|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 15:04:25 GMT -5
The Constitution is such a nothing document.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights already acts as international law and ensures everybody gets the rights that are entitled to them. It covers the same things as the Constitution except it's not completely outdated.
Also people can't keep pointing to it to say "Look! They say we should all have guns! SEE!".
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 18, 2013 15:04:28 GMT -5
Yeah, sorry, I'm not going to "compromise" my Constitutional right to own a gun, as a free person. By the way, again, I don't even own a gun. I just don't want people regulating crap more than it is now. What compromise is being made? What right is being given up? So far no one has explained that.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Apr 18, 2013 15:04:51 GMT -5
i feel much safer being canadian. we don't have guns and we're just fine. weird. Same with being from the UK. I like being able to go out at night without fearing (realistically) I could be shot. Im a proud American and Ive never gone anywhere with the fear of being shot or blown up. In fact I would be more fearful in another country knowing the jealousy & hate that other countries have for the United States and not knowing what they could/would do to be just because of where Im from.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 15:06:36 GMT -5
Same with being from the UK. I like being able to go out at night without fearing (realistically) I could be shot. Im a proud American and Ive never gone anywhere with the fear of being shot or blown up. In fact I would be more fearful in another country knowing the jealousy & hate that other countries have for the United States and not knowing what they could/would do to be just because of where Im from. ....what? You'd be scared of being in another country because some people don't like America? That's absurd.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 18, 2013 15:11:26 GMT -5
Yeah, sorry, I'm not going to "compromise" my Constitutional right to own a gun, as a free person. By the way, again, I don't even own a gun. I just don't want people regulating crap more than it is now. The fact that you do no research and base your comments based on what you think issues are about makes me chuckle. Go read the bill and tell my how it would have compromised anybody's Constitutional rights? I understand some people are like talking to a brick wall and no matter what the issue is really about they continue to respond with their same cookie cutter personal opinions....but you reeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaallly should do some research before you talk/type. It's amazing how trying to close a loophole where you don't have to pass the already Constitutional background check to purchase a gun is seen by the ignorant masses as "THEY BE TAKIN MA GUNZ AWAY!!!!!!!!"
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2013 15:21:51 GMT -5
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Explain to me how more regulations (a background check in general) don't infringe upon the right to bear arms. Call it a "loophole" all you want -- as a free person, my ability to own a gun of my choosing is not to be infringed upon. Period.
The Constitution does not say anything about, "unless the government decides that you don't get to own a gun based on some arbitrary bylaws we created," does it? No, it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 15:27:52 GMT -5
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Explain to me how more regulations (a background check in general) don't infringe upon the right to bear arms. Call it a "loophole" all you want -- as a free person, my ability to own a gun of my choosing is not to be infringed upon. Period. The Constitution does not say anything about, "unless the government decides that you don't get to own a gun based on some arbitrary bylaws we created," does it? No, it doesn't. Technically then, restricting ANYONE from buying guns is infringing on the Constitution. You in favour of giving guns to criminals? People with mental illnesses? Children?
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 18, 2013 15:28:59 GMT -5
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Explain to me how more regulations (a background check in general) don't infringe upon the right to bear arms. Call it a "loophole" all you want -- as a free person, my ability to own a gun of my choosing is not to be infringed upon. Period. The Constitution does not say anything about, "unless the government decides that you don't get to own a gun based on some arbitrary bylaws we created," does it? No, it doesn't. Hahahahaha "No studying". Nothing you've said in this entire thread has even come within 1000 miles of anything the actual Bill was about. I'll take it slow with you, because clearly you don't know what the hell actually goes on in the real world. Answer me this question: Do you think, as it stands right now with no proposed changes, the 3 day waiting period and background check that people have to pass when they buy a gun from a gun store is Constitutional?
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Apr 18, 2013 15:30:01 GMT -5
There is a very good reason why it's the second amendment ahead of due process, etc...
