Obama: executive action to expand background checks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2015, 12:26 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(11-12-2015 11:31 PM)Fireball Wrote:  Doesn't matter. Background checks being forced to two weeks actually dialed back the requirements for some states, like California, which used to require 21 days before being forced to go to 2 weeks by federal mandate. Background checks are only going to work for the law-abiding citizens. This isn't rocket science, and anyone who doesn't get that is thick in the head. Law-breakers and terrorists don't give one pinch of feces about the laws of this country, they are just going to rob people and/or inflict damage based on their disturbed sense of whatever they think justice or reality is.


Case in point: the recent knife-wielding terrorist in the UK.

He had a knife, because getting a hold of a gun int he UK is prohibitively hard. They are expensive, require multiple legal hoops to jump through, and the country is not already saturated with them.


Now in light of this, a law to require background checks for people on the FBI terrorism no-fly list was voted down in Congress. This didn't prohibit the sale of guns to those on the list, it just mandated a more thorough check for anyone on that list. At worst, it slightly more inconvenienced a law-abiding citizen or someone otherwise mistakenly placed on the list. Who benefits from Congress voting this down? People on the list, and gun manufacturers.

We cannot get shit done, because Congress doesn't answer to the people; they answer to their doners.

That being said, any measures that don't also include some way to drastically reduce the massive amount of firearms already in circulation, won't solve the problem on it's own. Are we prepared to follow Australia's lead and have a massive government gun-buyback program implemented? Are we prepared to make new weapons prohibitively expensive? Even if we were, is Congress prepared to defy the NRA and the weapon manufactures they represent? On all accounts, we are not.

One has to wonder how much blood it will take before we do care enough to ditch our gun culture fetishism, take back our government from the wealthy minority, and do something constructive about it.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
12-12-2015, 03:09 AM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2015 03:15 AM by Ace.)
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(10-12-2015 09:06 PM)Alla Wrote:  I want to understand what's wrong with background checks? Why many do not want it? it must be some reason.

there being zero background checks suspected terrorist who by US law aren't allowed to board planes can buy guns without worry

this is what the NRA, GOP, manufacturers want because the more easy it is for terrorists to get guns the more shootings there will be which will make people buy more guns to protect themselves which means gun manufacturers make MORE MONEY

these people are against banning armor piercing bullets being available in the market....... now who wears armor and Kevlar ? ah yes law enforcement and the armed forces who have to deal with terrorist and mass shooting nuts constantly

the right wing keeps babbling about 2nd amendment.... since when do suspected terrorist get equal rights when their innocence can't be proven ?

Quote: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

meaning:
Quote:A militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/[1] generally is an army or other fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel

the damn constitutional right is saying people in militia's can't have their guns taken away as they need em to fight if the govt calls them to fight to protect the state/nation
this isn't about having guns because you want one
militias are regulated by a govt and last I checked the US population being armed doesn't make any of em part of a militia since they aren't an army formed and regulated by the govt, they are just people with guns
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2015, 04:43 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(12-12-2015 03:09 AM)Ace Wrote:  
Quote: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

meaning:
Quote:A militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/[1] generally is an army or other fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel

the damn constitutional right is saying people in militia's can't have their guns taken away as they need em to fight if the govt calls them to fight to protect the state/nation
this isn't about having guns because you want one
militias are regulated by a govt and last I checked the US population being armed doesn't make any of em part of a militia since they aren't an army formed and regulated by the govt, they are just people with guns

I think your reading is incorrect. They are saying that because a well regulated militia is necessary to the protection of a free state, the people as a whole (not just militia members) shall not have their right to bear arms infringed (i.e. they will always be ready to form a well regulated militia).

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
12-12-2015, 05:16 AM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2015 05:59 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(12-12-2015 04:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  I think your reading is incorrect. They are saying that because a well regulated militia is necessary to the protection of a free state, the people as a whole (not just militia members) shall not have their right to bear arms infringed (i.e. they will always be ready to form a well regulated militia).

I get that line of reasoning, and I don't like it; it's as if the founding fathers and their intent should never be questioned.

The First Amendment wasn't written with instantaneous global communication in mind. With every new technological advancement, the First Amendment has been challenged; most recently with video-games getting the official nod and their protected status alongside books and film, older mediums that went through similar fights for recognition.

I don't care for the 'militia versus personal' interpretation debate, as I think that misses the point. I think the whole notion of a citizens militia capable of challenging a modern military is woefully outdated in our current context. Not only that, I think that having that level of lethality easily obtainable, so widespread and accessible to such a large number of untrained citizens, is a recipe for the disasters that now regularly plague us.

Much like we shouldn't be surprised that the founding fathers failed to imagine Facebook and Twitter, we should acknowledge that they failed to envision both modern firearms or the other tools employed by the strongest military on the face of the planet. If the purpose of the Amendment is to have a citizens militia that can challenge the government, then we should act accordingly; take the Finland approach and have all citizens forced to serve a certain amount of time as enlisted troops and pass the minimum training required. Then have all citizens who have passed their training be supplied with weapons and ammo for them to maintain at home, so that they can rise as one to challenge the government if and when needed. But the current ad hoc weapons bonanza is a mismanaged cavalier approach that costs people lives, and near as I can tell, for not tangible benefit.

