US House passes gun control bill

[Osborn F Enready]

Soylent Green said: Ok First you said you disagreed with DUI ,I took it to mean completly, no matter how drunk a person was. Then you say not sure where to draw the line, so you believe a line should be drawn. Ok that I can agree with and propose the best way would be to publish all the facts on body weight to consumption and then have a referendum.

Why not just hold people responsible for their actions?

[Osborn F Enready]

Soylent Green said: The last gun man to shoot up a school was a loner. None of the above were in a position or capable of doing anything.

From what you READ, HEARD, and SAW on the news........

He had parents, who obviously weren't doing their role of parenting.
He had friends, or aquaintances, who "thought he was odd", as well as the school thought he should be seen by a psychiatrist......

This could have been prevented, and if not, could have been stopped sooner by RESPONSIBLE gun owners on campus, if they allowed them.

[Osborn F Enready]

banko said: So with the fact that the 2nd amendment was written in 1791 is there anyone that thinks perhaps this needs to be updated and altered to accomodate for todays weapons, and world?

I am sure many sheeple and socialists, and communists do.... but I do not.

The right to bear arms is a "no brainer" if you intend to remain independent.

Banko said: I mean if we are to take an open interpretation of this it should be legal for me to go out and buy an Apache helicopter and all of the munitions needed to fully arm it. I should also be able to drive to work in a tank if I so choose, and carry fully automatic assault rifles anywhere I go.

Perhaps you should do a bit more studying on Constitutional fact, history of the armed forces, and the role of individual rights and philosophy in the U.S.?

Banko said: Is it possible that perhaps this amendment is a little outdated and doesn't match what the United States is anymore?

Yes, that is possible, but that is due to treasonous abridgments of rights by lawmakers, and the 157 years of monopoly on politics by the bi-partisan scham. The Rights and philosophy of individual liberty are as true today as they were in 1791, it is the people who have failed to keep government within its Constitutionally limited sphere of authority, which is now taking the natural course it has set, which will be fragmentation of the nation, or revolt, eventually.

Banko said: Try starting a milita and stockpiling weapons, you will have the government come down on you like a rock in a puddle of water.

Obviously you have never tried?

Banko said: There is no way that any citizens could honestly attempt to defeat the US military which is controlled by the government in armed combat.

How old are you? What is your military experience? What is your tactical knowledge of warfare and battlefield tactics?

You are tragicly misinformed.

Banko said: When it was written, the soldiers had the same weapons as the farmers, I would have to say that this is no longer the case,

When it was written there WERE NO SOLDIERS, NO MILITARY, and NO TOLERANCE for such a thing.

Have you ever studied U.S. History?

[Milton Bradley]

Again this all seems to boil down to a certain segment of the population wanting to be protected from irrational people, but then they chart the most irrational approach to reach the desired goal.


Where is the disconnect?

[Osborn F Enready]

How ironic isn't it Milton.

The blind, asking the blind AND deaf to help them cross the street.

[SoylentGreen]

Osborn F Enready Why not just hold people responsible for their actions?

I have already retracted that comment realising how it wouldnt work.
Because alcahol can impair the ability to make a rational judgement.
And who holds them responsible. who decides what the consequences of their actions are.

[Osborn F Enready]

Soylent Green said: Because alcahol can impair the ability to make a rational judgement.

Does it not TAKE a choice to consume alchohol? Is it not the DUTY of a responsible person to limit themselves, or appoint a caretaker for them once they become impaired? (designated driver, good friend to help them find a cab, bartender gets $20.00 to be sure he doesn't leave intending to drive, etc)

Soylent Green said: And who holds them responsible. who decides what the consequences of their actions are.

A jury of their peers if a crime against anothers rights or property is committed.

[SoylentGreen]

Osborn F Enready

The chain of comments whent like this.

ZNYFRH said: tell me what the best way would be to prevent a mentally unstable depressed sociopath from acquiring handguns.

Osborn F Enready said Recognizing this problem BEFORE they become adults, and having responsible people (family, friends, neighbors, employers, etc) take action when evidence becomes clear.