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Apr 18, 2013 15:38:02 GMT -5
No, it won't, but the bill is still a no-brainer IMO. I think the point of the bill is to make the public happy and feel like they're actually doing something. When in reality what they are doing doesn't even matter. I completely agree. It's about putting on a face to the vulnerable public. I don't think they were actually serious about stopping gun violence. It's all about appearances and was not about solutions.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazyness on Apr 18, 2013 15:40:33 GMT -5
God this thread is a hit! Finally found myself useful a thread that is about some hot debate.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 15:52:07 GMT -5
Yeah, sorry, I'm not going to "compromise" my Constitutional right to own a gun, as a free person. By the way, again, I don't even own a gun. I just don't want people regulating crap more than it is now. The fact that you do no research and base your comments based on what you think issues are about makes me chuckle. Go read the bill and tell my how it would have compromised anybody's Constitutional rights? I understand some people are like talking to a brick wall and no matter what the issue is really about they continue to respond with their same cookie cutter personal opinions....but you reeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaallly should do some research before you talk/type. It's amazing how trying to close a loophole where you don't have to pass the already Constitutional background check to purchase a gun is seen by the ignorant masses as "THEY BE TAKIN MA GUNZ AWAY!!!!!!!!" I am so glad that you decide to ignore my posts about the MYTH of the loophole.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 15:55:58 GMT -5
The Constitution is such a nothing document. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights already acts as international law and ensures everybody gets the rights that are entitled to them. It covers the same things as the Constitution except it's not completely outdated. Also people can't keep pointing to it to say "Look! They say we should all have guns! SEE!". I have several problems with that declaration.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 15:59:08 GMT -5
The Constitution is such a nothing document. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights already acts as international law and ensures everybody gets the rights that are entitled to them. It covers the same things as the Constitution except it's not completely outdated. Also people can't keep pointing to it to say "Look! They say we should all have guns! SEE!". I have several problems with that declaration. And many people have problems with the Constitution. At least the UDHR was written in the last 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Apr 18, 2013 16:00:01 GMT -5
Im a proud American and Ive never gone anywhere with the fear of being shot or blown up. In fact I would be more fearful in another country knowing the jealousy & hate that other countries have for the United States and not knowing what they could/would do to be just because of where Im from. ....what? You'd be scared of being in another country because some people don't like America? That's absurd. Well, it's not anymore absurd than being afraid to be in the US for fear of being gunned down in cold blood wherever you go. That can happen almost anywhere with guns. Not just America. People hear about these mass shootings and tend to get the image that Columbine Trenchcoat clad men just roam the streets looking for someone to blast. THAT is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 16:02:56 GMT -5
....what? You'd be scared of being in another country because some people don't like America? That's absurd. Well, it's not anymore absurd than being afraid to be in the US for fear of being gunned down in cold blood wherever you go. That can happen almost anywhere with guns. Not just America. People hear about these mass shootings and tend to get the image that Columbine Trenchcoat clad men just roam the streets looking for someone to blast. THAT is absurd. Except being shot in cold blood in the US is practically an everyday occurrence while I'm not sure when the last time, if ever, someone has been killed in the UK just for being from America.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 16:05:24 GMT -5
I have several problems with that declaration. And many people have problems with the Constitution. At least the UDHR was written in the last 100 years. Does it matter when it was written? It is the ideas in it that matter. Is freedom of speech outdated because it was written in a document over 200 years ago? What about the right against unreasonable search and seizure? Is that a terrible thing too? The right to a fair trial and the right to not incriminate yourself? I guess we should get rid of those because it's been over 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 18, 2013 16:07:48 GMT -5
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Explain to me how more regulations (a background check in general) don't infringe upon the right to bear arms. Call it a "loophole" all you want -- as a free person, my ability to own a gun of my choosing is not to be infringed upon. Period. The Constitution does not say anything about, "unless the government decides that you don't get to own a gun based on some arbitrary bylaws we created," does it? No, it doesn't. So by your logic laws that ban fully automatic weapons or require you be 18 to own a handgun or ban grenade launchers are all unconstitutional because they infringe on the right to bear arms? That is insanity plain and simple. There are common sense things and there are stupid things. Opposing a background check is just beyond stupid. Especially if you're going to argue that background checks are already in place on every gun purchase anyway. Fine then, what does this law change? Nothing? Ok, then why oppose it?
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 18, 2013 16:11:02 GMT -5
The fact that you do no research and base your comments based on what you think issues are about makes me chuckle. Go read the bill and tell my how it would have compromised anybody's Constitutional rights? I understand some people are like talking to a brick wall and no matter what the issue is really about they continue to respond with their same cookie cutter personal opinions....but you reeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaallly should do some research before you talk/type. It's amazing how trying to close a loophole where you don't have to pass the already Constitutional background check to purchase a gun is seen by the ignorant masses as "THEY BE TAKIN MA GUNZ AWAY!!!!!!!!" I am so glad that you decide to ignore my posts about the MYTH of the loophole. Forget about the gun show survey that is your only leg to stand on.....I just went to a couple of different websites and each one of them are ready to sell me any number of hand guns for under $700 dollars. They don't know who the hell I am, if I'm using a real name or my real address or having it sent to another address under a different name or if I've ever raped a woman at gun point or committed a crime against a child or what my story is........... So yes, there are loopholes and yes this bill was needed so that any psychopath with internet and enough money can just go on the internet and have a gun shipped to them.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 16:11:03 GMT -5
And many people have problems with the Constitution. At least the UDHR was written in the last 100 years. Does it matter when it was written? It is the ideas in it that matter. Is freedom of speech outdated because it was written in a document over 200 years ago? What about the right against unreasonable search and seizure? Is that a terrible thing too? The right to a fair trial and the right to not incriminate yourself? I guess we should get rid of those because it's been over 100 years. Yeah, it does matter when it was written. If we listened to everything from hundreds of years ago, God knows where we'd be. And no, those things aren't outdated because they are still in the UDHR. Is right to a gun in there? I don't think so.
|
|