Obama speaks on changes to US gun laws

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You mean we are going to perform background checks on gun owners, even if they buy their guns at gun shows?

The horror. So much for the gun lobby's claim that it will support "reasonable" measures. Sorry, but if you think we shouldn't be performing background checks on people who try and get their guns at gun shows then you are not interested in reasonable solutions and shouldn't be allowed at the big boy table while the grown ups are talking.

Background check is the lightest of the lightest of possible measures. I'll probably hear it on the news if they try a full ban... If you don't agree with background checks, you've been living under mount Rushmore for far too long.

[Tires Rock]

May I ask a slightly controversial question?
Why exactly is it that we treat the Bill of Rights as if they were gospel?
Why is it that we always use the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as its own argument?

The Founding Fathers lived 200 years ago in a vastly different world of differing values and circumstances, why should what they say matter?
They were men, not gods, men.
On this issue I'm going to say right now that the 2nd Amendment is wrong.

I disagree with ya, but to answer your question - I suppose going back on the principles on which the country was founded makes ya tantamount to a stinkin' redcoat to a lot of people.

[Genivaria]

May I ask a slightly controversial question?
Why exactly is it that we treat the Bill of Rights as if they were gospel?
Why is it that we always use the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as its own argument?

The Founding Fathers lived 200 years ago in a vastly different world of differing values and circumstances, why should what they say matter?
They were men, not gods, men.
On this issue I'm going to say right now that the 2nd Amendment is wrong.

Then the entirety of America, as an entity is wrong.

Your gonna have to explain that statement.

[Saiwania]

No-one gives a shit about Lanza's poor, stressed-out mother, gunned down in her own fucking sleep.
Biden failed to even acknowledge her as a casualty at the beginning of Obama's speech. She was as innocent as any of those children or teachers.

Agreed, but in a way; I hate Adam Lanza and his mother. It is because of her scumbag of a son that there is currently more of a push for gun control. I also blame her for not ensuring that he could not have access to any of her firearms. But if it wasn't this incident, it would have been something else such as another movie theater or mall shooting. People who misuse or are reckless with their firearms help jeopardize the rights of other gun owners.

[Genivaria]

May I ask a slightly controversial question?
Why exactly is it that we treat the Bill of Rights as if they were gospel?
Why is it that we always use the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as its own argument?

The Founding Fathers lived 200 years ago in a vastly different world of differing values and circumstances, why should what they say matter?
They were men, not gods, men.
On this issue I'm going to say right now that the 2nd Amendment is wrong.

I disagree with ya, but to answer your question - I suppose going back on the principles on which the country was founded makes ya tantamount to a stinkin' redcoat to a lot of people.

What principles am I going against exactly? Idolizing dead men?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Yes, but it cant hit what it cant see. No squad will call in an A-10 for one enemy soldier.

What about a whole posse/militia of em?

Can you imagine the political backlash of using RADIOACTIVE depleted URANIUM cannon rounds on American citizens, rebels or not?
Of course, such concern is relatively bullshit (it is toxic, but not because of the radiation), but that's never stopped American or all other citizens of the world from being uninformed idiots on DU munitions, nuclear power or how economies work.

[Greed and Death]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/live

AWhat he's said so far is strengthening of background checks, improvements in mental healthcare, allowing funding for schools to hire 'resource officers' if they choose to (it is not being forced upon them).
BHe has also just said 'military style' weapons will be banned, as will magazines greater than 10 rounds.
CImproved funding for American police forces, and he's also tasking the CDC with investigating what leads to gun crime.

And D Inferred elsewhere as restrictions on private transfer sales.

A Seems reasonable, though I want to know the degree of background checks proposed. A person should never have to be treated like a criminal before the exercise of a Constitutional right.

B is totally and completely stupid. Weapons that look military are no more dangerous than weapons that do not look military. 10 round magazine restriction would reduce the time it takes to fire 100 rounds by 12 seconds. Both proposed ideas in B are written by ignorant people unwilling to learn about what they seek to ban. If the large magazine ban goes into effect it should be considered a regulatory taking and all magazine using gun owners should be entitled to compensation.

C Seems reasonable to me, maybe not needed but reasonable.

D Restrictions on private transfers reduce the liquidity of firearms all gun owners should be entitled to compensation as a regulatory taking.

[Choronzon]

You mean we are going to perform background checks on gun owners, even if they buy their guns at gun shows?

The horror. So much for the gun lobby's claim that it will support "reasonable" measures. Sorry, but if you think we shouldn't be performing background checks on people who try and get their guns at gun shows then you are not interested in reasonable solutions and shouldn't be allowed at the big boy table while the grown ups are talking.