Soylent Green said: The last gun man to shoot up a school was a loner. None of the above were in a position or capable of doing anything.

Osborn F Enready said He had parents, who obviously weren't doing their role of parenting. He had friends, or aquaintances, who "thought he was odd", as well as the school thought he should be seen by a psychiatrist...

.

So you state the problem with your answer to ZNYFRH yourself, which was what I was saying.
You should of answered ZNYFRH with something similar to

This could have been prevented, and if not, could have been stopped sooner by RESPONSIBLE gun owners on campus, if they allowed them.

[TheColdTruth]

Quote by: Autolykos But I'm not surprised. Anyways, look for the diagnosis of "mental illnesses" to rise among the general population. - Rob

You know doctors opinion can now take away your right to bear arms, right?

[rmnunez]

Is banning possession of firearms to certified nutcases, another effort at gun control? I can't think of a good reason for the adjudicatedly insane to have a gun. I also don't think the independence of the US would be compromised if all united statians turned in their guns and seriously doubt the government would spring to impose despotism the moment the last citizen was effectively disarmed.

[ZNFYRH]

Soylent

That's the same point I was trying to make.

Osborn says a "responsible" person is supposed to have taken action.

Well a doctor is a responsible person and the action is registering the kid as mentally unstable with the property authorities.

[pikatore]

Let's put it this way.

Gun control only strikes a chord with pro-gunners because it violates the second amendment. Problem is, not only are there plently of 'rights' and 'liberties' that the government has ALREADY restricted to the American public (just because it doesn't go bang, it doesn't mean it's not any less important), but the 2nd amendment is ITSELF used as an argument, as if it were some sort of law of nature.

However, it seems that certain people who have such an absolutist pro-gun view have to accept that such a view is not conducive to a healthy and safe society. What's safer, a safe community whereby the peace is kept because everyone has a handgun under thier pillow, or a community where peace is INSTILLED in the people through tight crime prevention, and education?

'Liberties' are important, but they are in no way necessary (in general) for a person to live a free and succesful life. Osbourne, before you jump on that comment, remember that enough 'liberties' you may have had in a totally lawless state are already restricted, and realise that you are still standing, and still have the freedom to do whatever you want, within reasonable grounds. That fact that each state has it's own little set of laws (which allows for countless exploits and interpretations) doesn't help the cohesion of the US itself as a whole, and that is something I think is a good idea. But that is a seperate point. I want to criticise the 2nd amendment itself.

The 2nd amendment ITSELF is being undermined by the very country it rules over, with different interpretations being made from it, and actual challenges made towards it. In fact, there are several laws in place that can appear to be conflict with the 2nd amendment.

This one regarding a mental screening test violates the 2nd amendment - but at the same time, creates a safer society. It discriminartes mentally ill people from normal people. Funny how I don't see a complete uproar in the US about it.

Another one, the United States vs. Miller case, is another example of the 2nd amendment being undermined. The supreme court overruled and reversed a decision a more local court made about a law violating the second amendment, and actually said that a shotgun like that wasn't protected by the 2nd amendment, as it wasn't 'military'. Obviously, the 2nd amendment is not a solid, right protecting law, it uses highly flexible, context sensitive terminology, and if it is attacked directly, can crumble under the old and irrelevant circumstances that it was conceived under.

[Osborn F Enready]

Pikatore said: Gun control only strikes a chord with pro-gunners because it violates the second amendment.

Wrong. Gun Control strikes a chord with many pro-gunners, such as myself, for the basic logic used, which results in removal of competent protection from citizens hands.

Yes, the blatant violation of the 2nd amendment is a big deal also, but the fact is that arms are protected as a right so that the citizens of the nation can mount a competent defense against enemies both foreign and domestic, whichever become imminent threats against U.S. soil, or citizens.

Many people, like me, will never surrender arms in exchange for promises of security by government...... NEVER.

Pikatore said: However, it seems that certain people who have such an absolutist pro-gun view have to accept that such a view is not conducive to a healthy and safe society.

