Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[Chief Joseph]

Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

What is a "funny gun," and why does Vin love them? Find out on today's episode of 'As The Peanut Butter Melts.'

[olafberserker]

  This is not difficult to understand.

Oh, you have no idea .......

[Dolorous Jason]

Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

What is a "funny gun," and why does Vin love them? Find out on today's episode of 'As The Peanut Butter Melts.'

A funny gun is a gun made out of peanut butter , but of course.

[Dolorous Jason]

There is also a part of the 10th Amendment that you seem to be missing the meaning of...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That last part is always a sticking point for you strict constructionists, as you often times fail to even address that it's there. What that means is that the Constitution gives the people the right to decide, by way of majority rule, what laws can be made as long as they are not in conflict with the rights enumerated in the Constitution. If the majority of the populace supports an assault weapons ban, then that ban is constitutional by authority of the 10th amendment.

You are correct, it does say people.  It means if a power is not delegated to Congress, the states and people are not  restricted, and have the power.  It restricts federal power, and leaves it with the citizens.  The 2nd amendment addresses the right to bear arms.  There is now power to override other than by Constitutional amendment, which can be done by congress or the states.   It does not create a democracy.  There is a way to amend the Constitution by the people through the states.  We are not a democracy, and do not have majority rule.  We are a Representative Republic made up of 50 states.  It is difficult to debate you, if you believe that we are a majority rule democracy.   The The assault ban is coming from Congress, not the people.  The people have not amended the Constitution.  This is not difficult to understand.

Yeah , let me know when they send out that ballot for us regular "people" to vote directly on federal gun control legislation, lol .   The "people" don't vote on federal legislation. If comrade is claiming "the people" means our elected representatives in Congress , then there would be no need for a 10th amendment , because it would have just rendered itself obsolete by re-granting congress the power to pass anything it wants in the very same sentence, lol.

 My god CBW is a dunce.

The "people" obviously refers to individuals. For example , since the constitution does not say,  "the federal government shall have the power to silence fools on the internet" , CBW is free to continue being a fool.

[VinBucFan]

LOL.  You cant discuss one without the other because the Court was comparing the two.  That's like saying a discussion comparing Deocrats to Republicans is not about Democrats, it makes no sense.  In essence, you are now just coming back to agreeing with the point I made. I guess you re-read it and realized I was not misreading it.  THE POINT was precisely the point you are making now and that is that the Court drew a distinction between weapons "in common use for a lawful purpose"  and military weapons.

Geez, glad we cleared that up . . . .

As to the rest, "lawful" doesnt mean that they arent used to kill much so your comments about assault rifles are misplaced.  Assault rifles are actually marketed as "military like" and they don't serve a uniquely lawful purpose, such as hunting or self-defense (like a handgun in the home, which is what Heller was about).  Most assault-rifles are purchased by enthusiasts.  Not all, but most.  Being an enthusiast maybe lawful, but the purpose is not so significant (target practice v self-defense) particularly when compared to the risk, that it will present much of an argument against regulation.  As you recall, "assault weapons" were banned already (at least in name), the case for not banning them again didnt get stronger after Newtown  (and will get even weaker after the next copy cat crime)

No they never compared those. The point in heller was to say that nothing in it overruled the ban on individuals having automatic weapons or flak cannon.

Pretty clear you've never read Heller based on those two sentences. Not sure why you are trying to discuss something you haven't read.

[VinBucFan]

what makes the "funny gun lovers" in this and the other threads "funny" is that most of them have completely abandoned any effort to make a substantive argument choosing instead to "shoot the messenger," which only underscore the total lack of merit in their position.

[olafberserker]

what makes the "funny gun lovers" in this and the other threads "funny" is that most of them have completely abandoned any effort to make a substantive argument choosing instead to "shoot the messenger," which only underscore the total lack of merit in their position.

if that's the case peanut butter boy, then you abandoned the merit of your position long ago ....


   

 

[bradentonian]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

Rifles, which is the category that incudes "Assault Rfiles" are responsible for < 3% of murders. Banning them would achieve what?

What percent of mass murders?

[spartan]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

Rifles, which is the category that incudes "Assault Rfiles" are responsible for < 3% of murders. Banning them would achieve what?

What percent of mass murders?

Read this:

Study: The U.S. has had one mass shooting per month since 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/02/study-the-u-s-has-had-one-mass-shooting-per-month-since-2009/

FYI, a mass shooting in FBI statistics is where 4 or more people are injured or killed.

[VinBucFan]

what makes the "funny gun lovers" in this and the other threads "funny" is that most of them have completely abandoned any effort to make a substantive argument choosing instead to "shoot the messenger," which only underscore the total lack of merit in their position.

if that's the case peanut butter boy, then you abandoned the merit of your position long ago ....


   

 

Now how could that be as I continue to post new information all the time?  I mean . .  . .somebody has give you text to creatively edit 

It's really a simple proposition: the more guns the more gun violence. Simple undeniable truth. There are supposedly 310 million guns in this country. There are many estimates, but who knows or cares what the number actual is, all one has to do is read the news (that is primarily what I have been posting) and he/she should see that there is gun violence in the country EVERY DAY.  I posted an  article that said its almost common place to have kids bring guns to school . . . for goodness sake. 