How well has the Second Amendment protected us from the oligarchs who bought our government out from under us? This arms race between citizens and the militarization of domestic police forces is doing nothing but increase weapon manufacturer profits and collateral damage; at a great cost to citizens in both blood and treasure.

Conversely we need to have a reasonable debate about what we want, and how to get it. How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice for our safety (and save the hyperbolic rhetoric about those who sacrifice freedom for security deserving neither, the world is more nuanced than that)? It seems like the majority of Americans at least agree with the sacrifice of subjecting everyone to universal federal background checks, and yet even with overwhelming support behind that idea, our government fails to act and actually represent it's people. Unfortunately we'll never have a meaningful or intelligent debate at the national level about what changes, if any, can or should be made to the Second Amendment until we can bring our body politic out from under the control of the wealthy elite. We live in an oligarchy, and until that changes, this debate and it's possible solutions will never be anything more than academic masturbation.

And people will continue to needlessly die. One has to wonder how many it will take before something actually gets done.

/rant

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
12-12-2015, 05:34 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(12-12-2015 05:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I get that line of reasoning, and I don't like it; it's as if the founding fathers and their intent should never be questioned.

It ain't *my* line of reasoning Tongue

If people put legal stuff in a document then naturally the wording and the intent behind the wording will be subjected to scrutiny.

I do agree that the said wording and intent should in no way be regarded as sacrosanct. I also agree that the notion of a citizen militia taking on the professional military of their own country is rather ludicrous in this day and age, not least because the professional military are drawn from the ranks of the citizens themselves and are therefore unlikely to side against the said citizens.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
12-12-2015, 12:28 PM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2015 12:34 PM by Ace.)
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(12-12-2015 04:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(12-12-2015 03:09 AM)Ace Wrote:  meaning:

the damn constitutional right is saying people in militia's can't have their guns taken away as they need em to fight if the govt calls them to fight to protect the state/nation
this isn't about having guns because you want one
militias are regulated by a govt and last I checked the US population being armed doesn't make any of em part of a militia since they aren't an army formed and regulated by the govt, they are just people with guns

I think your reading is incorrect. They are saying that because a well regulated militia is necessary to the protection of a free state, the people as a whole (not just militia members) shall not have their right to bear arms infringed (i.e. they will always be ready to form a well regulated militia).

alright, time to bust out the videos... tyt has perfect timing on their uploads




Quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear High Explosive Arms, shall not be infringed

Quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Nuclear Arms, shall not be infringed

Quote:A well regulated Police force, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(12-12-2015 05:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(12-12-2015 04:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  I think your reading is incorrect. They are saying that because a well regulated militia is necessary to the protection of a free state, the people as a whole (not just militia members) shall not have their right to bear arms infringed (i.e. they will always be ready to form a well regulated militia).

I get that line of reasoning, and I don't like it; it's as if the founding fathers and their intent should never be questioned.

The First Amendment wasn't written with instantaneous global communication in mind. With every new technological advancement, the First Amendment has been challenged; most recently with video-games getting the official nod and their protected status alongside books and film, older mediums that went through similar fights for recognition.

I don't care for the 'militia versus personal' interpretation debate, as I think that misses the point. I think the whole notion of a citizens militia capable of challenging a modern military is woefully outdated in our current context. Not only that, I think that having that level of lethality easily obtainable, so widespread and accessible to such a large number of untrained citizens, is a recipe for the disasters that now regularly plague us.

Much like we shouldn't be surprised that the founding fathers failed to imagine Facebook and Twitter, we should acknowledge that they failed to envision both modern firearms or the other tools employed by the strongest military on the face of the planet. If the purpose of the Amendment is to have a citizens militia that can challenge the government, then we should act accordingly; take the Finland approach and have all citizens forced to serve a certain amount of time as enlisted troops and pass the minimum training required. Then have all citizens who have passed their training be supplied with weapons and ammo for them to maintain at home, so that they can rise as one to challenge the government if and when needed. But the current ad hoc weapons bonanza is a mismanaged cavalier approach that costs people lives, and near as I can tell, for not tangible benefit.

How well has the Second Amendment protected us from the oligarchs who bought our government out from under us? This arms race between citizens and the militarization of domestic police forces is doing nothing but increase weapon manufacturer profits and collateral damage; at a great cost to citizens in both blood and treasure.

Conversely we need to have a reasonable debate about what we want, and how to get it. How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice for our safety (and save the hyperbolic rhetoric about those who sacrifice freedom for security deserving neither, the world is more nuanced than that)? It seems like the majority of Americans at least agree with the sacrifice of subjecting everyone to universal federal background checks, and yet even with overwhelming support behind that idea, our government fails to act and actually represent it's people. Unfortunately we'll never have a meaningful or intelligent debate at the national level about what changes, if any, can or should be made to the Second Amendment until we can bring our body politic out from under the control of the wealthy elite. We live in an oligarchy, and until that changes, this debate and it's possible solutions will never be anything more than academic masturbation.

