The irony is so rich I can't fucking stand it

tekkychick said:
And what does "well-ordered militia" mean to you? Do you belong to one?

Again, this is off-topic for this forum. What do YOU think of the Arizona law? or the initial article?
Click to expand...

You know threads go off topic, that is just the nature of threads. If you don't like it, find another forum or stay off this thread. My thread and I am OK with it.

I would suggest you go back and read the 2nd Amendment. It says nothing of a "well ordered militia". It says a "well regulated militia". Regulated during that time meant "trained" not regulated as in the sense of the federal gobblement dictating what can and can't be done.

You might also benefit from considering the mindset of the framers as they wrote the Constitution. If you recall (I am assuming as it appears you are suffering from a public school education so may not have been taught basic history) they had just come off of a protracted war with Britain for their Independence. The precipitating factors of that war included the confiscation of guns at the hands of King George. The Founders wanted to make sure a totalitarian state could not arise and knew that a well armed populace was necessary for that end.

Also bear in mind that just about every dictator in the modern world got his start by confiscating guns, always for safety of course, but they always confiscated. I wonder why that is? Being a Commiefornian I know you can't bother yourself with trivialities like the US Constitution other than shit that was never written.

Toodles puddin.
 
tekkychick said:
First amendment rights are already restricted - I can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater; I have to apply for a permit before a parade.

Gun ownership can have restrictions; the only discussion is what kind of restrictions.

But back to gun buyouts - wasn't it Arizona where they had a law that actually required cops to resell the guns that they purchased in a gun buyback program? Oh yes, there is a story about that - Yes, Arizona; conservative Arizona; forces cops to sell back guns in a buyback. I'm guessing dems weren't really involved in passing this law. No, it was pro-gun people wanting to protect every gun.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/phoenix-arizona-gun-buyback_n_3219056.html
Click to expand...


What crap, shout 'fire' anywhere you want to .... whats a parade have to do with freedom of speech.....

The 2nd Amend. say "shall not be infringed".....is that is any other Constitutional Amendment ?
 
tekkychick said:
And what does "well-ordered militia" mean to you? Do you belong to one?
Click to expand...
the words are 'well-regulated' and they do not refer to the national guard nor do they refer to government regulations. yes, I belong to one and I am well regulated, thanks to 6 years of training and work as a US Marine.

tekkychick said:
Again, this is off-topic for this forum. What do YOU think of the Arizona law? or the initial article?
Click to expand...
my opinion of buybacks is that they are totally misguided. For one, it subtly suggests that the guns weren't ours to begin with, but the governments and now they are buying them back from us. Secondly, it exposes the hypocrisy of law enforcement. the whole idea that they espouse for buy backs is to get guns out of circulation in the streets, yet to pad their department budget, they are selling them back to gun dealers who will sell them to private individuals. it essentially does nothing.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the words are 'well-regulated' and they do not refer to the national guard nor do they refer to government regulations. yes, I belong to one and I am well regulated, thanks to 6 years of training and work as a US Marine.

my opinion of buybacks is that they are totally misguided. For one, it subtly suggests that the guns weren't ours to begin with, but the governments and now they are buying them back from us. Secondly, it exposes the hypocrisy of law enforcement. the whole idea that they espouse for buy backs is to get guns out of circulation in the streets, yet to pad their department budget, they are selling them back to gun dealers who will sell them to private individuals. it essentially does nothing.
Click to expand...

I apologize for using the wrong word.

Re buy backs - I totally agree buying them back and then not destroying them is wrong. I am not sure Chicago is doing that; and since originally dems were slammed as part of the post, I thought I'd reference that republicans actually made it a law that you have to sell them - nothing to do with the police depts, it was the state legislators who did that.

Glad we agree that if you hold a buy back, the guns should be destroyed.
 
tekkychick said:
I apologize for using the wrong word.

Re buy backs - I totally agree buying them back and then not destroying them is wrong. I am not sure Chicago is doing that; and since originally dems were slammed as part of the post, I thought I'd reference that republicans actually made it a law that you have to sell them - nothing to do with the police depts, it was the state legislators who did that.

Glad we agree that if you hold a buy back, the guns should be destroyed.
Click to expand...
you are putting words in to my mouth. I said I don't agree with buybacks. I said it was hypocritical of cops to claim the necessity of getting guns off the street then turn around and put them out there for their budget. I never said I agreed that they should be destroyed.
 
leaningright said:
I won't groan a newbie but the above certainly makes me groan. Might as well just go ahead with full blown European type gun laws...that's what the Brady's, Feinstein's and others of similar ilk really seem to want.
Click to expand...
The european ones that have 1/4 the murder rate!
 
tekkychick said:
I apologize for using the wrong word.