You and the other "gun lovers" (I know, I know . .  you've never "advocated" a position --lol) hate THE NEWS . . . . think about that for a second . .  . you guys have spent an inordinate amount of energy trying to "shout down" the NEWS I post in some of these gun threads  .  . now why would you guys hate the NEWS so much?  My guess is it makes the "no you cant have ANY of my guns" argument a little silly. Because that position is silly on its face, there's no substance posted by most of you guys, its just blah, blah . .  picture   . .  blah, blah.   Like I said before . . . . . TELLING.

[VinBucFan]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

Rifles, which is the category that incudes "Assault Rfiles" are responsible for < 3% of murders. Banning them would achieve what?

That's an interesting spin Spartan.  First, I don't think I have seen anyone advocating banning RIFLES.  Some have advocated banning a subset of rifles generically called "assault rifles." Second, assault rifles have been used in some of the most high profile mass murders, clearly mass murders seem to like them.  Third, the burden is NOT on non-gun owner to justify why "assault rilfes" should be banned. The burden is on you and other gun owners to explain why we need "assault rifles" in society such that the price paid for having them -- which lately seems to be a growing number of mass murders -- is justified.  A handgun is arguably used for person protection or home protection.  A non-assault rifle is used for hunting.  An "assault rifle" is used FOR SPORT and that "benefit" to society is easily outweighed by the "cost."  Stated differently, its a matter of simple logic that the needs of the many outweigh the wants of a few. Society should  NOT have to pay for your wants.

[spartan]

Not sure what you are rabbiting on about right now Vin, but I want to let you know a couple of things.

A friend of mine must have 20+ guns, at least. He is an AVID hunter and pretty well off. He has been big game hunting in Africa, hog hunting in Georgia and deer hunting in Florida. If he used the gun he used in Africa for deer hunting in Florida, there wouldn't be much left of the deer. If he used the gun in Africa that he used in Florida, there wouldn't be much left of him. I have a bolt action with a scope for target shooting and an Ar for 'defensive' purposes. My point is the number of guns is IMO a bogus issue. Horses for courses.

I take and teach my kids shooting. I INSTILL in them safety and procedures. I kicked my 9 yr old off the range a month back because she was starting to show off in front of her friend. Not with a gun, but she was talking sh*t demonstrating how much she knows etc. I kicked her off because she wasn't taking it seriously and those are the situations where accidents occur. The point of that is that my kids are drilled on the do's and don'ts of gun safety, and just importantly my guns. They would not dare touch them without permission, even if I leave them lying around the house. Kids who take guns to school are either thugs or have not been educated properly. You can't ban everything that might be dangerous just because some parents are irresponsible. Think how many kids drown in swimming pools in their back yards. 2 children younger than 14 drown a day in the US. Should we ban pools? I mean, if we just save 1 life we have to try right?

[VinBucFan]

I have a bolt action with a scope for target shooting and an Ar for 'defensive' purposes.

To defend against what?  Just posted this in the other thread:

Assault rifles are specifically marketed  as military-like weapons and, in fact, are often marketed to people who seem to think the civilized world might come to an end. Today, as I was riding on a plane, the guy next to me was reading promotional material for an "assault rifle" on his laptop.  After looking at many photographs of a military-style gun, he pulled up a promotional video from the gun manufacturer. The video was illustrating how quickly this "assault rifle" empties a clip by showing a guy insert the clip, take aim at a target and then pull the trigger to set off a fountain of shells flying out of the gun.  At the end of the video came a slogan. That slogan was:

"STOPS JIHAD ON CONTACT"

No mention of the 2nd Amendment, just playing to the fear (some might say irrational fear) that somehow Carrollwood or maybe New Tampa is going to be overrun by Jihadist and so "I better have my weapon that can unload a full huge clip in seconds because it STOPS JIHAD ON CONTACT."

http://youtu.be/fWAs4gVaY7A

[VinBucFan]

A friend of mine must have 20+ guns, at least. He is an AVID hunter and pretty well off. He has been big game hunting in Africa, hog hunting in Georgia and deer hunting in Florida. If he used the gun he used in Africa for deer hunting in Florida, there wouldn't be much left of the deer. If he used the gun in Africa that he used in Florida, there wouldn't be much left of him.

Spartan, everyone can point to an exception and to a "model citizen" who own many guns, but so what?  Ms. Lanza, a women living in upper middle class suburban utopia had 5 guns one of which was an AR.  As far as I know she was not "big game" hunting in Africa.  Keep all the big, bolt action rifles you want . . . but you still haven't given a justification for having an assault rifle that outweighs the danger.  I am sure there are plenty of citizens that could be trusted with a machine gun, doesn't mean we need them in society

[GameTime]

Kids who take guns to school are either thugs or have not been educated properly. You can't ban everything that might be dangerous just because some parents are irresponsible. Think how many kids drown in swimming pools in their back yards. 2 children younger than 14 drown a day in the US. Should we ban pools? I mean, if we just save 1 life we have to try right?

and there's the rub for me.  society doesnt care enough to educate its youth.  so whats the solution?

i have come to possibly agree that there is no immediate need to ban assault rifles.  still apathetic about the issue.  i just do not see any real need for the assault rifles, but nor do i see much effect it would have banning on them.  cant stop crazy.

id love to do the swimming pool thread also.