Background check is the lightest of the lightest of possible measures. I'll probably hear it on the news if they try a full ban... If you don't agree with background checks, you've been living under mount Rushmore for far too long.

But the governments satellites can track you once you're above ground!

[Chernoslavia]

Yes, but it cant hit what it cant see. No squad will call in an A-10 for one enemy soldier.

What about a whole posse/militia of em?

I think militias would use guerilla tactics than just charge head on towards the enemy.

[Greed and Death]

What about a whole posse/militia of em?

Can you imagine the political backlash of using RADIOACTIVE depleted URANIUM cannon rounds on American citizens, rebels or not?
Of course, such concern is relatively bullshit (it is toxic, but not because of the radiation), but that's never stopped American or all other citizens of the world from being uninformed idiots on DU munitions, nuclear power or how economies work.

It is toxic because it is a heavy metal, like lead and tungsten.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Can you imagine the political backlash of using RADIOACTIVE depleted URANIUM cannon rounds on American citizens, rebels or not?
Of course, such concern is relatively bullshit (it is toxic, but not because of the radiation), but that's never stopped American or all other citizens of the world from being uninformed idiots on DU munitions, nuclear power or how economies work.

It is toxic because it is a heavy metal, like lead and tungsten.

At last, someone who understands.

[Occupied Deutschland]

May I ask a slightly controversial question?
Why exactly is it that we treat the Bill of Rights as if they were gospel?
Why is it that we always use the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as its own argument?

Because people generally share the 'Enlightenment liberal' philosophy that drove its creation.
Because people (well, Americans) generally share the distrust of government that drove its creation.
Because people generally agree with the Rights included being, well, rights. (Even if they dislike aspects of one or another, there is a fairly common consensus that, hey, Amendments 1-10 have some nice stuff. Free speech? That's pretty slick. Right to a speedy trial by jury? Pretty slick. Due process for criminals? Generally considered a good thing as well.)

People use it in argument because they agree with the principals (or at least, a good deal of them) that drove the creation of the Bill of Rights.

[Tires Rock]

What about a whole posse/militia of em?

Can you imagine the political backlash of using RADIOACTIVE depleted URANIUM cannon rounds on American citizens, rebels or not?
Of course, such concern is relatively bullshit (it is toxic, but not because of the radiation), but that's never stopped American or all other citizens of the world from being uninformed idiots on DU munitions, nuclear power or how economies work.

I suppose the assumption a lot of people make is that the government could turn into a tyrannical despotic board of dictators, so it wouldn't matter to them.

I disagree with ya, but to answer your question - I suppose going back on the principles on which the country was founded makes ya tantamount to a stinkin' redcoat to a lot of people.

What principles am I going against exactly? Idolizing dead men?

Yup.

[Genivaria]

May I ask a slightly controversial question?
Why exactly is it that we treat the Bill of Rights as if they were gospel?
Why is it that we always use the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as its own argument?

Because people generally share the 'Enlightenment liberal' philosophy that drove its creation.
Because people (well, Americans) generally share the distrust of government that drove its creation.
Because people generally agree with the Rights included being, well, rights. (Even if they dislike aspects of one or another, there is a fairly common consensus that, hey, Amendments 1-10 have some nice stuff. Free speech? That's pretty slick. Right to a speedy trial by jury? Pretty slick. Due process for criminals? Generally considered a good thing as well.)

People use it in argument because they agree with the principals (or at least, a good deal of them) that drove the creation of the Bill of Rights.

What I have an issue with is the fact that if someone disagrees with any certain part of the Bill of Rights like myself am doing then people suddenly pretend that there a Loyalist, Monarchist, Fascist who hates America or something.
Should we not be able to judge an individual idea based on its own merits and not based on who came up with the idea?
Its like a reverse 'Hitler Ate Sugar' Fallacy.

[Greed and Death]

May I ask a slightly controversial question?
Why exactly is it that we treat the Bill of Rights as if they were gospel?
Why is it that we always use the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers as its own argument?

The Founding Fathers lived 200 years ago in a vastly different world of differing values and circumstances, why should what they say matter?
They were men, not gods, men.
On this issue I'm going to say right now that the 2nd Amendment is wrong.

You know what the founding fathers realized they were foulable and that is why we have Article V.
If you want to remove the right to bear arms do so through the amendment process.

Yes I know it is not removable by a simple majority, no right is removable by a simple majority, that is why we call it a right.

[Gauthier]

The number of fallacies in this thread is appaling. We are advocating the ban or regulation of weapons meant for killing, and only made for that purpose. Everything can be used as a lethal weapons. But they have different uses. A knife cuts bread, a car drives you around, toothpicks pick your teeth. But a m16 assault rifle is meant to kill. That is your intended plan, to kill someone. The owning of a gun should mean that you are up to no good.

