Do you think....?

Cypress said:
IHG, on this and other message boards, Cons are always citing a "rebellion against the federal government" as the reason for the second amendment.

Its ridicoulous.
Click to expand...

It's outright absurd.

American idol might be on that night!

For God Sakes we are talking about people who can't even be bothered to vote. They do not participate in their government, even when they strongly disagree with it. They don't get up off of their sofas for long enough to make a phone call to their congressperson. They don't march in demonstrations, even when they agree with the demonstrators.

It is never, ever, going to happen.
 
I'm not a constitutional scholar ihg, if it is determined that it would be unconstitutional to have a stalking complaints trigger these things, then make it across the board. What's wrong with that anyway?

A waiting period can be construed to be an infringement. It is relevant that the constitution used the word infringed and not prohibited.

So you have to pony up some references to get a gun

Well not having references should not preclude you from having the ability to exercise a right. You may have no friends family or co-workers.

have a waiting period

Dont' support weighting periods because the need for protection may be immediate. The issue of stalking is actually one I use for a reason I don't support background checks. You yourself have said the police aren't helpful. A woman who is being stalked should have the right to immediately puchase a gun from a jealous boyfriend or other attacker. You may say the weighting period on a gun or gun ban would solve that but women are usually at a physical disadvantage with man wielding an implement like a knife or bat. A handgun is a great equalizer and would allow the stalked woman to easily shoot the male assailant should he attack. As we know the police will not protect you and the supreme court has said the police are not obligated to protect you.

All this talk about police protection, background protections and waiting periods are cold comfort to a woman raped and brutally murdered because no one would help her and the state wouldn't allow her to pursue an option that could save her.

As for background checks I support them because a term of release from prison may be you may never own a gun. It is important to check if this applies to an ex-felon.
 
Darla said:
It's outright absurd.

American idol might be on that night!

For God Sakes we are talking about people who can't even be bothered to vote. They do not participate in their government, even when they strongly disagree with it. They don't get up off of their sofas for long enough to make a phone call to their congressperson. They don't march in demonstrations, even when they agree with the demonstrators.

It is never, ever, going to happen.
Click to expand...

If you've ever watched documentary on these militias up in Idaho, or Michigan, it almost immediately apparent these are not the type of guys who are the best embodiment of democratic ideals and values. In fact, I think a lot of them are paranoid rightwingers, racists, and conspiracy nuts.
 
Darla said:
It's outright absurd.

American idol might be on that night!

For God Sakes we are talking about people who can't even be bothered to vote. They do not participate in their government, even when they strongly disagree with it. They don't get up off of their sofas for long enough to make a phone call to their congressperson. They don't march in demonstrations, even when they agree with the demonstrators.

It is never, ever, going to happen.
Click to expand...



Oh, and this last part is dead right.

It's on a par with the conspiracy theorists who claim bush planned and executed 9/11. This rebellion against a military junta in Washington DC is never going to happen. Its worse than a Hollywood movie fantasy.

It's about the lamest reason you could give to defend the second amendment. All positive change in government is going to come through the methods you describe above. Not through armed rebellion.
 
Darla said:
You could have it so that a report of stalking would trigger a very extensive background check maybe.
Click to expand...


including intgerviewing the stalkees and police involved. Also a longer wait period would be necessary to do that. also require character references, who would also be chacked out (see who the applicant hangs out with..)
 
even aggressive driving, multiple moving violations; parking tickets, etc shouldbe taken into account to tgrigger harsher requirements
 
IHateGovernment said:
I'm not a constitutional scholar ihg, if it is determined that it would be unconstitutional to have a stalking complaints trigger these things, then make it across the board. What's wrong with that anyway?

A waiting period can be construed to be an infringement. It is relevant that the constitution used the word infringed and not prohibited.

So you have to pony up some references to get a gun

Well not having references should not preclude you from having the ability to exercise a right. You may have no friends family or co-workers.

have a waiting period

Dont' support weighting periods because the need for protection may be immediate. The issue of stalking is actually one I use for a reason I don't support background checks. You yourself have said the police aren't helpful. A woman who is being stalked should have the right to immediately puchase a gun from a jealous boyfriend or other attacker. You may say the weighting period on a gun or gun ban would solve that but women are usually at a physical disadvantage with man wielding an implement like a knife or bat. A handgun is a great equalizer and would allow the stalked woman to easily shoot the male assailant should he attack. As we know the police will not protect you and the supreme court has said the police are not obligated to protect you.