Re buy backs - I totally agree buying them back and then not destroying them is wrong. I am not sure Chicago is doing that; and since originally dems were slammed as part of the post, I thought I'd reference that republicans actually made it a law that you have to sell them - nothing to do with the police depts, it was the state legislators who did that.

Glad we agree that if you hold a buy back, the guns should be destroyed.
Click to expand...

It would have been nice if your post had any relevance to the OP, but it didn't other than a lame attempt at "See some republican did something sometime so don't pick on my poor dems"

That is the lamest argument and "debate" tactic there is.

Lastly, I am not a republican so maybe you want to try those tricks with someone else puddin pop
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you are putting words in to my mouth. I said I don't agree with buybacks. I said it was hypocritical of cops to claim the necessity of getting guns off the street then turn around and put them out there for their budget. I never said I agreed that they should be destroyed.
Click to expand...

well, shucky darn... guess I just read it into your comment that since you (roughly said) it was hypocritical to sell them back and that it then does nothing - that you wanted the cops to be more effective by not selling them back but by destroying them if they held gun buy backs.

What DO you want them to do if they hold gun buy backs? (with the understanding you generally are against them)? Sell them or destroy them? is there a third option?
 
tekkychick said:
well, shucky darn... guess I just read it into your comment that since you (roughly said) it was hypocritical to sell them back and that it then does nothing - that you wanted the cops to be more effective by not selling them back but by destroying them if they held gun buy backs.

What DO you want them to do if they hold gun buy backs? (with the understanding you generally are against them)? Sell them or destroy them? is there a third option?
Click to expand...
be truthful about it. If they want to hold a buyback to destroy them, then destroy them. If they want to hold a buyback to resell, then tell us you're going to resell them. don't lie about it and hope we don't notice it.
 
tekkychick said:
And what does "well-ordered militia" mean to you? Do you belong to one?

Again, this is off-topic for this forum. What do YOU think of the Arizona law? or the initial article?
Click to expand...

The first part has been addressed. "Well regulated...." To your second question, what about the original poster's intent and the law in Arizona. The original poster's intent, as far as I can tell, is to show the irony that a "suburb" of Chicago was buying guns under the guise of getting them off the streets but was re-selling them. The irony being that Chicago is known for tough gun legislation. The article plainly states that Chicago itself does this and destroys the weapons but that this suburb re-sells them. I am all for the re-selling of these weapons, so I would be in agreement with what is being done in this suburb of Chicago as well as what is being done in Arizona. This perhaps gets guns out of households that do not use/want them (those weapons would probably be neglected and likely not properly stored), it provides the public (me) an opportunity to purchase a weapon or two at perhaps a reduced price and it provides departments with a small amount of revenue that comes from an avenue other than taxation. Not a bad all-around deal, IMO.
 
I Love America said:
It would have been nice if your post had any relevance to the OP, but it didn't other than a lame attempt at "See some republican did something sometime so don't pick on my poor dems"
Click to expand...

you might want to review your original post. I would have no reason to debate you if you had decried gun buybacks in general where the cops turned around and sold them back to the public. YOU attempted to blame it solely on Dems, or to use it to show dems hypocrisy or something like that. Just pointing out repubs actually legislated the action you were attempting to use to beat up dems.
 
tekkychick said:
I don't believe in beating my head against a wall, so therefore won't try to repeal the second amendment. There are other amendments I would like to see that have a better chance of passage.

I'd be fine with European type laws as well, but am only asking for California laws. And why? because of the carnage. I really don't like seeing people murdered. Guess I'm just crazy that way. California laws won't stop all the shootings. But they will be reduced.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
Click to expand...
Complete bans on automatic weapons and handguns in the UK caused a massive increase in the murder rate.

In the 16 years post ban in the UK there have been 27 police officers shot to death on duty.
Seven in the 25 years preceding.

The frequency of mass shootings has been unaffected.
 
I Love America said:
Maybe you lefties should give us a list of "adequate" sources for you. They seem to shift on a routine basis.
Click to expand...

Seems many here don't read the links or at least adequately. Breitbart was running a UPI article. Sigh. The article was about St. Charles, IL. Specifically mentioned that Chicago and most other suburbs destroy the guns.
 
007 said:
Complete bans on automatic weapons and handguns in the UK caused a massive increase in the murder rate.

In the 16 years post ban in the UK there have been 27 police officers shot to death on duty.
Seven in the 25 years preceding.

The frequency of mass shootings has been unaffected.
Click to expand...
Their rate is now almost 1/4 ours, gun nut
 
Annie said:
Seems many here don't read the links or at least adequately. Breitbart was running a UPI article. Sigh. The article was about St. Charles, IL. Specifically mentioned that Chicago and most other suburbs destroy the guns.
Click to expand...

If they read, would they be liberals? Interesting question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top