Safe society is not the only concern, nor the most important concern of arms ownership. Individual liberty and individual responsibility is a DIRECT COST to society, but it is a cost this nation built itself upon, and founded its laws on because we recognize individual rights as the pinnacle of mans achievements, and the best method for a truly diverse, yet peaceful society that welcomes ALL philosophies, cultures, beliefs and peoples on the one common agreement to respect those equal rights for all.

The problem is, people like you Pikatore, who skew the debate about guns into an issue of legality, when it is really an issue of availability.
YOU CAN'T get rid of guns, even if you at one time removed every single arms manufacturer in the world, as well as all ammunition manufacturers.
People can still make them, easier now than ever thanks to technology, at home, at work, in basements and backrooms, in apartments and school shop classes.

Getting rid of guns, or attempting to control them as many people speak of "gun control" is simply an aid to the criminals, and fascists who seek power, and people that believe the lie are only helping to disenfranchise themselves, and their countrymen into the hands of the enemy.

“Crooks are going to get guns regardless of what regulations we have.”
-Kurt Schmoke, Mayor of Baltimore, 1999-Mar-13

“This proposal will never prevent criminals from possessing firearms and we never said it would.”
-Daryl Smeaton, Attorney General's department, Director of Law Enforcement Co-ordination, on the new Australian gun bans, in The Weekend Australian, 20-21 September 1997, page 6

“This business about gun control is a joke really. I come from Switzerland where everyone is taught how to treat weapons sensibly and with care. In Switzerland everyone keeps a gun in their own home and we don't have any problems with them.”
-Mrs Emma Jay, 70, Northern New South Wales, Australia, Friend of Port Arthur mass shooting victim Jim Pollard, as reported in The Age 19/7/96 page A7

“Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins.”
-Mafia informant Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, on gun control, in an interview by Howard Blum that appears in the September 1999 issue of Vanity Fair magazine

“Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime of murder, and a law enforcement officer committed that crime.”
-The History Channel, Modern Marvels, Weapons at War: The Machine Gun

Pikatore said: What's safer, a safe community whereby the peace is kept because everyone has a handgun under thier pillow, or a community where peace is INSTILLED in the people through tight crime prevention, and education?

A community where every person is allowed the right to own and carry arms, practice with arms, and is encouraged to train and become skilled with arms.

Which is safer......

A nation with an army of 500,000 ARMED soldiers with skills in arms.
or
A nation with an armed populace of 300,000,000 armed citizens, skilled in the use of arms that rely on those arms for both self-defense and national protection in the case of invasion.

It all depends on the meaning of the word "safe", and the context of what determines safe.

I would rather be safe from tyranny, than safe from a street thug who wants my wallet. ( I can protect myself from the street thug, whereas I must rely on my countryment to help me stay safe from tyrannical government.)

Pikatore said: 'Liberties' are important, but they are in no way necessary (in general) for a person to live a free and succesful life.

....in your opinion......

I obviously disagree, and refuse to accept such notions based on obvious historical and present day examples.

Pikatore said: Osbourne, before you jump on that comment, remember that enough 'liberties' you may have had in a totally lawless state are already restricted, and realise that you are still standing, and still have the freedom to do whatever you want, within reasonable grounds.

I don't want, nor have I ever, EVER advocated a LAWLESS STATE.

Get you facts straight.

Pikatore said: That fact that each state has it's own little set of laws (which allows for countless exploits and interpretations) doesn't help the cohesion of the US itself as a whole, and that is something I think is a good idea.

Good for you, I don't agree. I don't think the cohesion of the Federal Union should come before, or in exchange for individual liberty, or states rights, and will fight that notion until the end of me, or it.

Pikatore said: The 2nd amendment ITSELF is being undermined by the very country it rules over, with different interpretations being made from it, and actual challenges made towards it. In fact, there are several laws in place that can appear to be conflict with the 2nd amendment.

I have been arguing this since my first visit to Volconvo, and the same can be said about laws respecting EVERY OTHER individual right. The system is no longer Constitutional, nor does it respect the limitations of the Constitution, hence the need for another revolt, peaceful, political or otherwise.

It is time the people stood up and took action to limit the over-reach of the federal government, and people can do that by demanding their STATE representative seek such action to limit the federal government via states rights, and citizen appeal to the issues.