe they still do) people to have a firearms license to possess a nail gun, or spend a year in prison?

**Jim_Jude** · Posted On: 4/28/2009 11:16pm

Originally Posted by JohnnyCache

The constitution had almost nothing to do with personal arms, actually - the fathers would no more bother enumerating the right to own a personal pistol or rifle then they would the right to own a wrench.

Note:No, I am not at all saying the 2nd amendment refers to the national guard.

What do you think that the 2nd Amendment is all about, then?

**BadUglyMagic** · Posted On: 4/29/2009 10:09am

Originally Posted by JohnnyCache

which part of the constitution deals with crowded theaters? Please don't make a radical constitutional argument you don't understand.

The First Amendment right does not include yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

But, you know that already.

**Rivington** · Posted On: 4/29/2009 10:35am

Originally Posted by BadUglyMagic

The First Amendment right does not include yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Unless there's a fire, or you have reason to believe that there is one, which is why Holmes made sure to say "falsely" in his opinion.

Incidentally, the opinion was outrageously bad anyway and the theater analogy was a strawman given the speech (anti-war/anti-draft leaflets) being suppressed. Luckily, this narrow view of the first amendment has since been overturned.

***DerAuslander*** · Posted On: 4/29/2009 2:08pm

Originally Posted by JohnnyCache

The constitution had almost nothing to do with personal arms, actually - the fathers would no more bother enumerating the right to own a personal pistol or rifle then they would the right to own a wrench.

Originally Posted by Samuel Adams

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions."

Source:
Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)