Gun manufacturers can obviously get around that by making guns that can slice bread, drive you around and pick your teeth.

[Greed and Death]

The number of fallacies in this thread is appaling. We are advocating the ban or regulation of weapons meant for killing, and only made for that purpose. Everything can be used as a lethal weapons. But they have different uses. A knife cuts bread, a car drives you around, toothpicks pick your teeth. But a m16 assault rifle is meant to kill. That is your intended plan, to kill someone. The owning of a gun should mean that you are up to no good.

Gun manufacturers can obviously get around that by making guns that can slice bread, drive you around and pick your teeth.

With an AR-15 that has a bayonet lug it is pretty easy to slice bread.
Attach bayonet, slice bread.

[Robertsonstan]

He should just let the states handle it. Have you notice that almost every incident has happen in states were there a large amount of gun laws. Also we need to stop blaming guns and start talking about the mental insane. Have you ever heard of a mass shooting in Texas, Missouri, Idaho, or Oklahoma?

[Esternial]

You mean we are going to perform background checks on gun owners, even if they buy their guns at gun shows?

The horror. So much for the gun lobby's claim that it will support "reasonable" measures. Sorry, but if you think we shouldn't be performing background checks on people who try and get their guns at gun shows then you are not interested in reasonable solutions and shouldn't be allowed at the big boy table while the grown ups are talking.

Background check is the lightest of the lightest of possible measures. I'll probably hear it on the news if they try a full ban... If you don't agree with background checks, you've been living under mount Rushmore for far too long.

I'd demand a mental evaluation, but I'm guessing certain people would oppose

[Lessnt]

So the assault weapons ban comes again, didn't he read up on how well it worked last time?

AS he is student of history.
I am sure he is aware.
But as a politician.
He increased troops for afghanistan.(same as soviets)

As a Chicago Politician stubborn ideaology nullifies history.

[Greed and Death]

It is toxic because it is a heavy metal, like lead and tungsten.

At last, someone who understands.

One of my secondary duties in the army was as NBC NCO it was my job to understand.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Background check is the lightest of the lightest of possible measures. I'll probably hear it on the news if they try a full ban... If you don't agree with background checks, you've been living under mount Rushmore for far too long.

I'd demand a mental evaluation, but I'm guessing certain people would oppose

No, almost everyone's in favour of that.

[Greed and Death]

Background check is the lightest of the lightest of possible measures. I'll probably hear it on the news if they try a full ban... If you don't agree with background checks, you've been living under mount Rushmore for far too long.

I'd demand a mental evaluation, but I'm guessing certain people would oppose

Only if the states are allowed to require a mental evaluation before a woman gets an abortion. It is a serious decision we want to make sure she is not crazy before making it.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Because people generally share the 'Enlightenment liberal' philosophy that drove its creation.
Because people (well, Americans) generally share the distrust of government that drove its creation.
Because people generally agree with the Rights included being, well, rights. (Even if they dislike aspects of one or another, there is a fairly common consensus that, hey, Amendments 1-10 have some nice stuff. Free speech? That's pretty slick. Right to a speedy trial by jury? Pretty slick. Due process for criminals? Generally considered a good thing as well.)

People use it in argument because they agree with the principals (or at least, a good deal of them) that drove the creation of the Bill of Rights.

What I have an issue with is the fact that if someone disagrees with any certain part of the Bill of Rights like myself am doing then people suddenly pretend that there a Loyalist, Monarchist, Fascist who hates America or something.
Should we not be able to judge an individual idea based on its own merits and not based on who came up with the idea?
Its like a reverse 'Hitler Ate Sugar' Fallacy.

You're correct, that is (or would be I guess, if I shared it) an aggravating attitude to encounter. I don't think it's just simple demonization though (although that undoubtedly plays a role). A large part of that is likely driven by people's passion for that right and the perception that those who don't like it aren't going to go through the amendment process to shut it down.

I know it's hard for some people to wrap their heads around, but the 2nd Amendment is loved by its supporters as much (if not more so, rather weirdly I will admit) as the 1st is by its. Restrictions on the right with bans on certain things or other gets them/us similarly pissed off as a call for 'bans on [insert group]" would for first amendment supporters.

[Genivaria]

He should just let the states handle it. Have you notice that almost every incident has happen in states were there a large amount of gun laws. Also we need to stop blaming guns and start talking about the mental insane. Have you ever heard of a mass shooting in Texas, Missouri, Idaho, or Oklahoma?

You've not heard of the sniper in Austin who murdered 14 people and injured 32 more?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

I've been to the tower that he used as a nest.