Cuomo: Shut down the government over guns

[hanger4]

“I’d love to see the Democrats stand up and say, ‘We’re going to shut down the federal government or threaten to shut down the government if we don’t get real gun control legislation,' ” he told NY1 News. ..... http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255793-cuomo-shut-down-the-government-over-guns .... I guess shutting down the government is a good thing for the correct agenda. Who knew ??

[domer76]

“I’d love to see the Democrats stand up and say, ‘We’re going to shut down the federal government or threaten to shut down the government if we don’t get real gun control legislation,' ” he told NY1 News. ..... http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255793-cuomo-shut-down-the-government-over-guns .... I guess shutting down the government is a good thing for the correct agenda. Who knew ??

What goes around comes around.

[Green Arrow]

It's a valid criticism. Shut down the government over guns, conservatives will pitch a fit about shutting down the government, and liberals will try to justify it. Shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding, conservatives will justify it and liberals will pitch a fit.

Kinda like how Bob cheers Republican filibusters, and now that the GOP is in the majority, calls for filibusters to be eliminated. And how the Democrats criticized the GOP for filibustering bills and now that they are in the minority, they are filibustering bills.

It's all political theatre in the Age of Partisanship.

[Captain Obvious]

It's a valid criticism. Shut down the government over guns, conservatives will pitch a fit about shutting down the government, and liberals will try to justify it. Shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding, conservatives will justify it and liberals will pitch a fit.

Kinda like how @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) cheers Republican filibusters, and now that the GOP is in the majority, calls for filibusters to be eliminated. And how the Democrats criticized the GOP for filibustering bills and now that they are in the minority, they are filibustering bills.

It's all political theatre in the Age of Partisanship.

Sounds great up until the part where firearm possession is a constitutionally protected right and Planned Parenthood isn't.

[Green Arrow]

Sounds great up until the part where firearm possession is a constitutionally protected right and Planned Parenthood isn't.

It's irrelevant, the reactions are still a double standard. Besides, you can have sensible gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms. Not that Cuomo and the DNC in general is all about sensible gun control, but that's beside the point.

[Captain Obvious]

It's irrelevant, the reactions are still a double standard. Besides, you can have sensible gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms. Not that Cuomo and the DNC in general is all about sensible gun control, but that's beside the point.

If you recall the threads I posted about that dude who had like 12k guns and two tons of ammo, you'll know from the heat I took from the resident RWNJ's that I'm all for sensible gun control, so I won't go into what I believe is "sensible gun control".

What is "sensible gun control"? More specifically, what is "sensible gun control" for teh O'bama's and the crew of liberal LW pundits out there who are now screaming? That's the bigger question.

Is this all about the gun show loophole? Close it then, said that a long time ago.

More background checks? Longer waiting periods before buying a second gun?

How is more red tape and bureaucracy going to stop some crackpot from shooting a school or whatever up or stop some thug from getting a handgun to hold up a liquor store?

I'm all for "sensible gun control" but that often means either more idiotic bullshit that does nothing but make legal gun owners jump through more flaming hoops just so some liberal fuckstick can pat themselves on the back for "doing something" or that means ban guns.

One or the other.

[Captain Obvious]

And the OP - suggesting a government shutdown over guns is ridiculous when compared to defunding PP.

[Green Arrow]

If you recall the threads I posted about that dude who had like 12k guns and two tons of ammo, you'll know from the heat I took from the resident RWNJ's that I'm all for sensible gun control, so I won't go into what I believe is "sensible gun control".

What is "sensible gun control"? More specifically, what is "sensible gun control" for teh O'bama's and the crew of liberal LW pundits out there who are now screaming? That's the bigger question.

To me, it means closing the gun show loophole and universal background checks, but to be honest, I haven't given it much thought because I honestly don't give a shit. It's not at all an important issue to me, as far as I'm concerned it can sit on the back-burner with abortion, gay marriage, and any other social issue for all eternity.

But if you want to know what the politicians mean by "sensible," well, you can almost guarantee it's not sensible and goes way too far.


How is more red tape and bureaucracy going to stop some crackpot from shooting a school or whatever up or stop some thug from getting a handgun to hold up a liquor store?

How will banning abortion stop people from getting abortions? It won't, but we do it anyway. Why? I don't know. Maybe because it makes us feel better. It certainly doesn't hurt anything.

[Captain Obvious]

To me, it means closing the gun show loophole and universal background checks, but to be honest, I haven't given it much thought because I honestly don't give a shit. It's not at all an important issue to me, as far as I'm concerned it can sit on the back-burner with abortion, gay marriage, and any other social issue for all eternity.

But if you want to know what the politicians mean by "sensible," well, you can almost guarantee it's not sensible and goes way too far.



How will banning abortion stop people from getting abortions? It won't, but we do it anyway. Why? I don't know. Maybe because it makes us feel better. It certainly doesn't hurt anything.

I'm well on record for not supporting banning abortions or overturning the abortion law, btw.

[Kurmugeon]

Go Ahead, Shut down Government.

I am a White Male, I do not "Qualify" for anything good that comes from "Government" anyway, and if it is shut down, it cannot come to take guns!

Go Ahead, shut it down and leave it down!

-

[zelmo1234]

Who cares why they shut it down. just shut it down and let people see that much of the government is not needed and they are just fleecing the people.

[Dr. Who]

If you recall the threads I posted about that dude who had like 12k guns and two tons of ammo, you'll know from the heat I took from the resident RWNJ's that I'm all for sensible gun control, so I won't go into what I believe is "sensible gun control".

What is "sensible gun control"? More specifically, what is "sensible gun control" for teh O'bama's and the crew of liberal LW pundits out there who are now screaming? That's the bigger question.

Is this all about the gun show loophole? Close it then, said that a long time ago.

More background checks? Longer waiting periods before buying a second gun?

How is more red tape and bureaucracy going to stop some crackpot from shooting a school or whatever up or stop some thug from getting a handgun to hold up a liquor store?

I'm all for "sensible gun control" but that often means either more idiotic bullshit that does nothing but make legal gun owners jump through more flaming hoops just so some liberal fuckstick can pat themselves on the back for "doing something" or that means ban guns.

One or the other.
Perhaps we can concentrate on the idea of having more than one gun per adult in the household. If you can make a case that you are a hunter, perhaps a hand gun and a hunting rifle, but in what world does someone who doesn't fulfill the criterion of being a "collector" qualify to have four or five AR 15s or equivalent in their home? If there were a national database of gun owners, it would be pretty simple to identify a 20 something guy who is buying one weapon after another in short order - to what purpose? If there were, perhaps red flags would go up. I'm sure that people would reject the notion of a national database over privacy concerns, but would it really be any different than the DMV? Also the notion that private sellers can circumvent existing law is rather contrary to common sense, from my perspective.

If legal title to a weapon were the same as legal title to a vehicle, based on serial number, it would not matter who sold the weapon. Title would have to be legally transferred and registered and there would be a record of same. Also the Brady Law Loophole is fairly ridiculous. If a background check is necessary to buy a gun in a gun shop, it should also be required in private gun sales.

[Green Arrow]

I'm well on record for not supporting banning abortions or overturning the abortion law, btw.

I wasn't trying to attack you with that, just used the first example that came to mind.

[Captain Obvious]

Perhaps we can concentrate on the idea of having more than one gun per adult in the household. If you can make a case that you are a hunter, perhaps a hand gun and a hunting rifle, but in what world does someone who doesn't fulfill the criterion of being a "collector" qualify to have four or five AR 15s or equivalent in their home? If there were a national database of gun owners, it would be pretty simple to identify a 20 something guy who is buying one weapon after another in short order - to what purpose? If there were, perhaps red flags would go up. I'm sure that people would reject the notion of a national database over privacy concerns, but would it really be any different than the DMV? Also the notion that private sellers can circumvent existing law is rather contrary to common sense, from my perspective.

If legal title to a weapon were the same as legal title to a vehicle, based on serial number, it would not matter who sold the weapon. Title would have to be legally transferred and registered and there would be a record of same. Also the Brady Law Loophole is fairly ridiculous. If a background check is necessary to buy a gun in a gun shop, it should also be required in private gun sales.

No, not even close.

I have maybe 10 guns... no handguns but I plan on buying one or two over the next few years.

An avid hunter could easily justify owning a dozen or more guns, one per adult is way off.

Now, if I need special licensing after 25, I may consider that but then again the agency licensing me is probably corrupt so what's the point there?

This is my conundrum, I don't want some jackass hoarding tons of guns in his trailer down the road from me, but I also don't want the corrupt feds having my name on a list somewhere so as far as I'm concerned it's a lose/lose situation no matter what.

[Captain Obvious]

I wasn't trying to attack you with that, just used the first example that came to mind.

I know, wasn't a big deal if you were also.

[Dr. Who]

No, not even close.

I have maybe 10 guns... no handguns but I plan on buying one or two over the next few years.

An avid hunter could easily justify owning a dozen or more guns, one per adult is way off.

Now, if I need special licensing after 25, I may consider that but then again the agency licensing me is probably corrupt so what's the point there?

This is my conundrum, I don't want some jackass hoarding tons of guns in his trailer down the road from me, but I also don't want the corrupt feds having my name on a list somewhere so as far as I'm concerned it's a lose/lose situation no matter what.
As a person who doesn't even own one gun, I don't understand the need to own 20 guns, unless you are a collector. You only have two hands. Perhaps you can explain to this gun ignorant person.

[Captain Obvious]

As a person who doesn't even own one gun, I don't understand the need to own 20 guns, unless you are a collector. You only have two hands. Perhaps you can explain to this gun ignorant person.

How many pairs of shoes do you own?

[Matty]

As a person who doesn't even own one gun, I don't understand the need to own 20 guns, unless you are a collector. You only have two hands. Perhaps you can explain to this gun ignorant person.


I think it's a man thing. They like to get together and talk about them, their awesomeness, me I just own one little pea shooter type gun.

[Newpublius]

As a person who doesn't even own one gun, I don't understand the need to own 20 guns, unless you are a collector. You only have two hands. Perhaps you can explain to this gun ignorant person.

Different of course but I am a relatively decent amateur photographer. I have 12 cameras.

[Dr. Who]

How many pairs of shoes do you own?
Not that many. Certainly not 20.

[Dr. Who]

Different of course but I am a relatively decent amateur photographer. I have 12 cameras.
I expect that some are old and some are new - the technology has been changing rather quickly, whereas the technology of guns hasn't really changed all that much in 50 odd years. They look different, but the basic tech is the same.

[Newpublius]

True but different cameras do different things of course.

[Tahuyaman]

Sounds great up until the part where firearm possession is a constitutionally protected right and Planned Parenthood isn't.


Thats a point some people here won't get.

[Tahuyaman]

you can have sensible gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms.

Isn't any legislation which places an obstacle in someone's way in purchasing a firearm infringing upon their right in some way?

The term "sensible gun control" is just another way to soften the idea of placing more restrictions on a person's ability to exercise a basic right.

[Green Arrow]

Isn't any legislation which places an obstacle in someone's way in purchasing a firearm infringing upon their right in some way?

Only if that obstacle makes it impossible to purchase the guns for any average person.


The term "sensible gun control" is just another way to soften the idea of placing more restrictions on a person's ability to exercise a basic right.

Not really.

[Dr. Who]

True but different cameras do different things of course.
However guns really only do the same things.

[Bob]

Who cares why they shut it down. just shut it down and let people see that much of the government is not needed and they are just fleecing the people.

The last time it, so called, shut down, things kept working. They send me SS using a computer and I expect a computer can do it when they are gone. Matter of fact my money is deposited around midnight. They went home long before that.

[Cletus]

Perhaps we can concentrate on the idea of having more than one gun per adult in the household.

Okay, let's.


If you can make a case that you are a hunter, perhaps a hand gun and a hunting rifle, but in what world does someone who doesn't fulfill the criterion of being a "collector" qualify to have four or five AR 15s or equivalent in their home?

As per the US Constitution, the only criteria is that you be an American.


If there were a national database of gun owners, it would be pretty simple to identify a 20 something guy who is buying one weapon after another in short order - to what purpose? If there were, perhaps red flags would go up. I'm sure that people would reject the notion of a national database over privacy concerns, but would it really be any different than the DMV?

It is hugely different. To begin with, such a national database would be a violation of federal law. Such a database is specifically prohibited by the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. Her is the relevant clause.

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

Why do you think that law was enacted?

Also the notion that private sellers can circumvent existing law is rather contrary to common sense, from my perspective.

They are not "circumventing existing law". The law permits private sales between individuals and there is no legal requirement for a background check for buyer in such a transaction. That is not circumventing the law. It is acting in compliance with the law.


If legal title to a weapon were the same as legal title to a vehicle, based on serial number, it would not matter who sold the weapon. Title would have to be legally transferred and registered and there would be a record of same. Also the Brady Law Loophole is fairly ridiculous. If a background check is necessary to buy a gun in a gun shop, it should also be required in private gun sales.

Why?

[Kurmugeon]

Hey Libs, shut the Gubment down!

I Triple Dog Dare you, Do it!

-

[Kurmugeon]

Come on! you bunch of Candy-Ass Lib-Tards, Shut down the Gubment!

Do it! Shut it down, and keep that way until you've got every single Gun from Civilian hands and ownership!

Do it! NOW!

Freak'en pansy-ass mental midgets! Do it! Show U.S. how smart you are!

[donttread]

“I’d love to see the Democrats stand up and say, ‘We’re going to shut down the federal government or threaten to shut down the government if we don’t get real gun control legislation,' ” he told NY1 News. ..... http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255793-cuomo-shut-down-the-government-over-guns .... I guess shutting down the government is a good thing for the correct agenda. Who knew ??


I'm torn here. I'm about as second amendment as they come but I also strongly believe that our government is at its best when shut down. A win win for me would be a failed attempt to force gun control by shutting down the government for a while which eventually backlashes against the control freaks. Yeah, that would be perfect.

[Captain Obvious]

Not that many. Certainly not 20.

One is all you need, right?

[Ravens Fan]

As a person who doesn't even own one gun, I don't understand the need to own 20 guns, unless you are a collector. You only have two hands. Perhaps you can explain to this gun ignorant person.

I don't really think there is any need to explain why you would want more than one gun. The 2nd amendment allows for the bearing of "Arms", not "one arm".

We don't demand people to explain why they might buy in excess for other things either. How many knives do you have in the kitchen? What about people with more than one home? Or more cars than people in the house? More TV's than people? More food than is absolutely needed for the people in the house?

Either the guns are legal to own or not, the number is immaterial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crepitus]

“I’d love to see the Democrats stand up and say, ‘We’re going to shut down the federal government or threaten to shut down the government if we don’t get real gun control legislation,' ” he told NY1 News. ..... http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255793-cuomo-shut-down-the-government-over-guns .... I guess shutting down the government is a good thing for the correct agenda. Who knew ??
This is all moot anyway, it was nothing more than hyperbole on his part.

[Matty]

However guns really only do the same things.


Same with a camera. You get an image.

[zelmo1234]

I expect that some are old and some are new - the technology has been changing rather quickly, whereas the technology of guns hasn't really changed all that much in 50 odd years. They look different, but the basic tech is the same.

Of course this is a complete and total false statement.

[Tahuyaman]

Only if that obstacle makes it impossible to purchase the guns for any average person.



Not really.

any time you create legislation which puts another obstacle in my path or creates a new condition I must adhere to before I can exercise a right, you've impinged that right.

[Green Arrow]

any time you create legislation which puts another obstacle in my path or creates a new condition I must adhere to before I can exercise a right, you've impinged that right.

Not if you can still exercise that right...and you can.

[Tahuyaman]

Not if you can still exercise that right...and you can.

only if I adhere to new conditions, or jump through new hoops. That is an impingement.

if you support impinging my right, just come out and admit it.

[Tahuyaman]

The constitution does not say that our right can only be impinged through " sensible gun control laws".

[Truth Detector]

Republicans aren't the ones shutting down the Government. That's been reserved for the petulant whiney little man-child in the White House who still thinks it's his agenda after two massive losses in the elections of 2010 and 2014.

Obama's message to AmeriKa: "go pound sand."

[Green Arrow]

only if I adhere to new conditions, or jump through new hoops. That is an impingement.

if you support impinging my right, just come out and admit it.

So felons should be able to vote and buy guns?

[texan]

I can only think of one thing that should change for sure. At gun shows you shouldn't be able to walk out with a gun (if you still can) without a 3 day wait.

Bad guys will always have guns. They talk about other countries etc. None have the freedoms that we do, so there is the difference. That freedom comes with some strings.

[Tahuyaman]

So felons should be able to vote and buy guns?

i don't have a problem with either. Why should a person convicted of a non violent crime, as many felonies are, lose his right to vote or possess a firearm?

The best gun control laws would be those which punish people harshly for using a gun when committing a crime. A person can't possess a firearm if they are in prison for abusing or misusing a right.

[Tahuyaman]

I can only think of one thing that should change for sure. At gun shows you shouldn't be able to walk out with a gun (if you still can) without a 3 day wait.


I don't support that restriction either.

[Mac-7]

It's a valid criticism. Shut down the government over guns, conservatives will pitch a fit about shutting down the government, and liberals will try to justify it. Shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding, conservatives will justify it and liberals will pitch a fit.

Kinda like how @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) cheers Republican filibusters, and now that the GOP is in the majority, calls for filibusters to be eliminated. And how the Democrats criticized the GOP for filibustering bills and now that they are in the minority, they are filibustering bills.

It's all political theatre in the Age of Partisanship.

Green Apple is mistaken.

I would happily call the liberals bluff and dare them to shut down the government.

Because i can stand it as long as you can.

[Cletus]

So felons should be able to vote and buy guns?

Once they have completed their sentence and paid their debt to society, why not?

[Tahuyaman]

How does being convicted of a felony crime mean you should lose the right to vote?

I undestand and the mentality which says a convicted felon should lose the right to bear arms, but I oppose that as well.

What I support is putting people in prison if they commit a felonious violent crime with or without a gun. If they serve their harsh sentence, get out and committ another.... Send them away again for life.

[domer76]

Isn't any legislation which places an obstacle in someone's way in purchasing a firearm infringing upon their right in some way?

The term "sensible gun control" is just another way to soften the idea of placing more restrictions on a person's ability to exercise a basic right.

Can't falsely yell fire in a movie theater, T. All rights have restrictions. Or did you not know that?

[The Xl]

Not if you can still exercise that right...and you can.

You really trust the government long term with that?

[The Xl]

Can't falsely yell fire in a movie theater, T. All rights have restrictions. Or did you not know that?

Merely owning a gun is certainly not comparable to yelling fire in a theater.

[Private Pickle]

“I’d love to see the Democrats stand up and say, ‘We’re going to shut down the federal government or threaten to shut down the government if we don’t get real gun control legislation,' ” he told NY1 News. ..... http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255793-cuomo-shut-down-the-government-over-guns .... I guess shutting down the government is a good thing for the correct agenda. Who knew ??

Classic. Get gun control by shutting down the government and basically firing all of Liberal Federal workers, shut down the liberal entitlement agenda and shut down their ability to legislate on gun control.

I'm in.

[Truth Detector]

I can only think of one thing that should change for sure. At gun shows you shouldn't be able to walk out with a gun (if you still can) without a 3 day wait.

I don't know of any gun shows where one can walk in, buy a gun from one of the retailers and walk out with a gun. It just doesn't happen anymore due to the National background laws that were passed.


Bad guys will always have guns. They talk about other countries etc. None have the freedoms that we do, so there is the difference. That freedom comes with some strings.

Simpler translation; gun laws do not stop CRIMINALS from breaking laws.

[Green Arrow]

You really trust the government long term with that?

No. That's what vigilance is for.

[Tahuyaman]

Can't falsely yell fire in a movie theater, T. All rights have restrictions. Or did you not know that?


You can't support your position by just by inserting clichés.

The constitution says that the citizens right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's quite clear.

I know you think the constitution is a " living breathing" document which is currently outdated, but that's just not so.

[donttread]

So felons should be able to vote and buy guns?

After serving their time and their parole/ probation non violent felons certainly should

[Cletus]

Can't falsely yell fire in a movie theater, T. All rights have restrictions. Or did you not know that?

Really?

Show me a statute in any municipality in the United States that says that is illegal. It is certainly not against Federal Law. It has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. It was a terrible example the first time it was used and it remains a terrible example every time some idiots blurts it out today.

[domer76]

Merely owning a gun is certainly not comparable to yelling fire in a theater.

You've missed the point entirely. All rights have restrictions and the second is no different. I can't make it any simpler for some of you.

[domer76]

Classic. Get gun control by shutting down the government and basically firing all of Liberal Federal workers, shut down the liberal entitlement agenda and shut down their ability to legislate on gun control.

I'm in.

You're a dumbshit of you think that all federal employees are liberal

[domer76]

You can't support your position by just by inserting clichés.

The constitution says that the citizens right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's quite clear.

I know you think the constitution is a " living breathing" document which is currently outdated, but that's just not so.

What a simpleton's interpretation. Better refer to Heller and what your ultra right wing Scalia had to say about guns and gun ownership.

[domer76]

Really?

Show me a statute in any municipality in the United States that says that is illegal. It is certainly not against Federal Law. It has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. It was a terrible example the first time it was used and it remains a terrible example every time some idiots blurts it out today.

It's hard to believe there are so many ignoramuses out there. Freedom of speech doesn't allow you to say anything, anytime. Some speech is restricted. Get it? Your precious, outdated, bullshit second is no different. Take it up with SCOTUS if you think differently

[Private Pickle]

You're a dumbshit of you think that all federal employees are liberal

Jus sayin... The government is liberal by nature and currently way over staffed...

I noticed you didn't address the point of legislating gun control with the government shut down..

[Private Pickle]

It's hard to believe there are so many ignoramuses out there. Freedom of speech doesn't allow you to say anything, anytime. Some speech is restricted. Get it? Your precious, outdated, bullshit second is no different. Take it up with SCOTUS if you think differently

Guns are restricted and heavily legislated too.

Derp.

[Cletus]

It's hard to believe there are so many ignoramuses out there. Freedom of speech doesn't allow you to say anything, anytime. Some speech is restricted. Get it? Your precious, outdated, bull$#@! second is no different. Take it up with SCOTUS if you think differently

So, you can't provide any actual evidence to support your claim.

Okay.

[Cletus]

What a simpleton's interpretation. Better refer to Heller and what your ultra right wing Scalia had to say about guns and gun ownership.

I know what he said.

Do you know what he meant?

I'll give you a couple of easy hints... Scalia is a textualist and orginalist when it come to interpreting the Constitution. That really is the only legitimate way to do it.

He is also a student of history and is very familiar with the Constitutional debates. By the way, what he was talking about when he talked about limits is directly related to this. Madison spoke specifically about this and the question of what limits should be placed on the Second was widely discussed.

If you can't figure out what they were by yourself, let me know and I will help you.

[The Xl]

You've missed the point entirely. All rights have restrictions and the second is no different. I can't make it any simpler for some of you.

Owning firearm, per the constitution, is a right without an inherent restriction.

[The Xl]

No. That's what vigilance is for.

You're got a good amount of the population either looking to take peoples guns or make them jump through hoops to exercise their inherent and constitutional right. Give them an inch and they'll eventually take it all over time.

[Tahuyaman]

What a simpleton's interpretation. Better refer to Heller and what your ultra right wing Scalia had to say about guns and gun ownership.


I can read. I don't care about what Scalia says. I care about what the constitution says.

Whats your problem with the second amendment of the constitution?

[donttread]

It's hard to believe there are so many ignoramuses out there. Freedom of speech doesn't allow you to say anything, anytime. Some speech is restricted. Get it? Your precious, outdated, bullshit second is no different. Take it up with SCOTUS if you think differently

Sure just re write the Constitution through bullshit Donkephant interpretation anyway you please. I can find multiple quotes of the founders that support the individual right to keep and bear arms can you find one that limits that right?

[domer76]

Jus sayin... The government is liberal by nature and currently way over staffed...

I noticed you didn't address the point of legislating gun control with the government shut down..

I don't even know WTF the question means. Try to make some sense

[domer76]

Guns are restricted and heavily legislated too.

Derp.

I'm not the one claiming they shouldn't be. Doh!

Btw, they aren't legislated or restricted enough

[domer76]

So, you can't provide any actual evidence to support your claim.

Okay.

STFU. I'm not going out of my way to point out the obvious to morons who can't understand what's already been posted.

[domer76]

I can read. I don't care about what Scalia says. I care about what the constitution says.

Whats your problem with the second amendment of the constitution?

What's my problem? Where the fuck have you been?

[domer76]

Sure just re write the Constitution through bullshit Donkephant interpretation anyway you please. I can find multiple quotes of the founders that support the individual right to keep and bear arms can you find one that limits that right?

Heller

[Private Pickle]

I don't even know WTF the question means. Try to make some sense

Thats probably because there wasn't a question there... Insert reading comprehension joke here:

[Private Pickle]

I'm not the one claiming they shouldn't be. Doh!

Ya...I know...


Btw, they aren't legislated or restricted enough

Yeah they are...

[Tahuyaman]

What's my problem? Where the $#@! have you been?

excuse me gif not putting you as the focus of my attention.

whats your problem with the second amendment?

[domer76]

Thats probably because there wasn't a question there... Insert reading comprehension joke here:

Here was your nonsensical post, whatever the hell that absurd "point" meant


I noticed you didn't address the point of legislating gun control with the government shut down..

[domer76]

excuse me gif not putting you as the focus of my attention.

whats your problem with the second amendment?

Has your head been up your ass on all of these threads? Are you unable to read? Can you read, but are unable to comprehend?

[Private Pickle]

Here was your nonsensical post, whatever the hell that absurd "point" meant


I noticed you didn't address the point of legislating gun control with the government shut down..




I know this might be tough for you but go back and read the original postings...you're bound to have an "aha" moment eventually...

[Tahuyaman]

Has your head been up your ass on all of these threads? Are you unable to read? Can you read, but are unable to comprehend?

why are you so reluctant to simply tell me what your problem is with the 2d amendment?

[domer76]

I know this might be tough for you but go back and read the original postings...you're bound to have an "aha" moment eventually...

The point being, you shut down the government until the NRA whores are ready to come to the table. But you knew that, didn't you?

[domer76]

why are you so reluctant to simply tell me what your problem is with the 2d amendment?

Why are you too lazy to go back and read my many posts on the subject?

[Private Pickle]

The point being, you shut down the government until the NRA whores are ready to come to the table. But you knew that, didn't you?

The point being you would being doing them a favor...

[Tahuyaman]

Why are you too lazy to go back and read my many posts on the subject?

WTF is wrong with you? Just fucking tell me already

[domer76]

The point being you would being doing them a favor...

It doesn't matter. Election year on the verge. They have plenty of time after the next dem President is in office.

[Private Pickle]

It doesn't matter. Election year on the verge. They have plenty of time after the next dem President is in office.

Good luck with that.

But regardless, they would be doing them a favor...

[Dr. Who]

Of course this is a complete and total false statement.
Really. Apart from the introduction polymers, to reduce the weight which occurred sometime in the 70's, and the introduction of the detachable magazine in and around WWII, all that is happened is different designs for the same thing. You are still firing bullets from bigger or smaller magazines, high capacity or limited capacity, and the guns are either automatic or semi-automatic using bigger or smaller ordinance. That is not a huge technological change. That is just tinkering with the basic design and loading efficiencies. The actual operation of the gun has changed little. When you start shooting lasers (which I think is under development for the military), then you can count a real technological advancement. Until then all you are doing is pulling the trigger, making the hammer snap forward and causing a pin to strike the primer. This creates a spark, which ignites the gunpowder, and the explosion propels the bullet. Guns have been doing the same thing since bullets were invented. The only real difference between guns is their efficiency and the size of the ordinance they take.

Even soldiers who are in actual combat situations only need two guns - a hand gun and an automatic rifle. If an individual isn't a "collector" or a hunter of large and small game, why would anyone need a plethora of guns unless they are either expecting a civil war or zombie invasion, planning to start a war or planning a spree killing?

[Dr. Who]

One is all you need, right?
One pair for work, sneaks and flip flops or sandals and a pair of heels. Comfort, practicality and fashion in that order. That is clothing. How many pair of underwear do you own? Unless you are a hunter, your weapons are for self-defense. One .38 caliber should do the trick unless you are a international spy and need a weapon in every room because Boris Badinov is constantly trying to assassinate you.

[Dr. Who]

I don't really think there is any need to explain why you would want more than one gun. The 2nd amendment allows for the bearing of "Arms", not "one arm".

We don't demand people to explain why they might buy in excess for other things either. How many knives do you have in the kitchen? What about people with more than one home? Or more cars than people in the house? More TV's than people? More food than is absolutely needed for the people in the house?

Either the guns are legal to own or not, the number is immaterial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Except that when people who own multiple weapons that they don't secure have a break-in, it's not just one weapon that goes into the criminal stream of commerce but many. You can't hide a car in the vents of your apartment building and TV sets are rarely used as murder weapons. I have yet to hear of anyone breaking in to a place and steeling the collection of chef's knives.

[Private Pickle]

Except that when people who own multiple weapons that they don't secure have a break-in, it's not just one weapon that goes into the criminal stream of commerce but many. You can't hide a car in the vents of your apartment building and TV sets are rarely used as murder weapons. I have yet to hear of anyone breaking in to a place and steeling the collection of chef's knives.

We already have laws for that...

[Private Pickle]

One pair for work, sneaks and flip flops or sandals and a pair of heels. Comfort, practicality and fashion in that order. That is clothing. How many pair of underwear do you own? Unless you are a hunter, your weapons are for self-defense. One .38 caliber should do the trick unless you are a international spy and need a weapon in every room because Boris Badinov is constantly trying to assassinate you.

Sigh...no...

I'm a hunter and my guns are neither for hunting nor self-defense. Someday that concept will be quite clearly understood...

[donttread]

Really. Apart from the introduction polymers, to reduce the weight which occurred sometime in the 70's, and the introduction of the detachable magazine in and around WWII, all that is happened is different designs for the same thing. You are still firing bullets from bigger or smaller magazines, high capacity or limited capacity, and the guns are either automatic or semi-automatic using bigger or smaller ordinance. That is not a huge technological change. That is just tinkering with the basic design and loading efficiencies. The actual operation of the gun has changed little. When you start shooting lasers (which I think is under development for the military), then you can count a real technological advancement. Until then all you are doing is pulling the trigger, making the hammer snap forward and causing a pin to strike the primer. This creates a spark, which ignites the gunpowder, and the explosion propels the bullet. Guns have been doing the same thing since bullets were invented. The only real difference between guns is their efficiency and the size of the ordinance they take.

Even soldiers who are in actual combat situations only need two guns - a hand gun and an automatic rifle. If an individual isn't a "collector" or a hunter of large and small game, why would anyone need a plethora of guns unless they are either expecting a civil war or zombie invasion, planning to start a war or planning a spree killing?

No justification is required

[Dr. Who]

No justification is required
Well redundant ownership of goods for their own sake is a hallmark of American society. Meh, another pet peeve.

[Ravens Fan]

Except that when people who own multiple weapons that they don't secure have a break-in, it's not just one weapon that goes into the criminal stream of commerce but many. You can't hide a car in the vents of your apartment building and TV sets are rarely used as murder weapons. I have yet to hear of anyone breaking in to a place and steeling the collection of chef's knives.

You were asking why someone would even need more than one gun, and in previous posts, talking about limiting it to one gun per person. I answered that.

As to how the gun owner secures those guns within their own house, I simply do not see that as a function of government. I am all for education, so that hopefully people will see why they should keep their guns secured. The answer is not to punish responsible gun owners for the actions of a few irresponsible ones.

[Dr. Who]

You were asking why someone would even need more than one gun, and in previous posts, talking about limiting it to one gun per person. I answered that.

As to how the gun owner secures those guns within their own house, I simply do not see that as a function of government. I am all for education, so that hopefully people will see why they should keep their guns secured. The answer is not to punish responsible gun owners for the actions of a few irresponsible ones.
Do you know for a fact that most people are responsible? Gun safes are expensive and they are not mandatory in every state:
http://smartgunlaws.org/safe-storage-gun-locks-policy-summary/

There are more laws regarding dog ownership.

[Ravens Fan]

Do you know for a fact that most people are responsible?

No, I don't. But if the guns are stolen from someone's house, then the theif is the criminal, not the homeowner with a gun unsecured.


Gun safes are expensive and they are not mandatory in every state:
http://smartgunlaws.org/safe-storage-gun-locks-policy-summary/


Like I said, the dictating of how someone must store their personal property on their personal property is not a function of government (IMO).



There are more laws regarding dog ownership.
Dog ownership is not a constitutionally defined, God given right. Nor is it a valid comparison.

[Tahuyaman]

Personally, I find no negative in shutting down government. The less they do, the better off we all are, even liberals.

[Dr. Who]

No, I don't. But if the guns are stolen from someone's house, then the theif is the criminal, not the homeowner with a gun unsecured.



Like I said, the dictating of how someone must store their personal property on their personal property is not a function of government (IMO).



Dog ownership is not a constitutionally defined, God given right. Nor is it a valid comparison.
Is their any such thing as a right that doesn't contain an inherent responsibility?

[Ravens Fan]

Is their any such thing as a right that doesn't contain an inherent responsibility?

I never said there was. Just because you have the right to bear arms does not mean that you have the right to shoot another person with it. There are laws on the books already that address all of this...

[Dr. Who]

I never said there was. Just because you have the right to bear arms does not mean that you have the right to shoot another person with it. There are laws on the books already that address all of this...
Except the need to secure your weapons.

[Ravens Fan]

Except the need to secure your weapons.

Because that is not a function of government.

[Dr. Who]

Because that is not a function of government.
Then the parents of the child who was shot by the other child should have the right to lynch the parent who didn't secure their gun?

[Ravens Fan]

Then the parents of the child who was shot by the other child should have the right to lynch the parent who didn't secure their gun?

Now you are jumping subjects. We were talking about guns being stolen from someone's home, not irresponsible parenting.

[Dr. Who]

Now you are jumping subjects. We were talking about guns being stolen from someone's home, not irresponsible parenting.
No, it's the same subject. Not securing your weapons not only leaves them open to theft but allows others, including children to get their hands on them. There is no law in many states requiring weapons to be secured against children or invited guests either.

[Ravens Fan]

No, it's the same subject. Not securing your weapons not only leaves them open to theft but allows others, including children to get their hands on them. There is no law in many states requiring weapons to be secured against children or invited guests either.

I think that parents should be responsible enough to keep their guns away from their children. I do not think it should be law.

I think parents should keep poisonous chemicals locked up too, but I don't think it should be law.

As to guests, they shouldn't be going through your things anyways...

[Dr. Who]

I think that parents should be responsible enough to keep their guns away from their children. I do not think it should be law.

I think parents should keep poisonous chemicals locked up too, but I don't think it should be law.

As to guests, they shouldn't be going through your things anyways...
Meh, you invite 10 eight year olds over for a birthday party and one finds your unsecured guns and shoots another kid - whose fault is it? If there is no law, what is the recourse for the family of the dead kid? Civil law? Money paid by insurance companies doesn't really punish the irresponsible. Your 15 year old asks a friend back after school when you are at work and that kid is a snoop and finds your unsecured Glock on the bed stand and doesn't realize it's loaded ....your three year old grandchild wanders around your house and finds a gun... No one watches kids 100% of the time. No one watches their guests 100 percent of the time. The fact is that guns can be lethal 100% of the time when pointed directly at another person. If you don't want laws that require people to secure their weapons, then the penalty for not doing so should be that the owner goes to jail for manslaughter if their weapon falls into the hands of a family member or invited guest and that person accidentally discharges that weapon and kills someone. Your weapon, your responsibility.

[Mac-7]

Come on libs.

Shut down the government as Green Arrow suggested.

We dare you.

[Ravens Fan]

Meh, you invite 10 eight year olds over for a birthday party and one finds your unsecured guns and shoots another kid - whose fault is it? If there is no law, what is the recourse for the family of the dead kid? Civil law? Money paid by insurance companies doesn't really punish the irresponsible. Your 15 year old asks a friend back after school when you are at work and that kid is a snoop and finds your unsecured Glock on the bed stand and doesn't realize it's loaded ....your three year old grandchild wanders around your house and finds a gun... No one watches kids 100% of the time. No one watches their guests 100 percent of the time. The fact is that guns can be lethal 100% of the time when pointed directly at another person. If you don't want laws that require people to secure their weapons, then the penalty for not doing so should be that the owner goes to jail for manslaughter if their weapon falls into the hands of a family member or invited guest and that person accidentally discharges that weapon and kills someone. Your weapon, your responsibility.

What about the same situation, but with poisons? Or what if one of the kids climbed on the roof to get a lost frisby and fell to his death? There are a lot of what ifs, but I still don't feel that we need laws specifically telling one how they MUST store personal property on their own property. In the case of the kid shooting the girl, that was murder. Same as if he had used a knife or a rock or pushed her off a cliff. Deal with the murder, and why he would go for a gun in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[donttread]

No, it's the same subject. Not securing your weapons not only leaves them open to theft but allows others, including children to get their hands on them. There is no law in many states requiring weapons to be secured against children or invited guests either.


In many parts of the country guns are a cultural norm in most homes just as knives are and children learn to respect them

[Mac-7]

Hey lib gungrabbers.

Shut down the government.

I dare you.

[domer76]

Hey lib gungrabbers.

Shut down the government.

I dare you.

People on this tiny thread don't give a fuck about what you post. I doubt anyone that has a congressional vote on a shutdown would.

[Mac-7]

People on this tiny thread don't give a $#@! about what you post. I doubt anyone that has a congressional vote on a shutdown would.

That's lib gungrabbers for you.

All talk and no action.

[Dr. Who]

What about the same situation, but with poisons? Or what if one of the kids climbed on the roof to get a lost frisby and fell to his death? There are a lot of what ifs, but I still don't feel that we need laws specifically telling one how they MUST store personal property on their own property. In the case of the kid shooting the girl, that was murder. Same as if he had used a knife or a rock or pushed her off a cliff. Deal with the murder, and why he would go for a gun in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you can't teach your children about toxic products because they are too young to understand, you generally put them where small hands can't get at them or put childproof locks on the cabinets where they are stored. An 11 year old isn't going to drink bleach, but he/she may not understand how lethal a gun is. It really depends on the child's training. From what I understand child protect services was involved with this family, so I don't imagine that there was much teaching of a constructive nature happening.

[donttread]

Hey lib gungrabbers.

Shut down the government.

I dare you.

[Safety]

What about the same situation, but with poisons? Or what if one of the kids climbed on the roof to get a lost frisby and fell to his death? There are a lot of what ifs, but I still don't feel that we need laws specifically telling one how they MUST store personal property on their own property. In the case of the kid shooting the girl, that was murder. Same as if he had used a knife or a rock or pushed her off a cliff. Deal with the murder, and why he would go for a gun in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The difference would be negligence. If you had an unguarded open edge which led to the child falling, then you as the homeowner could be held liable. If you have a pool and don't have a fence around it, you could be held (actual case) liable for a neighbor's child drowning without your consent or knowledge of them swimming. If you have firearms in the house, even if there is no law in your state about securing them, you could be held liable for an incident if a child gets hurt or killed by it.

[Common Sense]

That's lib gungrabbers for you.

All talk and no action.

How did I miss this gem?

[donttread]

The difference would be negligence. If you had an unguarded open edge which led to the child falling, then you as the homeowner could be held liable. If you have a pool and don't have a fence around it, you could be held (actual case) liable for a neighbor's child drowning without your consent or knowledge of them swimming. If you have firearms in the house, even if there is no law in your state about securing them, you could be held liable for an incident if a child gets hurt or killed by it.


Bullshit. Certainly in some situations but not all. People need to watch their kids

[Safety]

Bullshit. Certainly in some situations but not all. People need to watch their kids

It's not bullshit, you don't have to agree, but that doesn't negate the validity of it.

[donttread]

It's not bullshit, you don't have to agree, but that doesn't negate the validity of it.


Well something should because it's bullshit. Watch your kids. Nobody seems to think they have to watch their kids anymore.

[Mac-7]

It's not bull$#@!, you don't have to agree, but that doesn't negate the validity of it.

I grew up in a house full of unsecured guns and ammo.

And i never murdered or accidently shot anyone.

[Safety]

I grew up in a house full of unsecured guns and ammo.

And i never murdered or accidently shot anyone.

So did I, but that does not mean other parents give a damn.

[domer76]

I grew up in a house full of unsecured guns and ammo.

And i never murdered or accidently shot anyone.

Yeah, but your mom and dad didn't secure the materials that cause brain damage well enough.

[gamewell45]

Who cares why they shut it down. just shut it down and let people see that much of the government is not needed and they are just fleecing the people.

That's a great attitude to have until you personally need one of its services that end up being shut down.

[Mac-7]

So did I, but that does not mean other parents give a damn.

"So did I, - grow up in a house with guns (my words) - but that does not mean other parents give a damn."

When we grew up there were liberals like you are now who wanted to take away my parents guns.

Opposition to the 2nd Amendment dates back to the writing of the Constitution.

[Mac-7]

Yeah, but your mom and dad didn't secure the materials that cause brain damage well enough.

Its a good thing you are a liberal.

otherwise you would not be allowed to stray off the topic with personal insults like that.

[donttread]

I grew up in a house full of unsecured guns and ammo.

And i never murdered or accidently shot anyone.

Same here. Of course they weren't left loaded either and I was taught to respect them from the begining

[donttread]

BTW, could we tell Cuomo to just shut down the government and leave our guns alone?

[Mac-7]

Same here. Of course they weren't left loaded either and I was taught to respect them from the begining

Not just respect for guns but respect for human life.

Modern liberal society is lacking both.

[Safety]

"So did I, - grow up in a house with guns (my words) - but that does not mean other parents give a damn."

When we grew up there were liberals like you are now who wanted to take away my parents guns.

Opposition to the 2nd Amendment dates back to the writing of the Constitution.

You will eventually learn that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a liberal. You will also learn eventually that there are some who grew up with values that you attribute to conservatism, but in reality it is just part of growing up in the country.

Please point to any statement where I have said I wanted to "take away" guns. In fact, I believe I am more of a gun enthusiast than you could ever be. Have you ever even shot a gun?