All this talk about police protection, background protections and waiting periods are cold comfort to a woman raped and brutally murdered because no one would help her and the state wouldn't allow her to pursue an option that could save her.

As for background checks I support them because a term of release from prison may be you may never own a gun. It is important to check if this applies to an ex-felon.
Click to expand...

But a waiting period has not been construed to be an infringement by the courts, because some states do have them.

I feel that you are using an argument that is similar in nature to the "what if we knew that a terrorist had immediate knowledge of a nuke about to go off in a major american city, would it be ok to torture him then?" argument.

You know, if a woman is in that immediate of danger that she has to buy a gun to defend herself, then the warning signs would have been alarming enough that the police would be able to protect her, I believe. She would have been threatened. Once you are threatened, rather than what can be nebulous (to others) stalking, then the police will step in. If you have time to get a restraining order, you have time to wait for a background check on a gun. If you do not have time for a restraining order, or a background check, then you have come across a man who is going to murder you with little or no warning, and that's going to be tought to stop under any conditions. Under those conditions you would not even know to get a gun. I am also very much for toughening of our anti-stalking laws, and in some states, this has occurred. We take stalking much more seriously than we did even ten years ago, and we can work to take it more seriously still. More work needs to be done on this, I would agree with that.

I do not see a waiting period to be an undue burden.
 
how about a pont syste; restircts type of gujn and ammo and how long the wait, etc, depending on the results of the background check. even high rate of job turn over should be considered.
 
IHG, on this and other message boards, Cons are always citing a "rebellion against the federal government" as the reason for the second amendment.

Its ridicoulous.

It remains a legitimate argument for the continuance of gun rights. The founders knew that they were able to win because the citizenry was armed. The founders also knew that pro-independence was a minority sentiment. They were revolutionaries who acted against the primary interests of the American people and thus crafted the AOC and later Constitution to protect the revolutionary elite should the need come again.
 
make it like your credit score, the lower your points the more gun options you can have. more points, more restrictions till you are banned completely
 
For God Sakes we are talking about people who can't even be bothered to vote. They do not participate in their government, even when they strongly disagree with it. They don't get up off of their sofas for long enough to make a phone call to their congressperson. They don't march in demonstrations, even when they agree with the demonstrators.

It is never, ever, going to happen.

It doesn't take the majority. And if we rely on the majority we are doomed anyway. Most revolutions started with small disaffected groups that became stronger as time went on. Societies are usually governed by elites not the mass of the people. This is even true in liberal democracies.
 
ihate... would you support general waiting periods if people were able to get exemptions by going to the police due to a fear for their lives?
 
IHateGovernment said:
For God Sakes we are talking about people who can't even be bothered to vote. They do not participate in their government, even when they strongly disagree with it. They don't get up off of their sofas for long enough to make a phone call to their congressperson. They don't march in demonstrations, even when they agree with the demonstrators.

It is never, ever, going to happen.

It doesn't take the majority. And if we rely on the majority we are doomed anyway. Most revolutions started with small disaffected groups that became stronger as time went on. Societies are usually governed by elites not the mass of the people. This is even true in liberal democracies.
Click to expand...


So you believe that a small minority of armed citizens can overthrow the United States government?
 
Societies are usually governed by elites not the mass of the people. This is even true in liberal democracies.
//

WE ARE DOOMED !
 
Superfreak said:
ihate... would you support general waiting periods if people were able to get exemptions by going to the police due to a fear for their lives?
Click to expand...

Yep like the first one in a dispute that goes to get a peace bond against another one. the one with the peacebond against them are not allowed to have guns...it is not the one in the right, just the first one to squeal.
 
"Yep like the first one in a dispute that goes to get a peace bond against another one. the one with the peacebond against them are not allowed to have guns...it is not the one in the right, just the first one to squeal."

What the hell are you talking about?
 
Superfreak said:
"Yep like the first one in a dispute that goes to get a peace bond against another one. the one with the peacebond against them are not allowed to have guns...it is not the one in the right, just the first one to squeal."

What the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...

What he's saying is that what you brought up, could be misused. Say by a divorcing couple. You now how some of them get so nasty, that they each run to file child abuse charges against the other? And both are lying?

However, I think you have an interesting idea. There will always be people who attempt to misuse a law.
 
ihate... would you support general waiting periods if people were able to get exemptions by going to the police due to a fear for their lives?

Thats not a bad idea. It definitely takes the bite out of it. I'm a constitution stickler however and if someone makes an argument that waiting periods are infringement than I have to hear them out. The exemption takes some strength from the argument though definitely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top