And people will continue to needlessly die. One has to wonder how many it will take before something actually gets done.

/rant


citizens with guns taking on an actual military... the results are rather obvious
they'll just be rushing to their deaths, brute strength is nothing in the wake of a regimented military
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(12-12-2015 12:28 PM)Ace Wrote:  
(12-12-2015 04:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  I think your reading is incorrect. They are saying that because a well regulated militia is necessary to the protection of a free state, the people as a whole (not just militia members) shall not have their right to bear arms infringed (i.e. they will always be ready to form a well regulated militia).

alright, time to bust out the videos... tyt has perfect timing on their uploads




Quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear High Explosive Arms, shall not be infringed

Quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Nuclear Arms, shall not be infringed

Quote:A well regulated Police force, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Your boy is eloquent but it doesn't change the fact that your reading (IMO) is incorrect.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2015, 08:22 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(12-12-2015 12:37 PM)Ace Wrote:  
(12-12-2015 05:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I get that line of reasoning, and I don't like it; it's as if the founding fathers and their intent should never be questioned.

The First Amendment wasn't written with instantaneous global communication in mind. With every new technological advancement, the First Amendment has been challenged; most recently with video-games getting the official nod and their protected status alongside books and film, older mediums that went through similar fights for recognition.

I don't care for the 'militia versus personal' interpretation debate, as I think that misses the point. I think the whole notion of a citizens militia capable of challenging a modern military is woefully outdated in our current context. Not only that, I think that having that level of lethality easily obtainable, so widespread and accessible to such a large number of untrained citizens, is a recipe for the disasters that now regularly plague us.

Much like we shouldn't be surprised that the founding fathers failed to imagine Facebook and Twitter, we should acknowledge that they failed to envision both modern firearms or the other tools employed by the strongest military on the face of the planet. If the purpose of the Amendment is to have a citizens militia that can challenge the government, then we should act accordingly; take the Finland approach and have all citizens forced to serve a certain amount of time as enlisted troops and pass the minimum training required. Then have all citizens who have passed their training be supplied with weapons and ammo for them to maintain at home, so that they can rise as one to challenge the government if and when needed. But the current ad hoc weapons bonanza is a mismanaged cavalier approach that costs people lives, and near as I can tell, for not tangible benefit.

How well has the Second Amendment protected us from the oligarchs who bought our government out from under us? This arms race between citizens and the militarization of domestic police forces is doing nothing but increase weapon manufacturer profits and collateral damage; at a great cost to citizens in both blood and treasure.

Conversely we need to have a reasonable debate about what we want, and how to get it. How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice for our safety (and save the hyperbolic rhetoric about those who sacrifice freedom for security deserving neither, the world is more nuanced than that)? It seems like the majority of Americans at least agree with the sacrifice of subjecting everyone to universal federal background checks, and yet even with overwhelming support behind that idea, our government fails to act and actually represent it's people. Unfortunately we'll never have a meaningful or intelligent debate at the national level about what changes, if any, can or should be made to the Second Amendment until we can bring our body politic out from under the control of the wealthy elite. We live in an oligarchy, and until that changes, this debate and it's possible solutions will never be anything more than academic masturbation.

And people will continue to needlessly die. One has to wonder how many it will take before something actually gets done.

/rant


citizens with guns taking on an actual military... the results are rather obvious
they'll just be rushing to their deaths, brute strength is nothing in the wake of a regimented military

Not as obvious as the untrained would assume. And brute strength has been obsolete for at least a few hundred years, if not more. That goes for both conventional forces or armed citizens fighting a guerrilla style war. It's hard to expand beyond that without a context, however, so if you'd like to give me a hypothetical scenario I'd love to get all tactical and expand on it. I'm a nerd for that kind of shit. Or if you're not actually interested in the topic, and just said what most people who are unfamiliar with military and paramilitary tactics believe and agree with by default without actually having the applicable knowledge to think critically on this particular topic, by all means feel free to just ignore me Tongue

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
13-12-2015, 06:16 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(12-12-2015 08:22 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
(12-12-2015 12:37 PM)Ace Wrote:  citizens with guns taking on an actual military... the results are rather obvious
they'll just be rushing to their deaths, brute strength is nothing in the wake of a regimented military

Not as obvious as the untrained would assume. And brute strength has been obsolete for at least a few hundred years, if not more. That goes for both conventional forces or armed citizens fighting a guerrilla style war. It's hard to expand beyond that without a context, however, so if you'd like to give me a hypothetical scenario I'd love to get all tactical and expand on it. I'm a nerd for that kind of shit. Or if you're not actually interested in the topic, and just said what most people who are unfamiliar with military and paramilitary tactics believe and agree with by default without actually having the applicable knowledge to think critically on this particular topic, by all means feel free to just ignore me Tongue

I am interested in the topic

and here's the hypothetical yet likely possible scenario
conservative right wing nuts start a revolt again and decides to fight the US govt again, the US military goes after em to get them again
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: